[Football] Some expert called Kieron M currently on Talksport

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Can you imagine a post-crisis scenario when the club can play home fixtures but with a reduced attendance, say a quarter at around 7,500, how would they do this?

Fan No's starting with 5000 get first dibs, I think these are Withdean STHs, and then what points?

Oh the drama ....

Return of The Withdean Ticket Ballot model where ticket staff heartbreakingly spent far more of their day returning cheques in a stamped addressed envelope with a 'we are sorry to inform you your application has been unsuccessful' letters than they ever spent sending out tickets

 

[Barham's tash]

Resounding silence on here from [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] and have to say I’d like to challenge his thought process here.

The isolated individual good deeds from some players are great to hear about but I cannot believe the chasm of silence from the PFA.

Under Gordon Taylor - himself benefitting from an engorged salary of £3.2m per year - they have seen only upward wage momentum as a direct result of their lobbying about the contribution players make to the product that garners the ludicrous broadcasting rights packages.

Right now there is without doubt a moral vacuum emanating unilaterally across the game and frankly anyone/club/player not following the model of Barcelona wants stuffing. Clubs are furloughing vast numbers of low paid staff to effectively continue paying the players inflated salaries as for most* clubs the wages are the single largest item of expenditure on their balance sheets.

Frankly the only act to save face now would be a unilateral cut back dated to when this began on the universal understanding that ALL funds will only be used by clubs to pay salaries of furloughed staff. Any residual to be used for charities serving the vulnerable or NHS as a direct result of Covid-19.

Personally although Brighton have stood out from others by doing more the playing staff have not led by example or matched the club’s community ethos and I’m very disappointed tbh.

As for the clubs stance and saying we’re waiting for official comment from the PFA I think that’s weak. We could have lobbied them to follow our lead.

I’m quite sick of the entire industries attitude at this time.

 

[El Presidente]

Resounding silence on here from [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] and have to say I’d like to challenge his thought process here.

The isolated individual good deeds from some players are great to hear about but I cannot believe the chasm of silence from the PFA.

Under Gordon Taylor - himself benefitting from an engorged salary of £3.2m per year - they have seen only upward wage momentum as a direct result of their lobbying about the contribution players make to the product that garners the ludicrous broadcasting rights packages.

Right now there is without doubt a moral vacuum emanating unilaterally across the game and frankly anyone/club/player not following the model of Barcelona wants stuffing. Clubs are furloughing vast numbers of low paid staff to effectively continue paying the players inflated salaries as for most* clubs the wages are the single largest item of expenditure on their balance sheets.

Frankly the only act to save face now would be a unilateral cut back dated to when this began on the universal understanding that ALL funds will only be used by clubs to pay salaries of furloughed staff. Any residual to be used for charities serving the vulnerable or NHS as a direct result of Covid-19.

Personally although Brighton have stood out from others by doing more the playing staff have not led by example or matched the club’s community ethos and I’m very disappointed tbh.

As for the clubs stance and saying we’re waiting for official comment from the PFA I think that’s weak. We could have lobbied them to follow our lead.

I’m quite sick of the entire industries attitude at this time.

I'll stick up for the Albion on this. The club has committed to pay staff for the foreseeable future. The furlough scheme has been exploited by some other clubs, but not at the Amex.

As for the players, they are earning less money than before as their packages are heavily incentivised, so no play = no bonuses. If a club can't afford to pay them they won't, plain and simple. If pay is subsequently deferred or reduced that's fine, but if so clubs could be in breach of contract and some who are worth tens of millions as commodities could potentially walk away.

On top of this they are paying 45% of their income in income tax and so are contributing to the NHS and the public purse.

If people want football players to take a pay cut, does the same approach to all people on seven figure salaries?

Joe Lewis (Spurs owner) is 83 years old and saw his wealth increase by over £400 million last season, but doesn't get the same level of stick that players do. The pharmaceutical companies who are price gouging at present equally and making additional profits on the back of the pandemic aren't getting the criticism levelled at footballers, nor are the short sellers and arbitragers in the financial markets who are making sums that are far exceed those of the likes of Dale Stephens. Why is this the case?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Resounding silence on here from [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] and have to say I’d like to challenge his thought process here.

The isolated individual good deeds from some players are great to hear about but I cannot believe the chasm of silence from the PFA.

Under Gordon Taylor - himself benefitting from an engorged salary of £3.2m per year - they have seen only upward wage momentum as a direct result of their lobbying about the contribution players make to the product that garners the ludicrous broadcasting rights packages.

Right now there is without doubt a moral vacuum emanating unilaterally across the game and frankly anyone/club/player not following the model of Barcelona wants stuffing. Clubs are furloughing vast numbers of low paid staff to effectively continue paying the players inflated salaries as for most* clubs the wages are the single largest item of expenditure on their balance sheets.

