Covid-19 & Football

[gkmacca]

It is a wrong move. But Carra sure does go over the top - why has the goodwill for Klopp, Hendo and Co 'all' been lost? He sounds like Jim fecking White. Maybe he can turn his forensic moral focus on to Sky's actions during this period. I know he was probably rated low in their 'how sexy are our staff' market research, but I'm sure he can still help out with his assessment of his own bosses' probity.

 

[hmmmmm1]

Awful decision by the club to use this scheme to pay its non playing staff.

Liverpool in the last accounts spent £25 million a month on wages

 

[King Binny]

[article]Premier League players have called on their clubs to do 'far more' to support the NHS and charitable causes amid the coronavirus crisis that has shut down sport in a statement released by the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA).

The Premier League proposed on Friday to raise £20million to charitable causes, advance £125million to support clubs in the EFL and National League and a 30 per cent salary cut/deferral across 12 months for Premier League players.

The statement welcomed the initial moves but also stated it wanted to ensure the players' contributions would support clubs, non-playing staff for full wages, EFL and non-league teams and the NHS and key workers during the pandemic - and raised the possibility of a salary cut costing up to £200m in lost taxes.

The statement said: 'All Premier League players want to, and will, play their part in making significant financial contributions in these unprecedented times.

'All Premier League players fully appreciate their role and responsibilities in society during this current crisis.

'They care deeply for those who are suffering with loss, health and hardship at the moment.'

The statement added: 'We cannot stress enough that football is in this together. Solidarity and putting aside any self-interest is paramount.

'£20m us welcome but we believe it could be far bigger.

'The EFL money is an advance. Importantly, it will aid cashflow in the immediate, but football needs to find a way to increase funding to the EFL and non-league clubs in the long-term.

'Many clubs require an increase in funding just to survive. We believe in our football pyramid and again stress the need for solidarity between all clubs.

'Going forward, we are working together to find a solution which will be continually reviewed in order to assess the circumstance of the COVID-19 crisis.

'The players are mindful that as PAYE employees, the combined tax on their salaries is a significant contribution to funding essential public services - which are especially critical at this time. Taking a 30% salary deduction will cost the Exchequer substantial sums. This would be detrimental to our NHS and other government-funded services.

'The proposed 30% salary deduction over a 12-month period equates to over £500m in wage reductions and a loss in tax contributions of over £200m to the government.

What effect does this loss of earning to the government mean for the NHS? Was this considered in the Premier League proposal and did the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock factor this in when asking players to take a salary cut?

'We welcomed the opportunity to discuss this with the Premier League today and we are happy to continue talks.'[/article]

 

[mark1975]

Dante's is right, talk about giving every cunt an excuse to be determined to not give us the title.

 

[dantes]

What the absolute fuck? They're "mindful" of taking salary cuts because of the PAYE tax contributions the government would lose out on. Cunts.

 

[MomoWASright]

You know it’s bullshit when they can’t even get right the tax rate.

They also dismiss the longer term investment in helping those below survive and make future contributions.

 

[dantes]

Still, the government should probably have a rethink about that tax rate, and pass some legislation for a new football player tax, seeing as how "mindful" they all are, and set that rate at 90%.

 

[MomoWASright]

Cunt Gordon Taylor comes out with a cuntish statement. Who would’ve thought it?

 

[refugee]

It sounds like the proposed 30% pay cut was going to be used by the FA to cover their losses for voiding the season, rather than being a donation to pay for non-playing staff wages or virus research or front line medical staff.

 

[FoxForceFive]

It sounds like the proposed 30% pay cut was going to be used by the FA to cover their losses for voiding the season, rather than being a donation to pay for non-playing staff wages or virus research or front line medical staff.

Apparently the PFA put it to the players, & the response was basically, if we take a 30% pay cut, the clubs get 30% of our wages, does that get paid to the NHS. Otherwise what's the fucking point. And then the PFA did the math & calculated that the 30% wage cut equates to a 200m tax contribution cut & only the clubs would benefit unless there was an agreement to provide the wages straight to a charity or NHS, which the proposal didn't give at all.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Sounds great in principle. In reality it's bollocks. There are ceo's earning more than players not doing this.

 

[Aidan O' Neill]

It is a wrong move. But Carra sure does go over the top - why has the goodwill for Klopp, Hendo and Co 'all' been lost? He sounds like Jim fecking White. Maybe he can turn his forensic moral focus on to Sky's actions during this period. I know he was probably rated low in their 'how sexy are our staff' market research, but I'm sure he can still help out with his assessment of his own bosses' probity.

Rightly or wrongly this will be associated with all representatives of the club even though the decision was taken by people in the boardroom. Either way it's a dick move to take money from a scheme that is to help smaller business get by.

