Players reject salary cut (Merged Threads)

[wiganermike]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Sorry, in simple terms, I am talking about the player wage bill. If they have a blanket wage cut of 20%, the club should be paying 20% less in wages. 

If a club agreed a blanket 20% cut with its players then it would be paying 20% less in wages. As the cap value stays the same the amount they had to spend on top will remain the same, if they had the ability to spend £300k prior to cuts they could still spend £300k and stay under the cap. I guess what you are suggesting is that they having made cuts shouldn't be able to spend a penny more until cuts end? With the exception of James Graham I don't think any player has signed to play this season (and he directly replaced a player that had departed post wage cuts) so I don't think any club will be paying extra wages for a new signing until next season when it is expected that cuts will have ended. That doesn't mean that players that have taken or been asked to take pay cuts would not be annoyed at seeing the club committing to extra spending next year whilst cutting their wage.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

If a club agreed a blanket 20% cut with its players then it would be paying 20% less in wages. As the cap value stays the same the amount they had to spend on top will remain the same, if they had the ability to spend £300k prior to cuts they could still spend £300k and stay under the cap. I guess what you are suggesting is that they having made cuts shouldn't be able to spend a penny more until cuts end? With the exception of James Graham I don't think any player has signed to play this season (and he directly replaced a player that had departed post wage cuts) so I don't think any club will be paying extra wages for a new signing until next season when it is expected that cuts will have ended. That doesn't mean that players that have taken or been asked to take pay cuts would not be annoyed at seeing the club committing to extra spending next year whilst cutting their wage.

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting, and I think if clubs are transparent on this, it should be possible to get agreements. One of the challenges is that blanket agreements are a bit too clunky, and if you have cutoffs then it can seem unfair that some players take the bulk of the cuts, although the argument is that they earn most in the first place. 

I think as long as guarantees are made that any money saved this year wouldn't be spent on wages, and that no cuts are required next year, then I think it should be possible to agree some form of cut. 

On your last line, I agree that may be galling, but in reality, signings for next year will often be replacement and there are no details to suggest clubs have been making signings that will increase their wage bill in 2021.

But ultimately, this is people's livelihoods we are talking about and it is a challenging one. 

I don't have an issue with players digging in heels, and I don't have an issue with clubs asking for cuts for this year only. There will need to be some pragmatism though, and ultimately games will be played behind closed doors.

[Harry Stottle]

On 09/07/2020 at 19:50, Dunbar said:

The only word I disagree with is 'maybe'.

 

On 09/07/2020 at 19:55, DoubleD said:

In fairness, I'm in the same boat. I'm in a real dilemma. Test cricket is back, there's the NRL, how am I meant to work from home?

 

I trust you two don't work for Government organisations and we are all supporting you, bad enough though in a private enterprise not supporting your owner.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

I trust you two don't work for Government organisations and we are all supporting you, bad enough though in a private enterprise not supporting your owner.

Rest assured, none of your hard earned is subsidising me Harry.

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Rest assured, none of your hard earned is subsidising me Harry.

Safe to say its in part subsidising me

[Harry Stottle]

Considering that there has not been any deliberation in that P&R has been shelved for this year, come the 23rd July if the decision is P&R is still going to be contested any club in SL who do not complete any games should forfeit the points for those fixtures.

That will sort out any club disputes between the management and players.

[Blind side johnny]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Considering that there has not been any deliberation in that P&R has been shelved for this year, come the 23rd July if the decision is P&R is still going to be contested any club in SL who do not complete any games should forfeit the points for those fixtures.

That will sort out any club disputes between the management and players.

I love the arbitrary nature of your sentencing Harry. Ever thought of becoming a judge?

[Tommygilf]

50 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Considering that there has not been any deliberation in that P&R has been shelved for this year, come the 23rd July if the decision is P&R is still going to be contested any club in SL who do not complete any games should forfeit the points for those fixtures.