Frankly the only act to save face now would be a unilateral cut back dated to when this began on the universal understanding that ALL funds will only be used by clubs to pay salaries of furloughed staff. Any residual to be used for charities serving the vulnerable or NHS as a direct result of Covid-19.

Personally although Brighton have stood out from others by doing more the playing staff have not led by example or matched the club’s community ethos and I’m very disappointed tbh.

As for the clubs stance and saying we’re waiting for official comment from the PFA I think that’s weak. We could have lobbied them to follow our lead.

I’m quite sick of the entire industries attitude at this time.

To be fair it (the lack of movement from the players - yet) is typical of what many regard as the sluggish* response to COVID across the board. However I am not ready yet to throw bricks; let's see if there is a response in the next few days.

*This is the English disease now. In my sector, the obvious steps necessary to effect necessary change are not implemented, while my 'leaders' continue to blink balefully like newborn calves experiencing their first glimpse of daylight.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I'll stick up for the Albion on this. The club has committed to pay staff for the foreseeable future. The furlough scheme has been exploited by some other clubs, but not at the Amex.

As for the players, they are earning less money than before as their packages are heavily incentivised, so no play = no bonuses. If a club can't afford to pay them they won't, plain and simple. If pay is subsequently deferred or reduced that's fine, but if so clubs could be in breach of contract and some who are worth tens of millions as commodities could potentially walk away.

On top of this they are paying 45% of their income in income tax and so are contributing to the NHS and the public purse.

If people want football players to take a pay cut, does the same approach to all people on seven figure salaries?

Joe Lewis (Spurs owner) is 83 years old and saw his wealth increase by over £400 million last season, but doesn't get the same level of stick that players do. The pharmaceutical companies who are price gouging at present equally and making additional profits on the back of the pandemic aren't getting the criticism levelled at footballers, nor are the short sellers and arbitragers in the financial markets who are making sums that are far exceed those of the likes of Dale Stephens. Why is this the case?

Stop digging.

You're making yourself look more and more like an apologist with every post.

"as their packages are heavily incentivised, so no play = no bonuses." Boo F***ing hhoo.

 

[El Presidente]

Stop digging.

You're making yourself look more and more like an apologist with every post.

"as their packages are heavily incentivised, so no play = no bonuses." Boo F***ing hhoo.

Let's just agree to disagree then.

You just want footballers to have their pay cut.

I'd rather it applies to all people on seven figure income levels rather than singling out one industry.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Let's just agree to disagree then.

You just want footballers to have their pay cut.

I'd rather it applies to all people on seven figure income levels rather than singling out one industry.

Sure, but you're not saying PL players should have a pay cut.

Or are you?

 

[El Presidente]

Sure, but your not saying PL players should have a pay cut.

Or are you?

I think that pay cuts for millionaire earners should be across the board, or better than that tax increases as it would increase funding for public services such as the NHS.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I think that pay cuts for millionaire earners should be across the board, or better than that tax increases as it would increase funding for public services such as the NHS.

Excellent.

I hope that next time you're on TV/Radio you make it clear that you believe that all PL players should take a pay cut - talk about them - that's the industry we are talking about here . The industry that whether you like it or not is operating in a moral vacuum.

Tax changes aren't gong to change in a hurry - although they undoubtedly will (hopefully) when this is over.

No comment on the PFA and Gordon Taylor?

 

[Muhammed - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Perhaps...just perhaps, there ARE individuals donating salary or helping in other ways but just don’t want to make a big song and dance about it?
My company, well known and often berated in the media, have over 7000 engineers at their disposal. With a vastly reduced workload due to attending emergency situations only, we currently have engineers stripping vans of stock and racking to make space to deliver food to the vulnerable members in the community, and deliver stock to the NHS.
Are they making this public knowledge?
No.
The reason given, is that they don’t want to be accused of gaining cheap publicity or a ‘oooooo, look what we’re doing’ scenario. They merely want to help the general public in this strange time because they are in a position to be able to.

I’m not standing up for footballers here, just putting the point across that not everyone who is ‘doing their bit’ feels the need to make a song and dance about it.

 

[El Presidente]

Excellent.

I hope that next time you're on TV/Radio you make it clear that you believe that all PL players should take a pay cut - talk about them - that's the industry we are talking about here . The industry that whether you like it or not is operating in a moral vacuum.

Tax changes aren't gong to change in a hurry - although they undoubtedly will (hopefully) when this is over.

No comment on the PFA and Gordon Taylor?

