Jump to content
weloveyouwakefield2

Rugby league receives £16 million loan lifeline (Merged threads)

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, dboy said:

The loan is given in respect of the changes the game has made to cope with the situation - the loan cannot be used to reverse those changes.

“Clearly it is a loan and Ralph has said quite categorically that it cannot be used in any way, shape or form to reinstate salaries that are currently being adjusted,” said Carter, with players across the sport largely furloughed since the start of last month and also taking pay cuts.

 

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wakefield-trinity-chief-michael-carter-cautious-over-government-bailout-2842535

 

That's true DBoy

But it's also true what Scotchy said. A club can draw on the loan to pay other aspects of the business that are suffering because of the lockdown, and then use the money that would have been spent on those things to pay the players.

Whether a club wants to go down the loan route, and apparently Wakefield do not, is an entirely different matter. Loans are all very well, but they do need to be paid back and what I don't think we know are the terms of repayment (unless I missed that detail)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

That's true DBoy

But it's also true what Scotchy said. A club can draw on the loan to pay other aspects of the business that are suffering because of the lockdown, and then use the money that would have been spent on those things to pay the players.

Whether a club wants to go down the loan route, and apparently Wakefield do not, is an entirely different matter. Loans are all very well, but they do need to be paid back and what I don't think we know are the terms of repayment (unless I missed that detail)

So the players are to be considered ' immune ' from this ? , Why ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

They arent immune. That's a silly thing to say. 

They are employees, and in fact to simplify it further they are creditors. The clubs are simply being asked to pay their debts and liabilities.

It is wrong, morally wrong in my opinion, for clubs to choose not to pay their employees. 

It is the owners responsibility, entirely, to run the business.

If the owners want the players to share in potential risk, then the players should be made owners. In return for a 25% cut in wages, Give 25% of super league to the players. Then the players share in the risk, share in the reward and a fair an equitable solution is found.

Let's not.forget the owners have many options to settle their debts. Sell assets, take out a loan, inject their own capital, sell the whole of the club or a share of the equity. 

Sorry but a hell of a lot of businesses in the country have either let staff go, put them on furlough or asked them to take a wage cut (a reduction in what they are owed) and I imagine few if any will have been given a share of the company they work for. Why are rugby players any different? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paulwalker71 said:

That's true DBoy

But it's also true what Scotchy said. A club can draw on the loan to pay other aspects of the business that are suffering because of the lockdown, and then use the money that would have been spent on those things to pay the players.

Whether a club wants to go down the loan route, and apparently Wakefield do not, is an entirely different matter. Loans are all very well, but they do need to be paid back and what I don't think we know are the terms of repayment (unless I missed that detail)

No, you are spending the same money twice.

If you say "we've closed our community department", you can't then say "we'll take a loan and open the community department", without ACTUALLY opening the community department, to then use the money elsewhere.

If you use the loan to pay players, where is the money coming from to open the community department (for which you have taken a loan for)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

It's not about coping. Its about being paid the money they are owed.

RL players have a very short window to be paid, and an extremely short one when they are paid well. 

 

If they insist on being paid "what they are owed", they will be getting nothing at all, as the company will be bankrupt/or they will be made redundant.

Alternatively, they can negotiate a reduction that they can be assured of, whilst not killing the source of the income in doing so.

Their choice I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dboy said:

 

If they insist on being paid "what they are owed", they will be getting nothing at all, as the company will be bankrupt/or they will be made redundant.

Alternatively, they can negotiate a reduction that they can be assured of, whilst not killing the source of the income in doing so.

Their choice I guess.

Exactly , these are exceptional times , be interested to know what the players agents think about it , will it affect their income ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GUBRATS said:

Exactly , these are exceptional times , be interested to know what the players agents think about it , will it affect their income ?

I'm absolutely certain that agents have foregone their fees during this period...you know, doing their bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dboy said:

I'm absolutely certain that agents have foregone their fees during this period...you know, doing their bit.

You would hope so , it's not like they're doing any work , loads of time on their hands , they could even come on here and give us their opinions , I wonder what they would say ? ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Sorry but a hell of a lot of businesses in the country have either let staff go, put them on furlough or asked them to take a wage cut (a reduction in what they are owed) and I imagine few if any will have been given a share of the company they work for. Why are rugby players any different? 

