Jump to content
weloveyouwakefield2

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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

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

Not very nice , maybe you're just a wide boy borrow everything type of person , never accumulate any assets , I'm maybe older school ( grammar ) than you , but the bottom line still applies , earn decent money , blow it on rubbish , hit the fan and you're stuffed , now RL being the underpaid sport that it is , anybody who hasn't put something aside for a rainy day ( bad injury in RL ) is stupid , but unfortunately we have plenty of them 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Many do have that wealth and all owners are making choices.

As I have said numerous times, there is flexibility that doesnt require players to go without.

Why can't player wages be deferred? For 1, 2, 3 years? 

Why cant clubs take out a loan?

Why cant players be given equity in SL in lieu of wages?

There is no reason other than it's more beneficial for clubs to not satisfy their liabilities.

 

Most the owners are having to make choices everywhere, theyv got other businesess, losing money like all buisnesses, with other staff at these businessess on reduced terms, on furlough or in some cases now without a job. Its the easiest thing in the world for you to tell these people they'v got to do this and that with there money with no financial impact on yourself, people have got a real job to try and navigate there clubs and there employees, not just players, through the lockdown, so that everyones got a job at the end of it and the clubs are still here for years to come.

On the points you mention, iv already told you why, it solves nothing, just pushes the problem away for a while, grows the problem, and players lose out more than they are now in the long run. Its clear that you think any consequence is acceptable as long as the players get there money now...Adminstration, clubs going bust, the ones that survive being too skint to offer decent contracts, just Rugby League in this country absolutely ruined. Like i said earlier, shortsighted. Luckily the players have got more of a clue and a bit more intelligence, otherwise a lot lf them wouldnt be a RL professional in a couple of year and a lot of us wouldnt have a club to support even sooner

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The administrators.

That isnt the choice. It's a false dichotomy. I can have 80% of my pay if I agree to that. 

I can insist on 100% of my pay and the owners can find a way to pay it. 

The owners could take out a loan. Not just the government one but a commercial one.

The could swap the liabilities/debts for equity

We could agree a deferment instead of a cut.

The owners could pay me out of their own pocket.

The owners could sell or mortgage an asset to.cover their liability. 

The owners could sell.equity in return for a cash injection.

The owners could borrow against future earnings. 

The owners could make cuts elsewhere instead of their employees remuneration. 

Why is a cut necessary and not a deferment? If we accept that clubs dont have the money now and have no way of getting it (which I dont but let's say we do). Why not defer the difference? Pay the players the missing amount over the next year or two?

 

*Deep breath*

Under administration, creditors usually end with something like 5p in the Pound = so if there's any money left (which we know there isn't), a player might walk away with 5% of his salary.

You can insist all you like - the money is not there!

Why would a club take a loan, knowing they can't pay it back? They've just stripped out costs just to survive. Also, no bank in the world is going to give you a loan to pay salaries.

Equity? You think a player is going trade cash for "equity" in organisation that probably already lost money??

Deferred wages still need paying - where is that money coming from?

Own pocket? Moran, Leneghan, Davy et al, didn't get rich by giving their money away and they aren't gonna start now. Ask Richard Branson about it.

Mortgage or sell an asset? What can Hull FC or Wigan mortgage? Don't own an asset. 

Sell equity? Clubs aren't worth enough to have lots of equity.

Borrow against future earnings (this is the same as your first "get a loan" drivel)? Which are projected not to recover for 3 years and still need to be paid back - where is that money coming from?

Cuts have already been made elsewhere.

Cut because there's an interruption to income. You can defer if you KNOW when that interruption ends and a full recovery is made. We don't know when that is.

You do not live in the real world! 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Most the owners are having to make choices everywhere, theyv got other businesess, losing money like all buisnesses, with other staff at these businessess on reduced terms, on furlough or in some cases now without a job. Its the easiest thing in the world for you to tell these people they'v got to do this and that with there money with no financial impact on yourself, people have got a real job to try and navigate there clubs and there employees, not just players, through the lockdown, so that everyones got a job at the end of it and the clubs are still here for years to come.