Gordon Taylor's pay has been covered on the podcast. I do know a lot about PFA income and some of the unusual expenses incurred but for the sake of [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]'s legal costs I prefer to keep silent on them.




If a journalist asks me a question I can't change the topic any discuss Taylor's salary unfortunately or any other topic that I fancy, I'm not Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[Barham's tash]

I'll stick up for the Albion on this. The club has committed to pay staff for the foreseeable future. The furlough scheme has been exploited by some other clubs, but not at the Amex.

As for the players, they are earning less money than before as their packages are heavily incentivised, so no play = no bonuses. If a club can't afford to pay them they won't, plain and simple. If pay is subsequently deferred or reduced that's fine, but if so clubs could be in breach of contract and some who are worth tens of millions as commodities could potentially walk away.

On top of this they are paying 45% of their income in income tax and so are contributing to the NHS and the public purse.

If people want football players to take a pay cut, does the same approach to all people on seven figure salaries?

Joe Lewis (Spurs owner) is 83 years old and saw his wealth increase by over £400 million last season, but doesn't get the same level of stick that players do. The pharmaceutical companies who are price gouging at present equally and making additional profits on the back of the pandemic aren't getting the criticism levelled at footballers, nor are the short sellers and arbitragers in the financial markets who are making sums that are far exceed those of the likes of Dale Stephens. Why is this the case?

Fair points re the Albion and I acknowledge their better response compared to most and of course it goes without saying re income tax, NI contributions etc but I still feel charity begins at home.

Let’s take Spurs as a better example because they have furloughed 550 staff and used the government scheme to fund their 80% salaries yet they continue to run a £7m a month player wage bill. Don’t you think there is a moral obligation in such circumstances, given all of the context [its not a privately owned business out of the public eye, salaries are whilst often wide of the mark are obscenely high and in the public domain, the nature of their industry etc] for the club to approach all staff paid handsomely to make a modest reduction and avoid the need for the use of the government scheme?!

If you don’t then we’ll agree to disagree.

And whilst I hear you in reference to the pharmaceutical industry or any industry with profiteering from this terrible situation what’s stuck in my throat is this selfish ‘we’re above what’s going on’ type attitude emanating from those in charge and the statements they make - “season to be finished at all costs, even if behind closed doors etc” because us and our obligations to the broadcasters supersede what’s happening. No, no they don’t.

I’m quite happy to have a universally higher tax rate for anyone above a certain threshold but that won’t come into legislation for months or years so do something meaningful NOW that can help staff that clubs are cutting and possibly unlikely to re-hire?

 

[El Presidente]

Fair points re the Albion and I acknowledge their better response compared to most and of course it goes without saying re income tax, NI contributions etc but I still feel charity begins at home.

Let’s take Spurs as a better example because they have furloughed 550 staff and used the government scheme to fund their 80% salaries yet they continue to run a £7m a month player wage bill. Don’t you think there is a moral obligation in such circumstances, given all of the context [its not a privately owned business out of the public eye, salaries are whilst often wide of the mark are obscenely high and in the public domain, the nature of their industry etc] for the club to approach all staff paid handsomely to make a modest reduction and avoid the need for the use of the government scheme?!

If you don’t then we’ll agree to disagree.

And whilst I hear you in reference to the pharmaceutical industry or any industry with profiteering from this terrible situation what’s stuck in my throat is this selfish ‘we’re above what’s going on’ type attitude emanating from those in charge and the statements they make - “season to be finished at all costs, even if behind closed doors etc” because us and our obligations to the broadcasters supersede what’s happening. No, no they don’t.

I’m quite happy to have a universally higher tax rate for anyone above a certain threshold but that won’t come into legislation for months or years so do something meaningful NOW that can help staff that clubs are cutting and possibly unlikely to re-hire?

FWIW I have said in the media that there is no moral or ethical justification for Spurs furloughing staff but legally they are entitled to do it. The chancellor introduced universal rules and the nature of such rules is that companies will take advantage of them who can survive the pandemic financially, a small proportion of those companies are football clubs. (other professional football clubs for example have taken government grants whilst also earning nine figure income streams, some clubs are located in tax havens, others use group relief to 'sell' the clubs tax losses to other profitable areas of the owner's business).

My argument is that there should be consistency. The economic damage to the UK (and all other countries) is going to be enormous. The costs of repairing the damage IMO would be better borne by those who have greater resources, some of those people are professional sportsmen, most are not. When I see people such as the Mayor of London targetting footballers and being silent on those in the City of London who have equally benefitted from being very good at their chosen profession I think it is convenient scapegoating.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

FWIW I have said in the media that there is no moral or ethical justification for Spurs furloughing staff but legally they are entitled to do it. The chancellor introduced universal rules and the nature of such rules is that companies will take advantage of them who can survive the pandemic financially, a small proportion of those companies are football clubs. (other professional football clubs for example have taken government grants whilst also earning nine figure income streams, some clubs are located in tax havens, others use group relief to 'sell' the clubs tax losses to other profitable areas of the owner's business).