 

They aren't 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dboy said:

No, you are spending the same money twice.

If you say "we've closed our community department", you can't then say "we'll take a loan and open the community department", without ACTUALLY opening the community department, to then use the money elsewhere.

If you use the loan to pay players, where is the money coming from to open the community department (for which you have taken a loan for)?

Yes, in that instance that's true.

What I'm saying is that if a club is making the case to the players that they have to make cuts to player salaries because they have other bills that they need to pay. Then if they get a loan payment to cover those bills, then that no longer becomes an issue, and the players can be paid

I guess it will vary for each club and their specifics. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dboy said:

No, you are spending the same money twice.

If you say "we've closed our community department", you can't then say "we'll take a loan and open the community department", without ACTUALLY opening the community department, to then use the money elsewhere.

If you use the loan to pay players, where is the money coming from to open the community department (for which you have taken a loan for)?

.

Edited by paulwalker71
glitch caused double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dboy said:

No, you are spending the same money twice.

If you say "we've closed our community department", you can't then say "we'll take a loan and open the community department", without ACTUALLY opening the community department, to then use the money elsewhere.

If you use the loan to pay players, where is the money coming from to open the community department (for which you have taken a loan for)?

.

Edited by paulwalker71
internet glitch caused double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

" Had spare money in my account " being the more relevant part of your post 

Maybe you should have stuck in a school lad...??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Not really, just about anyone with a brain will use a credit card and not a debit for transactions - Credit cards give a lot more protection from fraudsters than a debit.

If I was on £200k and had spare money in my account I would never use a debit card, it should always be a credit card for just about all big purchases.

Basic stuff marra.

100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

Yes, in that instance that's true.

What I'm saying is that if a club is making the case to the players that they have to make cuts to player salaries because they have other bills that they need to pay. Then if they get a loan payment to cover those bills, then that no longer becomes an issue, and the players can be paid

I guess it will vary for each club and their specifics. 

To access the loans, the club has to show it has exhausted all measures - wages cuts, furlough, deferred mortgage payments, loan freezes, department/programme closures etc.

Only then can they access a loan, and it has been made clear that the loan is not to be used to reinstate provisions already made to deal with the situation.

Example - a club who has not negotiated a wage reduction wherever possible, is not eligible for a loan. You couldn't make wages cuts to access the loan, then use the loan to reverse the wages cuts.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dboy said:

To access the loans, the club has to show it has exhausted all measures - wages cuts, furlough, deferred mortgage payments, loan freezes, department/programme closures etc.

Only then can they access a loan

Fair enough. Perhaps you have more knowledge about this, or I've missed the details, but this all makes sense. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

But they havent closed the community department.

So they can take out a loan to keep the community department going, and use the money they.would otherwise have spent on the community department on wages.

You can mandate a loan is only used for an specific purpose but in the end it's all just money in and money out

 You should probably have a good read of the Fraud Act.

This is a Government loan, i.e a form of state aid, with specific conditions. I doubt, doubly given the circumstances, they will take kindly with any attempt, at all, to circumvent those conditions.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Or the owners can take out a loan, or sell some of their assets or the players can take what they are owed/what they can get as creditors through administration and then move to another club.

Or they could defer wages, or they exchange debt for equity 

 

So short sighted it beggers belief...None of these suggestions are benefiting the players, theyr just pushing the problem away for a year or two, making it a longer term, bigger problem and ruining plenty of clubs in the process. 

A large number of these players are on 1 and 2 year contracts,  after that, clubs dont owe them a penny. so despite the financial situation thats going on around the world, lets say these players get there full money for the duration of there contract, what they goin to do when that contract runs out? Time to negotiate a new contract, BUT... After taking your alternative solutions...Owners have got massive loans to pay off, there clubs have sold there assests that enable them to make money, clubs are in administration, theres no other clubs to move to for decent money because theyr all  in administration,  the couple of clubs that arnt in administration only need 30 players each...So when its time for the next contract, players are going to be getting offered a pittance or not getting offered atall...Because all the clubs are broke. So longer term, players who want a career in rugby league are going to be worse off than they are now, accepting the shorter term cuts, and giving clubs the chance to come out of the lockdown in some kind of decent shape. The worse state clubs are in after this, the worse state players future earning potential is going to be..  which is probably why they have accepted the cuts with little fuss or discontent.

