Immoral premier league Clubs

[LinekersLugs]

4 hours ago, foxile5 said:

 

Unbelievable. Takes some of the sheen off their title win. Hopefully nobody let's them off the hook. 

What title win ??? Looks like There ain’t going to be any football sept or Oct 

[foxile5]

53 minutes ago, LinekersLugs said:

What title win ??? Looks like There ain’t going to be any football sept or Oct 

I can't see your Premier League not giving them. They've been gagging for A Liverpool win to try and ignite that rivalry between them and United again. 

[LinekersLugs]

22 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I can't see your Premier League not giving them. They've been gagging for A Liverpool win to try and ignite that rivalry between them and United again. 

Must have missed that

 

united rivals these days are wolves and Sheffield United 

[Super_horns]

Arsenal players not accepting a pay cut..

 

They will be even less popular with the fans now?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/04/13/arsenal-players-refuse-take-pay-cut/#comment

[mozartfox]

Simon Jordan speaking a lot of sense on Talk-Shite.   Players and Agents are taking too much cash out of the game. There we all were, thinking that EPL Clubs are awash with money, yet a 5 week shut down is causing most top flight Clubs all sorts of financial problems.

 

Apparently the EPL 'Clubs' give the PFA  circa 27m UKP a year and then- they fight against any wage deferrals or wage cuts for their members to the obvious detriment of the Clubs. Madness.

 

Salary caps that are adhered too as a percentage of turnover must come in and be policed. I can see changes coming in. Academies and Under 23's squads will surely take on more importance in the future as I cannot see us, for example, shelling out million pound contracts for aged squad fillers?  

 

More importantly we need to stop these tragic deaths all over the planet first.

[UHDrive]

36 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Simon Jordan speaking a lot of sense on Talk-Shite.   Players and Agents are taking too much cash out of the game. There we all were, thinking that EPL Clubs are awash with money, yet a 5 week shut down is causing most top flight Clubs all sorts of financial problems.

 

Apparently the EPL 'Clubs' give the PFA  circa 27m UKP a year and then- they fight against any wage deferrals or wage cuts for their members to the obvious detriment of the Clubs. Madness.

 

Salary caps that are adhered too as a percentage of turnover must come in and be policed. I can see changes coming in. Academies and Under 23's squads will surely take on more importance in the future as I cannot see us, for example, shelling out million pound contracts for aged squad fillers?  

 

More importantly we need to stop these tragic deaths all over the planet first.

If anybody in any industry signs a legal contract for any amount of money then it becomes their own confidential employment contact.

 

Your post mostly references the 'moral' aspect of your argument, but I would refute that in its entirety because (a) most players do a significant amount of charity work, and (b) based on your comments you should be coming back on here with a large xls sheet covering all employment sectors with a proposed deduction for the entire population instead of hammering just one sector. 

 

Ultimately, have some respect for players contracts. Its private, its personnel and its theirs. 

[mozartfox]

1 hour ago, UHDrive said:

If anybody in any industry signs a legal contract for any amount of money then it becomes their own confidential employment contact.

 

Your post mostly references the 'moral' aspect of your argument, but I would refute that in its entirety because (a) most players do a significant amount of charity work, and (b) based on your comments you should be coming back on here with a large xls sheet covering all employment sectors with a proposed deduction for the entire population instead of hammering just one sector. 

 

Ultimately, have some respect for players contracts. Its private, its personnel and its theirs. 

Shaking my head at this. You are missing the point.  May be even responding to the wrong post??  Spreadsheet on all sectors- WTF is that all about?

 

This is about the future of football. 

 

The facts are Football must change to survive, and this dreadful Virus has probably brought this to a head.  The longer this football shut down goes on, the more critical this situation becomes for ALL football clubs bar 3 in this Country.  

 

Employment contracts are worthless if the Employer goes to the wall - ask the poor millions who have lost their jobs already or who are surviving on reduced salaries.  EPL Football Players are immune to most normal life challenges, but this one may end up biting them on the bum.

 

 

[Footballwipe]

2 hours ago, mozartfox said:

Simon Jordan speaking a lot of sense on Talk-Shite.   Players and Agents are taking too much cash out of the game. There we all were, thinking that EPL Clubs are awash with money, yet a 5 week shut down is causing most top flight Clubs all sorts of financial problems.