 

[mwake]

The club rightly should take some criticism of this situation...however I can see also the difficult side to this.

We think this set of players live Liverpool soul deep but when when it comes to money do they still bleed red?

I think maybe the club were scared to broach the subject of players taking a wage with the ultimate goal of some of that money saved being used to pay the backroom staff 100% from the club. Maybe they were scared they would unsettle them. If they were smart they could have used it as positive spin showing how the players were ready to help the staff. Now a lot people will see the club and players as somewhat selfish.

I'm pretty sure the first eleven earn more in one month than the backroom staff earn in a year, surely something could have been sorted.

 

[MomoWASright]

The club deserve to be battered on this. No company should receive the help when 50% of the wage reaches the pocket of under 10% of the workforce.

 

[MomoWASright]

The club rightly should take some criticism of this situation...however I can see also the difficult side to this.

We think this set of players live Liverpool soul deep but when when it comes to money do they still bleed red?

I think maybe the club were scared to broach the subject of players taking a wage with the ultimate goal of some of that money saved being used to pay the backroom staff 100% from the club. Maybe they were scared they would unsettle them. If they were smart they could have used it as positive spin showing how the players were ready to help the staff. Now a lot people will see the club and players as somewhat selfish.

I'm pretty sure the first eleven earn more in one month than the backroom staff earn in a year, surely something could have been sorted.

It is a pr disaster but it should’ve been any easy ask of the players.

 

[Jack D Rips]

Personally I agree it is a bit of a dick move, but the scheme is open to all businesses, not just medium or small, and I presume will be paid from the national insurance fund. I also assume Liverpool, like every other employer, do pay almost 14% NI on employees gross salaries into that fund.

I may be wrong.

 

[MomoWASright]

Yes NIC is due on PAYE payments.

The intention of the scheme is to support businesses who would go out of business by keeping on paying staff. Liverpool football club shouldn’t be in that category.

I’ve worked with certain HMRC “customers” who could use something they’re entitled too but may have negative image impacts so they do what protects their image. The club should’ve done that.

 

[moron]

Personally I agree it is a bit of a dick move, but the scheme is open to all businesses, not just medium or small, and I presume will be paid from the national insurance fund. I also assume Liverpool, like every other employer, do pay almost 14% NI on employees gross salaries into that fund.

I may be wrong.

I think personally to target PL football clubs and their players is a joke - UEFA/PL - have told clubs to manage their finances and effectively be run like a business, this government scheme is for all businesses so why shouldn't the club take advantage of the scheme ? - they have every right to. Like @FoxForceFive - there are plenty of CEO's etc who earn a lot more than PL players - you don't see the government and media going after them do you ?. Football as a whole has been affected like many other businesses - no one should be making a distinction between the businesses just because it sounds great.

People should realize that maybe if you earn X amount - then your lifestyle and costs take up a large proportion of that X amount - and as strange as this may sound to some - perhaps the footballers cannot "afford" a 30% drop due to existing life-style costs they have signed up to. In the grand scheme of things it is unfair to target one high earner group - especially considering they can only do their current role for a limited part of their life before they have to find some other work. I suspect many of you will think I am being cuntish over this but I personally think the Health Secretary targeting footballers like this when my wife has to visit those Wards in her hospital without the right protective gear is the apex of cuntishness maximus.

 

[Beamrider]

So basically LFC has a load of employees in catering, retail etc. plus staff at Melwood / Academy, most of whom aren't needed if those places aren't functioning. Lots of other clubs don't do their catering / retail in house so it's quite easy for them to get some PR points for not laying those people off (because they don't exist).
LFC then decides, let's not ask those people to come to work because there's nothing for them to do and they'd only be increasing their risk of infection / transmission by mixing with colleagues and, in some cases, travelling on public transport to work. Because of what they do, they can't work from home, because there's nothing for them to do there either.
So it's logical to furlough them (ignore the subsidy for a minute - furlough only means temporary suspension of work duties). Operationally, it makes sense to not have these people in work.
So you've sent them home and committed to paying them in full.
So far, all ethical and justifiable and, in the case of keeping people on full pay, more than most employers are doing, large or small.
Then there's this government scheme to help cover the cost. The scheme was put in place to dissuade employers from making employees redundant, hence why the scheme is called the "Coronavirus Job Protection Scheme". The clue is in the title; it's to protect jobs, not to protect employers' incomes (although obviously there's some crossover). The beneficiaries of the scheme are ordinary working people who get to avoid unemployment and everything that comes with that. And under this scheme, LFC can claim up to £2,500 per employee. For the 200 people you've just sent home, over the 2 months left in the scheme, this is at most £1 million (and probably a lot less because most of these staff won't be on big money). Pocket change for a football club. But it's free money, and you're every bit as entitled as any other business. So you claim it. Why wouldn't you? As a company director, it's your legal duty to do so. Mayhem ensues.
Sorry, but I'm just not getting the moral outrage here.
I get that the club could have decided not to claim the money, but that would have just been a PR stunt.

