Players union demands a slice of the pie following government loan

[dboy]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The issue I had with the original post was this suggestion that the business models of the top clubs was based on risky foundations of on-field performance. It clearly isn't the case. 

It clearly is the case, because Hetherington has said so.

That's the same for just about every business in the land.

It's not a criticism of any business (though some are more Ponzi than others), it's a factual statement of the situation.

Let me put it to you this way (seeing as you feel I am having a go at Leeds), the business interruption is something that has happened TO Leeds, not something that they have created through poor business practices.

In these remarkable times, their strength in any other era, is, today, their biggest weakness. They are not alone -  businesses of scale are exposed.

[dboy]

7 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The same Michael Carter that allowed this to happen on his watch. 

The juxtaposition of the players asking for money and the loan is misleading and both the author of the TRL article and Carter knows it. 

I have to say I'm supportive of the players union here. The players have shouldered the burden of poor commercial performance at club level for long enough. They have every right to say that they shouldn't have to shoulder any more. 

Unless your saying Carter runs St Helens, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that link.

Saints are the only RL club listed.

[dboy]

8 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

I have to say I'm supportive of the players union here. The players have shouldered the burden of poor commercial performance at club level for long enough. They have every right to say that they shouldn't have to shoulder any more. 

No-one is suggesting the are being asked to shoulder the burden of poor commercial performance.

They are being asked to accept their share of the hit caused by a massive, enforced business interruption.

[dboy]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

But they have a mortgage on that.

I'm not criticising that btw.

I think it's much better for clubs to own their own grounds

I think the point is that they aren't beholden to a rent charge, which is unlikely to be reduced. Similarly, the ongoing maintenance costs for, say, KCOM are greater than BV.

A mortgage, even a commercial one, can be deferred.

[whatmichaelsays]

21 minutes ago, dboy said:

No-one is suggesting the are being asked to shoulder the burden of poor commercial performance.

They are being asked to accept their share of the hit caused by a massive, enforced business interruption.

Show me another professional sport that has imposed real-terms pay cuts on its players over the course of the last 20 years? 

TV revenue is higher than it was at the start of Super League, crowds are higher, yet the clubs have voted to keep the salary cap £1m lower in real terms, arguing that there is no money. The players are shouldering the cost of that poor commercial performance and even now, there is a narrative from club owners developing that they are the ones who need to take the hit again. 

Coronavirus may be a huge shock but let's not pretend that the deck of cards wasn't already wobbling. 

[dboy]

20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I dont disagree with what you are saying, but we have to look at this in it's real context in that wakefield are at lower risk because they bring in less and they have less to.lose than a club like leeds

Conversely whilst Wakefield might right now be less likely than Hull FC to go under, of they do, wakefield would find it more difficult as the assets they own complicate what would be a much simpler pre-pack that a club like Hull could do 

Exactly what I said.

FWIW, I don't think either Hull FC or Wfd will be going to the wall.

[sweaty craiq]

Are RU and Rhinos The same company and as such have the same assets and as such money taken will assist the RU club?

[dboy]

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Show me another professional sport that has imposed real-terms pay cuts on its players over the course of the last 20 years? 

TV revenue is higher than it was at the start of Super League, crowds are higher, yet the clubs have voted to keep the salary cap £1m lower in real terms, arguing that there is no money. The players are shouldering the cost of that poor commercial performance and even now, there is a narrative from club owners developing that they are the ones who need to take the hit again. 

Coronavirus may be a huge shock but let's not pretend that the deck of cards wasn't already wobbling. 

 

The game has never recovered from that the mis-use of the cash input at the beginning of SL.

Instead of stadia, infrastructure, welfare, pathways, grassroots, a lot of the "new found riches", went to players.

I'd agree that clubs/RFL etc have not done enough to grow the game and with it player salaries.

People have short memories. Hull FC, Bradford x3, Wfd, Widnes, Wigan, Huddersfield have all faced oblivion in living memory - all because more money goes out than comes in.

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 hours ago, Rioman said:

They own their own ground which will have a value for the land.

 

3 hours ago, dboy said:

"Leeds, Warrington Saints et al" are on their ***** and Wakefield only have £3k of debt at this moment.

The big clubs business model is unsustainable - they pay top dollar every year knowing they need to make at least 1 semi-final to balance the books.

Go figure.

