Player Pay Cuts during Crisis

[I'm With Stupid]

Gary Lineker donated 2 months of his salary to the British Red Cross.

Good for him. But nobody from the government publicly asked him to. That seems to be reserved for current footballers only.

 

[Keeper!]

Has anyone worked out how much this is going to cost the Exchequer?

I am sure he will tell us when this is finished, because one thing is certain, we will all be picking up the tab.

 

[Coatigan]

No problem with it at all.
Clubs furloghing staff is the fault of clubs' leadership teams not the players. Also the government (imo) who should have set a limit on the size of company that can furlogh staff but that's for another thread.

Agree with most of that. Is there another on it thread then that ive missed?

 

[Coatigan]

I don't have as much of an issue with players not volunteering taking a cut, its not like that money would go to the greater good anyway, it would just be a saving for their employers. In fact if anything, it would mean less tax going to government use.

My issue is with clubs (and any business in any industry whatsoever) using the goverment scheme to top up earnings when in a position to keep going and keep paying players and/or staff. And lots are doing it, lots, football clubs, oil companies, law firms, businesses, you name it. To me is the equivalent to folk stockpiling bogroll or taking the last tin of baby formula off the shelf in case they cant get milk for their tea. The scheme surely has a finite amount, and who knows, at the end of May it might need to be extended to keep the measures going, if those knee jerk profit margin guards have used it all up it will make a really hard next few months (and years recovering the economy) for everyone thereafter.

Yes it would be amazing if they gave money away at a time like this, but that cant be an expectation. I read somewhere that there are about 500 premier league players in total. And something likr over 50,000 mult-millionaires in england. Surely that same goodwill rooting cant just apply to footballers.

 

[Coatigan]

All players in the prem need to take a wage cut and let all staff be paid. Failing that to get 150,000 a week, whilst doing nothing is wrong.they don’t need it, so donate 25% of it and help others in need.

The premier league and the players, I don’t think realise how bad this is making them look. Serious pr damage. Millions of people are now seeing how greedy and money obsessed the top league is

Thats fair, i haven't really thought of it in terms of their pay cuts helping other staff at the club out. Acknowledge that relative to the first part of my previous comment above.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Top level footballers being accused of being greedy and not giving to the cause is a bit "rich" , when their are pop stars , billionaires , sitting with eye watering amounts of money in their bank accounts doing sweet F.A. Branson apparently has put £250m into his businesses to prop them up , and then asked the government to contribute £700m to save his ailing companies
All the above is paper talk , but if it is true £250m to someone like Branson has got to be a drop in the ocean , its a token gesture in the grand scheme of things.
Premeir league footballers are easy targets , ive not seen elite tennis players , golfers etc., being asked to contribute.

 

[give it to gordon]

If the pay cut was going to the charities than perhaps they should.

But from what I understand it's to save their employer from having to pay what the contract agreement is. It's not the players fault that some clubs are using furlough to pay some employees.

The only way I would take a pay cut was to save the company from going bust. And it would be between me and my employer. Like furlough at the moment. If my company wasnt going bust why should I take a pay cut just to please the politicians ? These politicians are mostly millionaires themselves from Eton etc are they giving up the MP salaries ?

I would hope a lot of players are doing their bit but without wanting public recognition

If spurs cant afford to pay their lower paid workers that is a spurs problem. Spurs should be asking their players to take a 30%wage cut to help out all the employees at spurs. What has this got to do with City ? It's not Citys fault Sours cant afford to pay all their staff and chose to hit the lowest earners. Plus as some of these teams were involved in that letter I say sod them , not Citys problem Spurs cant pay their employees

 

[bewildered]

If the pay cut was going to the charities than perhaps they should.

But from what I understand it's to save their employer from having to pay what the contract agreement is. It's not the players fault that some clubs are using furlough to pay some employees.

The only way I would take a pay cut was to save the company from going bust. And it would be between me and my employer. Like furlough at the moment. If my company wasnt going bust why should I take a pay cut just to please the politicians ? These politicians are mostly millionaires themselves from Eton etc are they giving up the MP salaries ?

I would hope a lot of players are doing their bit but without wanting public recognition

If spurs cant afford to pay their lower paid workers that is a spurs problem. Spurs should be asking their players to take a 30%wage cut to help out all the employees at spurs. What has this got to do with City ? It's not Citys fault Sours cant afford to pay all their staff and chose to hit the lowest earners. Plus as some of these teams were involved in that letter I say sod them , not Citys problem Spurs cant pay their employees

So the tax payer pays the low paid staff but the highly paid players get paid in full?

With a half decent accountant I'd bet the players take home yield is close to 60% of salary a 30% cut is close to neutral. The difference is the club has a lower wage burn so can pay all its staff.

 

[give it to gordon]

So the tax payer pays the low paid staff but the highly paid players get paid in full?

With a half decent accountant I'd bet the players take home yield is close to 60% of salary a 30% cut is close to neutral. The difference is the club has a lower wage burn so can pay all its staff.

I think we agree ! if City can afford to pay all its staff the agreed contract rate , why do some of our staff have to take a pay cut to help a rival company ? Now if City were not paying all its staff I would agree that the top earns help out with pay cuts to help our club. If City couldnt afford to pay all its staff would Spurs, utd, liverpool players take a pay cut to help City ?

I dont see why our players should be helping out clubs that wants us banned and our trophies taken away from us . If spurs cant pay their staff that's a spurs problem if they go bust so what..

If the wage cuts are going to charity than our players and club should do it 100%

 

[bewildered]

I think we agree ! if City can afford to pay all its staff the agreed contract rate , why do some of our staff have to take a pay cut to help a rival company ? Now if City were not paying all its staff I would agree that the top earns help out with pay cuts to help our club. If City couldnt afford to pay all its staff would Spurs, utd, liverpool players take a pay cut to help City ?

I dont see why our players should be helping out clubs that wants us banned and our trophies taken away from us . If spurs cant pay their staff that's a spurs problem if they go bust so what..

If the wage cuts are going to charity than our players and club should do it 100%

Yes, sorry I wasn't specifically referring to City, we as a club can clearly handle this financially. What's boiling my piss is clubs like Spurs, Newcastle, Norwich using tax payers money to subsidise their non playing staff wages, while the players keep getting paid in full.