You go on about the owners like they were the devil of rugby league, apart from Caddick now and possibly 1or 2 more, these owners put millions of there own money into there clubs, to cover losses, keep clubs going and ultimately providing  players with an oppurtunity to be a professional, if theyr good enough and want to be,  and to earn a decent living from the game. I agree in that i would quite like to see owners that dont have to pump millions into there club anymore, like Caddick for example, put some money in to help the players, but even then, he's far from what your painting these owners out to be, i wouldnt like to think where Leeds would be without him and his millions. The game, and players wagers, would be miles worse of if these owners walked away.  But yeah, someone like Caddick can afford it, would be nice to see him put a bit in for the players, but even then, that would just be Leeds players, other owners havnt got money like him and are still putting millions in anyways.

I admire your strong belief that the players shouldnt have to lose out and i wish they didnt have to either, but the fact that your taking it worse than the players suggests that the people who its affecting most are seeing a bigger picture than you .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scotchy1 said:

If the players are on one or two year contracts and it pushes this problem one or two years down the line...

Cant really argue with that because i havnt got a clue what it means.

Ps..Really felt for you on the Sky Tv paying for the championship discussion on the other thread, i rarely get embarrassed for  someone, but watching you be proved so wrong, but being too pigheaded to admit it, really got me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If the players are on one or two year contracts and it pushes this problem one or two years down the line...

They can get what they are owed now and renegotiate a contract in 2 years time as they would have done anyway.

Sorry missed the edit, theres always an edit.

Yeah i covered why the next contract being a problem, the part about everyone being broke, in administration etc...Its in there somewhere 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

So short sighted it beggers belief...None of these suggestions are benefiting the players, theyr just pushing the problem away for a year or two, making it a longer term, bigger problem and ruining plenty of clubs in the process. 

A large number of these players are on 1 and 2 year contracts,  after that, clubs dont owe them a penny. so despite the financial situation thats going on around the world, lets say these players get there full money for the duration of there contract, what they goin to do when that contract runs out? Time to negotiate a new contract, BUT... After taking your alternative solutions...Owners have got massive loans to pay off, there clubs have sold there assests that enable them to make money, clubs are in administration, theres no other clubs to move to for decent money because theyr all  in administration,  the couple of clubs that arnt in administration only need 30 players each...So when its time for the next contract, players are going to be getting offered a pittance or not getting offered atall...Because all the clubs are broke. So longer term, players who want a career in rugby league are going to be worse off than they are now, accepting the shorter term cuts, and giving clubs the chance to come out of the lockdown in some kind of decent shape. The worse state clubs are in after this, the worse state players future earning potential is going to be..  which is probably why they have accepted the cuts with little fuss or discontent.

You go on about the owners like they were the devil of rugby league, apart from Caddick now and possibly 1or 2 more, these owners put millions of there own money into there clubs, to cover losses, keep clubs going and ultimately providing  players with an oppurtunity to be a professional, if theyr good enough and want to be,  and to earn a decent living from the game. I agree in that i would quite like to see owners that dont have to pump millions into there club anymore, like Caddick for example, put some money in to help the players, but even then, he's far from what your painting these owners out to be, i wouldnt like to think where Leeds would be without him and his millions. The game, and players wagers, would be miles worse of if these owners walked away.  But yeah, someone like Caddick can afford it, would be nice to see him put a bit in for the players, but even then, that would just be Leeds players, other owners havnt got money like him and are still putting millions in anyways.

I admire your strong belief that the players shouldnt have to lose out and i wish they didnt have to either, but the fact that your taking it worse than the players suggests that the people who its affecting most are seeing a bigger picture than you .

I think you have 100% hit the nail on the head here also I don't want to put fuel on the fire but in my estimation £16 Million is nowhere near enough if this season is lost I think we could be looking at around (Over ALL divisions) more like £ 40 Million to get through this.

Do the maths.

Paul

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It isnt fraud. 

