You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Spurs thread 2019/20
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
jimharri
Moderator
Are you seriously comparing Bournemouth to Spurs?Not saccharine, no.
Just the other point of view. And one that is more informed than most, I hope.
It's so easy to read sensationalist articles with shit stirring, deliberately misleading headlines and give no thought to the actual complexities of the subject matter. I'm not saying that Spurs' decision and action was necessarily correct. I'm just saying that it isn't nearly as black and white as so many are making it out to be.
Sadly, we live in a social media world where people are ready to work themselves into a frothing rage at the drop of the hat without either facts or understanding to back them up. Twitter is poison. I won't go near it.
By the way, Bournemouth are the latest club to have announced that they are furloughing non playing staff.
Wanderingwolf
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,904
- Team supported
- Wolves
All clubs are run differently though it's difficult to see how anything can be imposed. At wolves the non playing staff are all being paid, so the players don't need to contribute, the players individually are donating ventilators and much needed medical supplies to hospitals instead, which may not happen if they took pay cuts.Absolutely. I'm pretty sure that there will be an agreement with players sooner or later. Even the PFA must realise that it will reflect very badly on them and their members if they fail to take a significant pay cut.
Are you seriously comparing Bournemouth to Spurs?
Who said anything about comparisons?! In my original post on the matter, I predicted that most football clubs would follow Newcastle and Spurs eventually. Since when, Norwich and Bournemouth have indeed done so. They won’t be the last. That was my point. Not comparison.
But if you were to insist on a comparison, it would make no sense to do so on the basis of “size” or turnover - which is what, I think, you are doing. For the simple reason that clubs can no longer generate much by way of turnover for the foreseeable future. But they do still have costs. And Spurs have far, far higher costs to meet than Bournemouth.
To put it another way, cash flow is the key metric here. Not turnover. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash flow is reality.
Incidentally, the Bournemouth owner is worth a cool £900m but I haven’t seen any outraged calls in the media (or social media) for him to fork out his own money for Bournemouth’s staff. Double standards.
Last edited:
All clubs are run differently though it's difficult to see how anything can be imposed. At wolves the non playing staff are all being paid, so the players don't need to contribute, the players individually are donating ventilators and much needed medical supplies to hospitals instead, which may not happen if they took pay cuts.
Sure, donating a ventilator to a hospital is a great gesture. But it’s worth considering that the cost of a ventilator probably represents no more than three or four days’ pay for the average Premier League footballer. And no matter how good the gesture, it does nothing to help the players’ employers who are faced with continuing huge costs and a near collapse in revenues.
I don’t think that a player salary cut will be imposed. It will be agreed. So differences in player contracts shouldn’t be an obstacle.
jimharri
Moderator
Agreed. Double standards. But, like it or not, Spurs are a "big club", Bournemouth aren't. And, consequently, you are judged differently. Get used to it.Who said anything about comparisons?! In my original post on the matter, I predicted that most football clubs would follow Newcastle and Spurs eventually. Since when, Norwich and Bournemouth have indeed done so. They won’t be the last. That was my point. Not comparison.
But if you were to insist on a comparison, it would make no sense to do so on the basis of “size” or turnover - which is what, I think, you are doing. For the simple reason that clubs can no longer generate much by way of turnover for the foreseeable future. But they do still have costs. And Spurs have far, far higher costs to meet than Bournemouth.
To put it another way, cash flow is the key metric here. Not turnover. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash flow is reality.
Incidentally, the Bournemouth owner is worth a cool £900m but I haven’t seen any outraged calls in the media (or social media) for him to fork out his own money for Bournemouth’s staff. Double standards.
They’ve asked staff to take pay cuts, but not the players. Laughable
All players should have reduced wages now
Correction: They have TOLD the staff they will have a 20% pay cut. The snidey bastards will then get the british tax payer to pay the rest of their wages.
Agreed. Double standards. But, like it or not, Spurs are a "big club", Bournemouth aren't. And, consequently, you are judged differently. Get used to it.
I’m very well used to it. No harm pointing it out, though.
Correction: They have TOLD the staff they will have a 20% pay cut. The snidey bastards will then get the british tax payer to pay the rest of their wages.
What’s “snidey” about it?
Are British Airways, a company with a £13 billion turnover, “snidey” for furloughing possibly as many as 36,000 staff? Rather puts it into perspective in terms of cost to the taxpayer.
What’s “snidey” about it?
Are British Airways, a company with a £13 billion turnover, “snidey” for furloughing possibly as many as 36,000 staff? Rather puts it into perspective in terms of cost to the taxpayer.
