Players union demands a slice of the pie following government loan

[Lowdesert]

On 04/05/2020 at 14:49, philipw said:

For doing nothing for 3-4 months?

As much as I agree with the sentiment, the players have a contract.  Contract law and all that.   

Unfortunately it’s the Clubs problem unless it’s a pay per game contract. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

15 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.

The way I interpret it is this is the starting position of negotiating (asking for full wages going forward) it doesn’t seem that unreasonable starting position really.

Perhaps they think if they start by saying they will accept pay cuts, once SL games resume (all have accepted pay cuts during furlough I believe) some SL owners will cut pay more than is necessary. By starting negotiations with the line “we want full pay when playing” they may keep pay cuts to the absolute minimum.

Out of interest would other people currently furloughed be happy to return to work full time with a pay cut?

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The way I interpret it is this is the starting position of negotiating (asking for full wages going forward) it doesn’t seem that unreasonable starting position really.

Perhaps they think if they start by saying they will accept pay cuts, once SL games resume (all have accepted pay cuts during furlough I believe) some SL owners will cut pay more than is necessary. By starting negotiations with the line “we want full pay when playing” they may keep pay cuts to the absolute minimum.

Out of interest would other people currently furloughed be happy to return to work full time with a pay cut?

If it meant they still had a job or not , possibly yes 

[redjonn]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

As much as I agree with the sentiment, the players have a contract.  Contract law and all that.   

Unfortunately it’s the Clubs problem unless it’s a pay per game contract. 

I guess if its really difficult financially the club will just go into admin/liquidate... what value is the contract then.

[Lowdesert]

16 hours ago, redjonn said:

I guess if its really difficult financially the club will just go into admin/liquidate... what value is the contract then.

I suppose it will have the same value as before the Club went into administration/liquidation.  If it was 1000 then it would be 1000 after.

I would not be at all surprised if players, once left the club, make claims for contract breaches.

Just to add to that though, I see the GMB are being mentioned as Carvells Union, when all he is doing is following their guidelines.  I can see him binning the job or being binned once this all colls down.

 

 

[Angelic Cynic]

17 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I suppose it will have the same value as before the Club went into administration/liquidation.  If it was 1000 then it would be 1000 after.

I would not be at all surprised if players, once left the club, make claims for contract breaches.

Just to add to that though, I see the GMB are being mentioned as Carvells Union, when all he is doing is following their guidelines.  I can see him binning the job or being binned once this all colls down.

 

 

   Why should he be binned?  He has taken the time,while holding the interest,for the benefit of the players,and has managed to get the players to sign up to,and continue with,being in a players union.

  The last one,started by Jon Wilkin,ended with a seeming lack of interest.

  An initial soundbite is exactly that,and nothing more.

   To players not able to train with their teammates the breaking of the sound of silence would,I imagine,be music to their ears.

   The impossible cannot be done,but a lone voice meaning they will be at the forefront of the minds of the decision makers,is a very wise move on behalf of the players. 

[dboy]

Apparently very few players are actually signed up to the union.

Club captains repped for the majority in wage cut discussions, it seems.

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

Apparently very few players are actually signed up to the union.

Club captains repped for the majority in wage cut discussions, it seems.

How many are actually signed up and how many not?  

[dboy]

Well we don't know, but speaking to people who are involved and reading some of the media stuff, confidence is low.

It is a very "new" union and they take time to build.

Lots of "why should I pay £XX a month to a union - I don't need it", kind of malaise.

It killed the last attempt at unionisation.

[Angelic Cynic]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

How many are actually signed up and how many not?  

  Seems a fair few - reading this - https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/11263100/rugby-league-players-ready-to-go-to-high-court-for-fairer-deal-says-garreth-carvell

  He has made conciliatory comments as well - https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/uk-sports/2020/03/18/garreth-carvell-says-rugby-league-players-may-defer-wages-to-keep-game-alive/

 It does seem that Mr Hudgell has had his usual whinge,though.

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

How many are actually signed up and how many not?  

Depends how many are signed up to ' agents ' ?

Do you think we might have one on here ?

[Lowdesert]

46 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Depends how many are signed up to ' agents ' ?

Do you think we might have one on here ?

Yes.

[Marauder]

On 04/05/2020 at 12:27, scotchy1 said:

So the government pays the wages so the tax payer loses out.

The players have their wages cut so the players lose out.