It's all just money out and money in. There is no con here. The fact that the club have taken a loan doesnt preclude them from paying preexisting debts and liabilities. It just doesnt stand up.

This not a personal, any purpose, loan from a high street bank.

If the government has imposed, as an explicit condition of loaning the money, that it cannot be used to reverse wage cuts either directly or indirectly, but you do actually do this ,then this would fall under fraud by false representation  - "with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss". 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Wage cuts are not a unilateral choice. They are liabilities. They are owed and enforceable liabilities.

It is not false representation. It is not within a clubs gift to not pay liabilities as they are due. It is not enforceable for the government to insist liabilities are not satisfied. 

Players have a binding contract, binding on both parties. Clubs are bound to satisfy that contract. 

Even if as per the loan and its clauses and however it is written the clubs refuse to pay the players what they are owed, that debt is still owed, it is still enforceable and the clubs have breached contract. 

Clubs cannot just refuse to pay players because of this loan any more than they can refuse to pay rent, their mortgage, utility bills, other loans, and any other liabilities they have. 

What liabilities are not been satisfied?

Liabilities at this time, for clubs, are any agreement, if any at all,  they have with a player beyond the furlough scheme payment.

Players are only "owed" if any wages have been deferred until a future time. They are not liabilities at this time and are not "due".

You are not "owed" anything if you have simply agreed to a wage cut.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Wage cuts are not a unilateral choice. They are liabilities. They are owed and enforceable liabilities.

It is not false representation. It is not within a clubs gift to not pay liabilities as they are due. It is not enforceable for the government to insist liabilities are not satisfied. 

Players have a binding contract, binding on both parties. Clubs are bound to satisfy that contract. 

Even if as per the loan and its clauses and however it is written the clubs refuse to pay the players what they are owed, that debt is still owed, it is still enforceable and the clubs have breached contract. 

Clubs cannot just refuse to pay players because of this loan any more than they can refuse to pay rent, their mortgage, utility bills, other loans, and any other liabilities they have. 

You've lost it pal.

Who are these players "enforcing" the payment of their "wage liabilities" from, if that club has gone bust.

You can have 80% of your pay for the year, or you can have nothing - your choice.

If this was about club owners playing a fast one to line their own pockets or artificially cut wages, I would be with you 100%.

That is not what is happening. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Clubs are going to be broke anyway, 

it's a nonsense to state it's in the players interests to forgo money now for the same money they may or may not get in their next contract.

What if they get injured?

What if they see a downturn in form?

What if this is their last contract? 

What if they move clubs?

What if clubs cant afford it in the next contract anyway?

What if the clubs unilaterally impose a lower salary cap?

By your own admission owners who could afford to pay are choosing to renege on their liabilities, why should we believe all the others are doing their best to satisfy them?

Especially when some are talking about refusing loans

Im going to assume your second edit was your last.

Agreed, clubs are struggling already, if you can see that, how cant you see how your proposals wouldnt completely ruin nearly every club, which in turn, ruins the sport. 

All of your what ifs are the normal variables for every normal contract situation, if clubs come out of this in semi decent state, players will still be able to earn good money if they handle there side of things on the pitch, fringe players, likes of chris Clarkson and James Donaldson will still be able to earn a superleage contract... what your proposals would do is lower contracts across the sport for years to come, regardless of there performance...Cant get blood out of a stone, clubs would be broke, by saying there 'broke already' you once again show a level of stubbornness that makes mature discussion a task with you, following your suggestions would cripple clubs, theyd be much worse off than they are now, a poor financial situation would get drastically worse, we both know that.

The loan situation has been adressed by other posters, numerous times, to get the loan , you have to of exhausted every possible option of saving money, if you'v still got your full playing staff on full wage, then your likely not getting any.

Yeah il happily admit id like to see Caddick put a bit in for Leeds players, im not here just to argue with you, if you make a decent point, il happily agree with it...From the outside looking in, i cant see why an owner like Caddick or Moran couldnt help the players out a bit, on the surface, they seem to have the wealth for it, i say on the surface because like i said in our other discussion, im not clued up on buissnes, so not sure how there wealth looks in terms of 'usable cash' for want of a better term.  Not all owners have that wealth however and already plough millions in before this crisis and most likely will after.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...