For a start, this is the Spurs thread not the British Airways thread. Second. I am sure they could afford the other 20% to top up what me and the rest of the taxpayers of this country are paying your staff but the main point is Spurs could afford to pay the behind the scenes people their full wage if they wanted to. As a taxpayer I object to Spurs, British Airways, Branson and any other mega rich club/person taking MY money whilst they swan about in luxury.
For a start, this is the Spurs thread not the British Airways thread. Second. I am sure they could afford the other 20% to top up what me and the rest of the taxpayers of this country are paying your staff but the main point is Spurs could afford to pay the behind the scenes people their full wage if they wanted to. As a taxpayer I object to Spurs, British Airways, Branson and any other mega rich club/person taking MY money whilst they swan about in luxury.
I refer to my earlier post.
The clubs can no longer generate revenue. Citing historical turnover, even from the last financial year, is meaningless. Utterly meaningless. What matters is right now. And, right now, next to nothing by way of income is flowing into club coffers. Yet huge costs must still be met.
Cash flow - not turnover - that’s the critical thing. Those who don’t run their own companies need to understand that before spouting.
I refer to my earlier post.
The clubs can no longer generate revenue. Citing historical turnover, even from the last financial year, is meaningless. Utterly meaningless. What matters is right now. And, right now, next to nothing by way of income is flowing into club coffers. Yet huge costs must still be met.
Cash flow - not turnover - that’s the critical thing. Those who don’t run their own companies need to understand that before spouting.
@JimB. I am not posting to fall out with you and I accept I have never run my own large company. I have however been self employed and had a very small company. What I always learnt was that I always needed to save money for the times that the money was not coming in. I could have taken large amounts of money out of the company when it was doing very well but I didn't.
I paid my taxes and still do, I have no objection to Boris using that money to pay 'normal' people who have mortgages, rent, food bills but I object to business owners who have creamed it in for years suddenly crying poverty and taking MY money.
One small point what do Spurs do in the summer when there is no income coming in ? I accept they will have less permanent staff to pay but it strikes me that this is blatant opportunism and greed.
@JimB. I am not posting to fall out with you and I accept I have never run my own large company. I have however been self employed and had a very small company. What I always learnt was that I always needed to save money for the times that the money was not coming in. I could have taken large amounts of money out of the company when it was doing very well but I didn't.
I paid my taxes and still do, I have no objection to Boris using that money to pay 'normal' people who have mortgages, rent, food bills but I object to business owners who have creamed it in for years suddenly crying poverty and taking MY money.
One small point what do Spurs do in the summer when there is no income coming in ? I accept they will have less permanent staff to pay but it strikes me that this is blatant opportunism and greed.
Absolutely, as you say, no need or desire to fall out over this! It’s incredibly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Especially now. And I would like to stress that my frustration is more with loud mouthed, anti ENIC Spurs fans who have been spouting off than with anyone here.
I too run a small company - a staff of no more than 20. And even with the best will in the world, it isn’t easy to hold back a significant amount of cash year round. That’s because few businesses receive steady income throughout the year. The timing of revenues tends to be seasonal or dependent on macro forces particular to each industry that are beyond an individual company’s control. Football is no exception in this regard.
One further point which hasn’t been mentioned in all of this - although I concede that it is a bit of a stretch - is that, although Spurs will be making use of public money, they can at least claim to have contributed far more to the public purse than any other UK club over the past three years. With total profit before tax during that period of circa £275m, their tax contribution far outstrips even that of the next best clubs, Liverpool (£207m profit before tax), Man Utd (£133m), Arsenal (£83m), Burnley (£77m) and Leicester (£74m). Most other clubs have paid little to no tax over the same period, including City - though I hasten to add that that is not a dig at all! I wish my club had made smaller profits and won more (some!) trophies!
missing person
Well-Known Member
Massive pr own goal.
They could of structured it so the players pay the staff until the end of the season.
In my humble opinion
They could of structured it so the players pay the staff until the end of the season.
In my humble opinion
skiddypants
Well-Known Member
Hate spurs still not over 81,
Turned out they were nothing but a cup team!
Not even that these days.
Turned out they were nothing but a cup team!
Not even that these days.
They should only be claiming gov help if they are struggling financially but they are clearly not as the players are still being paid their millions
That is an interesting point, Spurs and every other club could furlough all the players who would then only get up to 2.5k a month. I suppose the problem is the guy in the ticket office cannot demand a transfer but the players can.
Pretty sure football players wages are legally protected.
When a club goes bust it's the players wages (rightly or wrongly) that are at the head of the queue to be paid.
Any cuts will need to be a mutual thing, and until now the players union have been saying to players "don't agree anything".
When a club goes bust it's the players wages (rightly or wrongly) that are at the head of the queue to be paid.
Any cuts will need to be a mutual thing, and until now the players union have been saying to players "don't agree anything".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.