On the points you mention, iv already told you why, it solves nothing, just pushes the problem away for a while, grows the problem, and players lose out more than they are now in the long run. Its clear that you think any consequence is acceptable as long as the players get there money now...Adminstration, clubs going bust, the ones that survive being too skint to offer decent contracts, just Rugby League in this country absolutely ruined. Like i said earlier, shortsighted. Luckily the players have got more of a clue and a bit more intelligence, otherwise a lot lf them wouldnt be a RL professional in a couple of year and a lot of us wouldnt have a club to support even sooner

 

Spot on , anybody suggesting playing Russian roulette with the game is clueless 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The players contracts have not been satisfied

The furlough doesnt usurp the contract. The furlough is simply a government payment to cover 80% of an employees wage in certain circumstances.

The liabilities are the players contract.

They are liabilities because they are not yet debts. A liability refers to the future. That is what they are now, when they fall due, on pay day, if they arent paid they become debts. 

The contract is still in place and still adhered to by both parties, it is still the binding document that governs the relationship.

And the contracts have been mutually amended. Some have been been amended for 3 months, some for 6, some just amended. Players have AGREED to wage cuts regardless of furlough. Some of these agreements will still keep a wage above the furlough limit so that will be paid by the clubs.

There are no additional future liabilities aside this unless it has been agreed for some wages to be deferred. There is nothing "owed" aside the current wages that are been paid.

What the players union are asking is for EARLIER reinstatement of former wage levels NOT back pay to reinstate wages for the period of reduction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofcourse its true, some clubs wont survive it, some clubs will be a weak administration version of what they were, all clubs will be broke.

whatever revenue clubs lose this year isnt coming back, that massive financial deficit is going to appear when its time to pay players there deferred wages and its going to appear and be substantialy bigger when the loan, plus interest, is getting paid back. Clubs will be broke, players will suffer for a much longer time than the current situation.

Wage cuts arnt a nice thing for anyone to have to deal with, but theyr a better option than your ruin the game, cripple the clubs, reduce players future earnings for years ideas...The players know this, thats why theyv accepted it, without too much fuss. Despite you being determined to blame someone for whats going on, most sensible people are understanding that its a once in a lifetime situation and that no ones trying to screw anyone over.

Your hearts in the right place but your heads a mile off, your championing the players cause with solutions that will leave them worse off in the long run.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The players union and players are entitled to ask for the reinstatement of their contractual terms. 

If they've signed waivers, which they almost certainly had to in the first place for their pay to be varied, then they can ask....

Seriously, every business in the country has been through this in the past few weeks. If anyone has had their pay varied then it hasn't been done on a handshake. It has involved Letters of Variance being signed by both sides. If it hasn't then the clubs want their heads examining, otherwise it would lead to exactly this retrospective unpicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It's more complex than that though isnt it, it can be retrospectively unpicked due to the change in circumstances. 

There is also the fact there is certainly going to be two aspects to it. What players accept during furlough and what they accept to come back. 

There will also be provision for the variance to be ended which undoubtedly should only require notice. 

Indeed, although the irony that this also applies to the original contracts themselves* is not lost on me....

 

*unless the contracts were written by idiots to start with

Edited by iffleyox
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

1. Thats if they go into administration. As I said your choice 

2. To pay their debts and liabilities. 

3. This seems infinitely better than your preferred solution of cash for nothing.

4. Future income obviously.

5. They arent giving their money away. They are paying what they owe. It is utterly incredible that players giving away money to clubs is sensible, owners paying their debts is silly

6. Whatever they want. 

7. They are worth more than nothing. Remember you alternative is that the players give up money for nothing.

8. Future income. We dont have to recover to where we are for clubs to pay what they owe.

9. Cut more.

10. That is the owners risk to take. They take that risk. Not the players. They own the business it is their risk to take. They are in this position because they dont have sufficient interruption insurance, because they didnt put enough away for a rainy day. The responsibility for the club falls to the owners.

I just started typing out yet another explanation of why your stance is not viable, but thought why bother.

Your "suggestions" are either wrong, illegal, unviable or illogical. Some are just stupid.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

You have an awful lot of trust in rich men you know can pay the wages but are choosing not to.

If players are losing wages, why shouldn't owners lose their investments and assets?

The multimillionaire owners of super league clubs must be so glad that people are so keen to go out to bat to ensure they save money at the expense of the players.

Il trust the rich men who'v saved Rugby League clubs,  pumped millions into Rugby League clubs and helped provide a professional living for many rugby league players for many years, before id back the opinion of someone who clearly couldnt care less about rugby league, who'd happily let clubs fall to bits and who's so shortsighted, they'd have players suffer for years instead of months, because theyr determined to blame the rich men for whats going on.