My argument is that there should be consistency. The economic damage to the UK (and all other countries) is going to be enormous. The costs of repairing the damage IMO would be better borne by those who have greater resources, some of those people are professional sportsmen, most are not. When I see people such as the Mayor of London targetting footballers and being silent on those in the City of London who have equally benefitted from being very good at their chosen profession I think it is convenient scapegoating.

This

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think that pay cuts for millionaire earners should be across the board, or better than that tax increases as it would increase funding for public services such as the NHS.

Hear hear.

 

[Bold Seagull]

FWIW I have said in the media that there is no moral or ethical justification for Spurs furloughing staff but legally they are entitled to do it. The chancellor introduced universal rules and the nature of such rules is that companies will take advantage of them who can survive the pandemic financially, a small proportion of those companies are football clubs. (other professional football clubs for example have taken government grants whilst also earning nine figure income streams, some clubs are located in tax havens, others use group relief to 'sell' the clubs tax losses to other profitable areas of the owner's business).

My argument is that there should be consistency. The economic damage to the UK (and all other countries) is going to be enormous. The costs of repairing the damage IMO would be better borne by those who have greater resources, some of those people are professional sportsmen, most are not. When I see people such as the Mayor of London targetting footballers and being silent on those in the City of London who have equally benefitted from being very good at their chosen profession I think it is convenient scapegoating.

Again, hear hear.

 

[Barham's tash]

FWIW I have said in the media that there is no moral or ethical justification for Spurs furloughing staff but legally they are entitled to do it. The chancellor introduced universal rules and the nature of such rules is that companies will take advantage of them who can survive the pandemic financially, a small proportion of those companies are football clubs. (other professional football clubs for example have taken government grants whilst also earning nine figure income streams, some clubs are located in tax havens, others use group relief to 'sell' the clubs tax losses to other profitable areas of the owner's business).

My argument is that there should be consistency. The economic damage to the UK (and all other countries) is going to be enormous. The costs of repairing the damage IMO would be better borne by those who have greater resources, some of those people are professional sportsmen, most are not. When I see people such as the Mayor of London targetting footballers and being silent on those in the City of London who have equally benefitted from being very good at their chosen profession I think it is convenient scapegoating.

I'm certainly not courting scapegoating and agree all that can should pay what they can, or share what they can, for the greater good.

I guess my bug bear is here was an opportunity to right many of the wrongs of the modern game and show a united way forward to show that sport DOES transcend boundaries and can be a huge benefit to the overall psyche of a country but they've failed in my eyes.

The owners, in the main have failed - many through silence. The players, in the main have also failed - through silence or not forcing a response from their union the PFA. The governing bodies have failed - through astounding ignorance and hubris. And the sport in general for me has made itself look incredibly out of touch and is at risk of losing lots of long standing fans because of it.

 

[Stat Brother]

I'll stick up for the Albion on this. The club has committed to pay staff for the foreseeable future. The furlough scheme has been exploited by some other clubs, but not at the Amex.

As for the players, they are earning less money than before as their packages are heavily incentivised, so no play = no bonuses. If a club can't afford to pay them they won't, plain and simple. If pay is subsequently deferred or reduced that's fine, but if so clubs could be in breach of contract and some who are worth tens of millions as commodities could potentially walk away.

On top of this they are paying 45% of their income in income tax and so are contributing to the NHS and the public purse.

If people want football players to take a pay cut, does the same approach to all people on seven figure salaries?

Joe Lewis (Spurs owner) is 83 years old and saw his wealth increase by over £400 million last season, but doesn't get the same level of stick that players do. The pharmaceutical companies who are price gouging at present equally and making additional profits on the back of the pandemic aren't getting the criticism levelled at footballers, nor are the short sellers and arbitragers in the financial markets who are making sums that are far exceed those of the likes of Dale Stephens. Why is this the case?

I'm probably earning more than Albion players if they're incentivised through a goal-bonus scheme.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm probably earning more than Albion players if they're incentivised through a goal-bonus scheme.

Our goals were furloughed long before this virus!!

 

[Solid at the back]

If clubs are furloughing non playing staff, why can't they include players in this? Is the employer not entitled to do this?

I think it's absolutely disgusting that these players are taking full wages when the chefs, cleaners, etc are furloughed. They should be ashamed of themselves. So, yes these players are living in a moral vacuum, they are so out of touch with reality.