That will sort out any club disputes between the management and players.

In getting the managers to come down maybe

[Harry Stottle]

37 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

I love the arbitrary nature of your sentencing Harry. Ever thought of becoming a judge?

Your Honour H. STOTTLE JP quite like that johnny.

But what about the suggestion?

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In getting the managers to come down maybe

Whichever, shouldn't imagine the player's relishing not fighting for survival.

[Tommygilf]

41 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Whichever, shouldn't imagine the player's relishing not fighting for survival.

I don't think they'd want to fight for a club that wasn't paying for them

[Blind side johnny]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Your Honour H. STOTTLE JP quite like that johnny.

But what about the suggestion?

Up to your usual standards I would say.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

8 hours ago, wiganermike said:

If a club agreed a blanket 20% cut with its players then it would be paying 20% less in wages. As the cap value stays the same the amount they had to spend on top will remain the same, if they had the ability to spend £300k prior to cuts they could still spend £300k and stay under the cap. I guess what you are suggesting is that they having made cuts shouldn't be able to spend a penny more until cuts end? With the exception of James Graham I don't think any player has signed to play this season (and he directly replaced a player that had departed post wage cuts) so I don't think any club will be paying extra wages for a new signing until next season when it is expected that cuts will have ended. That doesn't mean that players that have taken or been asked to take pay cuts would not be annoyed at seeing the club committing to extra spending next year whilst cutting their wage.

A 20% drop in wages would mean more than 20% reduction in costs right? Less National Insurance and pension for club to pay too? 

[wiganermike]

8 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

A 20% drop in wages would mean more than 20% reduction in costs right? Less National Insurance and pension for club to pay too? 

The conversation was in terms of reduction in total wage spend under agreed cuts and its relation to cap spend and available cap space. While related outgoings such as NI and pension payments will likely reduce too as wage payments do I don't think legally required work place pension payments would count towards the cap. The amount by which a player counts towards a club's total cap spend is determined by their Salary Cap Value - a figure set by the governing body based on the contracted wage and any applicable dispensations. The recorded Salary Cap Value total spend doesn't alter as a result of the temporary wage cuts.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Up to your usual standards I would say.

Over ruled.

Do you work at it johnny? Make your own mind up what I am referring to.

[CanadianRugger]

So on one hand, Wigan want to cut players wages but also buy Athletic?

Give me a freakin break!  Players should walk and fans should be outraged.

Sooner P&R is shelved and this league gets some stability, the better it will be.

[Whippet13]

11 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

So on one hand, Wigan want to cut players wages but also buy Athletic?

Give me a freakin break!  Players should walk and fans should be outraged.

Sooner P&R is shelved and this league gets some stability, the better it will be.

Wigan Warriors don't want to buy Wigan Athletic.

The owner of Wigan Warriors, along with a small consortium of others, want to buy Wigan Athletic as a separate entity on the basis it will do long term good for the survival of both clubs. This will not be funded by any money from Wigan Warriors.

[Tommygilf]

24 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

Wigan Warriors don't want to buy Wigan Athletic.

The owner of Wigan Warriors, along with a small consortium of others, want to buy Wigan Athletic as a separate entity on the basis it will do long term good for the survival of both clubs. This will not be funded by any money from Wigan Warriors.

No, but the same person who is asking Wigan Warriors players to take a paycut is investing in Athletic.

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugger said:

So on one hand, Wigan want to cut players wages but also buy Athletic?

Give me a freakin break!  Players should walk and fans should be outraged.

Sooner P&R is shelved and this league gets some stability, the better it will be.

What has this to do with P&R?

[Harry Stottle]

7 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

So on one hand, Wigan want to cut players wages but also buy Athletic?

Give me a freakin break!  Players should walk and fans should be outraged.

Sooner P&R is shelved and this league gets some stability, the better it will be.

Cute,

TWP gain promotion, they play 6 league games, they lose 6 games and you want to abandon P&R, well done.