If and when you put millions of your money into Rugby League, il maybe put more trust in your opinion.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the ' rich men ' owners could just drop their ' hobby ' and buy a nice boat 

Then RL would be really in the brown stuff 

Supporting a pro sports club financially is stupid , you will be expected to put money in , never to see it again , you will be criticised by stupid people for not being rich enough to enable their ambitions , rarely will you be praised for it , why anybody does it is beyond me , I know this because I did it 

So to anybody criticising them for taking whatever action they see fit to help the FANS club ( because it's the fans who really own it ) survive THE most unprecedented crisis the sport has seen since the second world war , shake your head and wake up , you are talking garbage , and if you have any intelligence , you know it 

Anyway back of the the Trump thread for a laugh 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/05/2020 at 19:56, GUBRATS said:

Or the ' rich men ' owners could just drop their ' hobby ' and buy a nice boat 

Then RL would be really in the brown stuff 

Supporting a pro sports club financially is stupid , you will be expected to put money in , never to see it again , you will be criticised by stupid people for not being rich enough to enable their ambitions , rarely will you be praised four it , why anybody does it is beyond me , I know this because I did it 

So to anybody criticising them for taking whatever action they see fit to help the FANS club ( because it's the fans who really own it ) survive THE most unprecedented crisis the sport has seen since the second world war , shake your head and wake up , you are talking garbage , and if you have any intelligence , you know it 

Anyway back of the the Trump thread for a laugh 

Interesting that since I posted this " buy a nice boat " my page has had adverts for super yachts ?, if only ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more serous note here I just cannot see how £16 Million is going to solve the cashflow problem my estimate (As I mentioned before) is more like £ 40 Million (And thats if we get back playing again within 6 months)

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/05/2020 at 12:11, GUBRATS said:

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

That’s fine as long as club owners don’t moan if players choose to leave for another club/league/sport that will pay them their full wage. 

Share this post


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

That’s fine as long as club owners don’t moan if players choose to leave for another club/league/sport that will pay them their full wage. 

What ? Like the premier League ? , RU ? , The NRL with a load of clubs running massive ( relatively ) debts 

Where can they go ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What ? Like the premier League ? , RU ? , The NRL with a load of clubs running massive ( relatively ) debts 

Where can they go ?

I’m not suggesting all would pick up a contract but there are some players that others would see as worth the gamble of picking them up. Even if that meant having to fund there wages for 6 months. 

Share this post


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

I’m not suggesting all would pick up a contract but there are some players that others would see as worth the gamble of picking them up. Even if that meant having to fund there wages for 6 months. 

Then they go , that's the way it is 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That’s fine as long as club owners don’t moan if players choose to leave for another club/league/sport that will pay them their full wage. 

You think another club will want to pick up a player, who has visibly not tried because they were on a reduced wage?

You think the players at that club will be happy that the club have picked up another player on full wage, when they themselves have had/would still be receiving lowered wages?

What planet are you on?

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would suggest very few Rugby League players are in it just for the money.The nature of the game means you enjoy playing a team game with your team mates.Whatever our players get they deserve more if you compare Rugby League to other sports.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sentoffagain2 said:

 I would suggest very few Rugby League players are in it just for the money.The nature of the game means you enjoy playing a team game with your team mates. Whatever our players get they deserve more if you compare Rugby League to other sports.

They absolutely do deserve more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You think another club will want to pick up a player, who has visibly not tried because they were on a reduced wage?

You think the players at that club will be happy that the club have picked up another player on full wage, when they themselves have had/would still be receiving lowered wages?

What planet are you on?

 

Not sure what you’re on about. I haven’t suggested anything about players not trying. 

Edited by bobbruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the suggestion of Scotchy, who also replied to you.

No players will be moving clubs in the terms you have suggested.

Share this post


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

Or they only bother putting in 80% effort for 80% of what they are owed. 

 

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Nobody suggested that players who move clubs because they didnt try 100%.

I said that owners would not accept a player only trying 80% despite getting only 80% (if not less) than they are owed

No-one apart from you, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/05/2020 at 12:56, Man of Kent said:

Only England. To be fair, who’d miss the Raiders?

I don't like the term West Wales either, as there's a west in North Wales too. South Wales Raiders, yeah, makes sense as there were lots of pirates and illegal stuff stored in caves off the Welsh coast. 


Hull FC

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...