Wakefield took out a loan of £3.1m last year, so a tad more than 3k of debt. The land is worth £1.8m so not much of an asset when you have a mortgage on it for 1.7x its value.

[dboy]

1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

 

Wakefield took out a loan of £3.1m last year, so a tad more than 3k of debt. The land is worth £1.8m so not much of an asset when you have a mortgage on it for 1.7x its value.

No, you are being silly - deliberately probably.

Carter said that Wfd have £3k of unpaid debt or bills on their books.

Obviously there is mortgage debt, directors loans, HMRC obligations and much more I'm sure.

You could look up the interview if you wanted - it's very enlightening.

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

They arent getting 80% of their wages.

And firstly what are they saving?

If the company is sustainable and viable, then it will, in the future make more money than comes in and as such can pay back its liabilities once the temporary issue is resolved. A fair and equitable way of doing that is either a salary deferment rather than cut or an exchange of debt (or rather liability) for equity. 

If the company is not sustainable and viable and it wont ever get to a situation of paying its liabilities. Then whether the employees are paid what they are owed or not, the company isnt getting back on its feet.

 

Michael Carter said, if, when they come out this, there is money left, the first on the list to get it would be the players/staff who had taken wage cuts.

Seek out the interview. Have a listen.

[dboy]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The same Michael Carter that allowed this to happen on his watch. 

Still waiting for you to justify this.

 

[dboy]

Cutting the SC won't affect Wfd.

Carter has proved himself to be trustworthy, time and time again. He is definitely one of the good guys.

I certainly don't necessarily agree with him on everything - he seems to be not a fan of Catalans/Toronto etc, elements of our game that excite me - but he's always been open and clear about how he goes about his business.

[Agbrigg]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

No, you are being silly - deliberately probably.

Carter said that Wfd have £3k of unpaid debt or bills on their books.

Obviously there is mortgage debt, directors loans, HMRC obligations and much more I'm sure.

You could look up the interview if you wanted - it's very enlightening.

I think what les tonks is saying that the ground and the old superbowl site were bought from a property developer for £3.1m which is correct. The actual value of the site is a matter of debate, but to make things simple there is definitely a significant difference between the site value and the sum paid. £1m difference is what most people suggest. 

However although the club own the land, it has a 100% mortgage which is totally under written by the council. There is also a payment holiday on the loan of 5 years. However all this is on the back of yorkcourt getting further planning benefits at newmarket. So far yorkcourt have worked their way out of paying a penny for their substantial planning gain. So will yorkcourt cough up and clear this debt when they get their further planning, no one knows. Their track record do far suggests that once more they will avoid any financial contribution. If that happens then there is no way I can see the club servicing the mortgage so their position is precarious in my opinion. 

[RigbyLuger]

I hope the players union also hope the staff members at these clubs who have also taken pay cuts, and facilitate them playing their games, are just hoping to have jobs to go back to. Many in the real world are the same. The ones who pay for their season tickets and Sky subscriptions.

This is not the best fight to start right now.

[weloveyouwakefield2]

4 hours ago, dboy said:

Still waiting for you to justify this.

 

Me too. Read the list three times to find Wakefield and couldn’t??

[Whippet13]

Getting away from the Wakefield bashing, according to this article it is not the RLPA, but the GMB Union's senior RL rep (Pete Davies) who has issued the letter to players:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/furious-super-league-bosses-come-21973744

As I understand it Gareth Carvell is still head of the RLPA, which is a branch of the GMB. He does not appear to have added his name to the letter. It is unclear to me whether the RLPA is actually involved in this, happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.

In a wider context I am not aware of any public discontent from players around the pay cuts.

From what I've picked up (in other words what the wife has told me is on social media) they appear to completely understand and accept the situation as a necessary evil to keep the clubs alive.

From the (seemingly) endless and (apparently) humerous videos and messages on various platforms/club sites she keeps trying to get me to look at it seems the players are being nothing but supportive of the clubs and fans. They are not behaving like the indentured servants some are making them out to be.

[M j M]

16 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Are RU and Rhinos The same company and as such have the same assets and as such money taken will assist the RU club?

They never have been the same company, and are now not even part of the same group or ownership. Headingley and the Leeds RLFC operarations remain in the same company they've been in since 1889 and charge a rental fee and management charge to the RU company, thats the extent of the relationship now. They ain't getting a penny of our money

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Getting away from the Wakefield bashing, according to this article it is not the RLPA, but the GMB Union's senior RL rep (Pete Davies) who has issued the letter to players:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/furious-super-league-bosses-come-21973744

As I understand it Gareth Carvell is still head of the RLPA, which is a branch of the GMB. He does not appear to have added his name to the letter. It is unclear to me whether the RLPA is actually involved in this, happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.