On going costs are met by the loans so the rich men who own the clubs dont lose out.

Our players are vastly underpaid to start with, have a salary cap to limit their pay, have seen their pay cut, have been threatened with blacklisting if they dont agree to take less than they are owned and somehow it's the unions fault. 

I'm sure all of the players will be worse off than the owners at the end of this 

Under paid in comparison to whom ?

They'll probably be a lot better off than many of their supporters

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

  Seems a fair few - reading this - https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/11263100/rugby-league-players-ready-to-go-to-high-court-for-fairer-deal-says-garreth-carvell

  He has made conciliatory comments as well - https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/uk-sports/2020/03/18/garreth-carvell-says-rugby-league-players-may-defer-wages-to-keep-game-alive/

 It does seem that Mr Hudgell has had his usual whinge,though.

Yes, I read the same piece in skysports but thought maybe Dboy had more info. 600 is more or less, SL and half the championship.   

[dboy]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

Yes, I read the same piece in skysports but thought maybe Dboy had more info. 600 is more or less, SL and half the championship.   

No, just aware of actual union take up and organising issues .

One thing unions never do, is say how many people they represent, so for Carvell to suggest 600...I think a few clubs would call him out on that!

[GUBRATS]

16 minutes ago, dboy said:

No, just aware of actual union take up and organising issues .

One thing unions never do, is say how many people they represent, so for Carvell to suggest 600...I think a few clubs would call him out on that!

I'd be interested in players agents opinions with regards Union membership , to me , the 2 don't sit well ?

[dboy]

Tweets from Michael Carter in response to the union demand and loan situation:

"Happy days. Sport will be bust in a week. Government LOAN is specifically NOT to reinstate salaries. Not sure how hard that was to understand after Ralph’s statement"

"The problem is not whilst furlough happens. It’s when we come out of furlough that the problems start to mount up quickly and significantly"

"If some clubs and grassroots want to burden themselves with debt that will be available to them won’t it? Personally I don’t want to take on debt that just kicks the issue further down the road."

"the RFL will have very stringent criteria for applications. This is public purse money and every penny has to be accounted for and one of the criteria is, it can in no way be used to supplement salaries."

"It’s a loan. It doesn’t mask the fact that costs exceed revenue and will do for 2 years. Only answer is to reduce costs."

"you are only deferring the problem. A loan does not cover and solve a complete reduction in income."

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, dboy said:

Tweets from Michael Carter in response to the union demand and loan situation:

"Happy days. Sport will be bust in a week. Government LOAN is specifically NOT to reinstate salaries. Not sure how hard that was to understand after Ralph’s statement"

"The problem is not whilst furlough happens. It’s when we come out of furlough that the problems start to mount up quickly and significantly"

"If some clubs and grassroots want to burden themselves with debt that will be available to them won’t it? Personally I don’t want to take on debt that just kicks the issue further down the road."

"the RFL will have very stringent criteria for applications. This is public purse money and every penny has to be accounted for and one of the criteria is, it can in no way be used to supplement salaries."

"It’s a loan. It doesn’t mask the fact that costs exceed revenue and will do for 2 years. Only answer is to reduce costs."

"you are only deferring the problem. A loan does not cover and solve a complete reduction in income."

Spot on 

[dboy]

You need help.

[M j M]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

You need help.

He certainly doesn't want to be too close to making decisions at any marginal businesses.

[JohnM]

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Spot on 

Yes, indeed, but with one exception. 

Only answer is to reduce costs. 

He could always try to increase income at the same time. 

[GUBRATS]

15 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Yes, indeed, but with one exception. 

Only answer is to reduce costs. 

He could always try to increase income at the same time. 

Yes he could , by doing what exactly right now ?

[JohnM]

As I wrote, I thought Carter's comments were spot on. I'm sure he knows how to cut costs. As a leader, should he not also know how to increase income? 

[iffleyox]

3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

As I wrote, I thought Carter's comments were spot on. I'm sure he knows how to cut costs. As a leader, should he not also know how to increase income? 

Nothing happens in a vacuum though does it. So, having taken over a basket case, has he increased Trin's income/financial position since he started? I mean, obviously he's not turned them into another Leeds, but with the cards dealt?

And, as has been said, probably slightly more difficult at the moment.

[JohnM]

Not knocking him at all, as I made clear in my posts. Just suggesting that "increasing income" was missing from his statements.