 

[MomoWASright]

Whilst I agree with part of what you say a premier league club isn’t a standard midsized business.

Asking a top earner to take home 80k instead of 85k a week is different to getting the tax payer paying for 10 employees.

 

[dee]

I'm ashamed to be a Liverpool fan

Might as well void the season as this is too embarrassing

 

[Beamrider]

Whilst I agree with part of what you say a premier league club isn’t a standard midsized business.

Asking a top earner to take home 80k instead of 85k a week is different to getting the tax payer paying for 10 employees.

I agree on the issue of the players, and that needs sorting. I'm just looking at the issue of the non-playing staff in isolation.
Again, though, the government scheme isn't targeted at standard mid-sized businesses, they chose not to restrict it for a reason - e.g. British Airways were probably threatening to make their 30,000 furloughed staff redundant if they didn't open the scheme to them and the government wanted to avoid those job losses.
Nobody pats football clubs on the back for making big contributions to the Apprenticeship Levy scheme because of the size of the levy on the players' salaries. That money gets recycled to small and mid-sized businesses because clubs won't have the capacity to use it. Same principle in reverse.

 

[Aidan O' Neill]

Whilst I agree with part of what you say a premier league club isn’t a standard midsized business.

Asking a top earner to take home 80k instead of 85k a week is different to getting the tax payer paying for 10 employees.

They don't even need to ask the players to take a cut. The club made 42 million profit last year.

 

[MomoWASright]

The big issue is Liverpool play the we are family and love the community bit. It is part of the marketing they love to push. It’s the image. That’s why I think they’ll renegade on that inside a week.

You can’t expect to be all caring then expect government top ups when you can still support yourself. Taking this cash is pulling money away from other resources that need it more than elite football club.

 

[Beamrider]

Final point on the PFA's NHS funding argument. Total, cynical bullshit.
Even if we did accept their argument, the funding lost would be about 0.025% of the NHS's annual budget (about half an hour's worth of funding). It's a drop in the ocean and shows what a cynical, diversionary tactic this whole discussion was in the first place. Classic politician's deflection tactics.

 

[MomoWASright]

They don't even need to ask the players to take a cut. The club made 42 million profit last year.

What cash in the bank do they have to carry on? I’d rather they pay Lovren’s salary to those who need it than pay Lovren if things get tight.

 

[Beamrider]

The big issue is Liverpool play the we are family and love the community bit. It is part of the marketing they love to push. It’s the image. That’s why I think they’ll renegade on that inside a week.

You can’t expect to be all caring then expect government top ups when you can still support yourself. Taking this cash is pulling money away from other resources that need it more than elite football club.

That's fair. I just never bought the whole "This means more" thing in the first place.

 

[MomoWASright]

Final point on the PFA's NHS funding argument. Total, cynical bullshit.
Even if we did accept their argument, the funding lost would be about 0.025% of the NHS's annual budget (about half an hour's worth of funding). It's a drop in the ocean and shows what a cynical, diversionary tactic this whole discussion was in the first place. Classic politician's deflection tactics.

You get more from the side of a bus.

 

[Beamrider]

What cash in the bank do they have to carry on? I’d rather they pay Lovren’s salary to those who need it than pay Lovren if things get tight.

This time of year is usually tight from a cash perspective as the final slug of TV money doesn't come in until the season is over.

 

[moron]

Whilst I agree with part of what you say a premier league club isn’t a standard midsized business.

Asking a top earner to take home 80k instead of 85k a week is different to getting the tax payer paying for 10 employees.

No You are right it is not a standard mid-sized business, it is in effect a large business which relies on support, and actual games to be played to be worth anything - right now in this scenario they are worth nothing coz the actual business cannot operate at any level. The people that run this country have said to the owners sorry you cannot use your investment in any way right now because we are having a national lock-down, and yes we know that we said we are a nation open to investment and we want your money and that's why you spent x amount.

So no - no one should be targeted unfairly - governments will have to pay up and have offered to do so and we are taking advantage of that. There is NOTHING wrong with what we are doing. I am pretty sure that behind the scenes many of our players are giving where they can.

Also - sorry wrong forum - I want to see what this Tory government does after all this is over (Allah Willing). I want to know where they are finding so much cash and just maybe some people will rise up and ask them why they created so much homelessness and poverty since 2010, and decided to run the NHS like a toilet prior to this pandemic.