In a wider context I am not aware of any public discontent from players around the pay cuts.

From what I've picked up (in other words what the wife has told me is on social media) they appear to completely understand and accept the situation as a necessary evil to keep the clubs alive.

From the (seemingly) endless and (apparently) humerous videos and messages on various platforms/club sites she keeps trying to get me to look at it seems the players are being nothing but supportive of the clubs and fans. They are not behaving like the indentured servants some are making them out to be.

Not sure the technicalities of the union stuff but I know the GMB were a bit difficult at a friend of mines work. 2 unions are involved at his work and the other accepted the furloughing immediately (95% of orders wiped off their books in a matter of days, they understoos the situation) but the GMB dug their heels in. As I understand it, it got to the point of (in simplistic terms) "furlough or get let go you decide" before they backed down. So it wouldnt surprise me if it was the GMB flexing some muscles. 

some unions dont seem to understand that the best thing for their members is for there to still be a workplace in existence in the future and not to do all they can to "break the company" and get what they think they should get even though in the end it will mean the end of all the jobs there. Other unions are excellent and protect their members whilst working with the company to improve things for both the members and the company.

As you say the players seem to "get it". This is an extraordinary time and for there still to be a club to employ them afterwards they have to take some pain now, just like everyone else in the world is having to do and they are getting on with things and are actually helping people get through with their social media and some of the volunteering some are doing too. 

[RigbyLuger]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

As you say the players seem to "get it". This is an extraordinary time and for there still to be a club to employ them afterwards they have to take some pain now, just like everyone else in the world is having to do and they are getting on with things and are actually helping people get through with their social media and some of the volunteering some are doing too. 

I heard the question asked on a podcast, how many players are actually behind this statement from their union. What mandate does Carvell have? He's hardly Arthur Scargill.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

17 hours ago, dboy said:

No, you are being silly - deliberately probably.

Carter said that Wfd have £3k of unpaid debt or bills on their books.

Obviously there is mortgage debt, directors loans, HMRC obligations and much more I'm sure.

You could look up the interview if you wanted - it's very enlightening.

Ignoring £3m that you owe secured against everything the club currently owns, and potentially owns in the future, is the silly option......

[DoubleD]

4 hours ago, RP London said:

Not sure the technicalities of the union stuff but I know the GMB were a bit difficult at a friend of mines work. 2 unions are involved at his work and the other accepted the furloughing immediately (95% of orders wiped off their books in a matter of days, they understoos the situation) but the GMB dug their heels in. As I understand it, it got to the point of (in simplistic terms) "furlough or get let go you decide" before they backed down. So it wouldnt surprise me if it was the GMB flexing some muscles. 

some unions dont seem to understand that the best thing for their members is for there to still be a workplace in existence in the future and not to do all they can to "break the company" and get what they think they should get even though in the end it will mean the end of all the jobs there. Other unions are excellent and protect their members whilst working with the company to improve things for both the members and the company.

As you say the players seem to "get it". This is an extraordinary time and for there still to be a club to employ them afterwards they have to take some pain now, just like everyone else in the world is having to do and they are getting on with things and are actually helping people get through with their social media and some of the volunteering some are doing too. 

It's a typical old school union tactic - create a 'them and us' situation. It's neither helpful, nor productive

[DoubleD]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Not for business owners trying to get out of paying out liabilities it isnt, no.

Are you still here?

[RP London]

16 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Not for business owners trying to get out of paying out liabilities it isnt, no.

Which is fair enough but they have to understand when that isnt happening and you are trying to do your best for everyone.. its that balance which has to be met and some are much better at it than others.

[RP London]

37 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Isnt it? You have an awful lot more trust in the owners I do. 

I'm sure that the owners are lowering wages to protect their investment. Not to ensure the best outcome for the employees.

And if I were an owner looking to ensure my position ahead of that of the players i would be going around telling everyone I was only doing what is best for everyone.

I have absolutely no doubt that the likes of Moran and caddick and mcmanus et al will come out of this in a far better position than the players and make far less of a sacrifice to do so.

mine was a general comment about unions and how they interact with business..