 

Apparently the EPL 'Clubs' give the PFA  circa 27m UKP a year and then- they fight against any wage deferrals or wage cuts for their members to the obvious detriment of the Clubs. Madness.

 

Salary caps that are adhered too as a percentage of turnover must come in and be policed. I can see changes coming in. Academies and Under 23's squads will surely take on more importance in the future as I cannot see us, for example, shelling out million pound contracts for aged squad fillers?  

 

More importantly we need to stop these tragic deaths all over the planet first.

I mean, Players and Agents are taking too much cash out of the game because clubs are letting them. No-one is forcing people to pay agents and players millions. Blame the clubs for letting it get to this stage. A plague on all their houses.

 

I agree with the rest. This will hopefully be the pin **** in the bubble that's been distorting football for so long. A % of turnover salary cap is probably the best way of working it, really. Will that be disproportionate to the big clubs? Maybe, but it's not like transfers aren't already. At least this will stop clubs like Villa and Reading spending 200% of their turnover on wages. It is ridiculous that clubs operate like this. I've always subscribed to players being worthy of what a club values them at in terms of wages/agent fee etc. But it's getting to the point where clubs aren't even operating with any kind of fiscal responsibility now to justify this. 

 

Even our own wage/turnover ratio is astronomically high, 84% of our turnover on wages before we pay any other bills. That's just about sustainable when there's no great worldwide pandemic. Even if you have the most stringent and strongest emergency/disaster planning in place, it's going to bite you.

 

 

 

[fox_up_north]

We keep saying the bubble will burst. It was going to burst with Shearer. Then Ferdinand. Then Ronaldo. Then Bale. Then Coutinho. Then Neymar. 

 

Will this be the time the bubble actually bursts? I'm not so sure. I think it would take at least 5 league clubs (from top tier to fourth) going bust in the span of 2 years. A Rangers on its own can be mitigated - the players can go elsewhere. But if you lose 5 clubs all in a short space of time, that's at least 100 players (not including academy and reserves) that suddenly need to find a team. That is where you get issues because clubs might not be able to take them all on. 

[Dan LCFC]

Christ I used to think Tottenham were the media darlings. I mean they are still compared to most but barely a word about this compared to the rimming Liverpool got. They can both do one anyway.

[Heathrow fox]

28 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

We keep saying the bubble will burst. It was going to burst with Shearer. Then Ferdinand. Then Ronaldo. Then Bale. Then Coutinho. Then Neymar. 

 

Will this be the time the bubble actually bursts? I'm not so sure. I think it would take at least 5 league clubs (from top tier to fourth) going bust in the span of 2 years. A Rangers on its own can be mitigated - the players can go elsewhere. But if you lose 5 clubs all in a short space of time, that's at least 100 players (not including academy and reserves) that suddenly need to find a team. That is where you get issues because clubs might not be able to take them all on. 

Well there is a real threat that 80 professional clubs could go bust.Then what?

[mozartfox]

3 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

I mean, Players and Agents are taking too much cash out of the game because clubs are letting them. No-one is forcing people to pay agents and players millions. Blame the clubs for letting it get to this stage. A plague on all their houses.

 

I agree with the rest. This will hopefully be the pin **** in the bubble that's been distorting football for so long. A % of turnover salary cap is probably the best way of working it, really. Will that be disproportionate to the big clubs? Maybe, but it's not like transfers aren't already. At least this will stop clubs like Villa and Reading spending 200% of their turnover on wages. It is ridiculous that clubs operate like this. I've always subscribed to players being worthy of what a club values them at in terms of wages/agent fee etc. But it's getting to the point where clubs aren't even operating with any kind of fiscal responsibility now to justify this. 

 

Even our own wage/turnover ratio is astronomically high, 84% of our turnover on wages before we pay any other bills. That's just about sustainable when there's no great worldwide pandemic. Even if you have the most stringent and strongest emergency/disaster planning in place, it's going to bite you.

 

 

 

[st albans fox]

Bournemouth reverse their furlough decision ....

 

that leaves Newcastle completely isolated (Sheffield Utd managed their announcement and Norwich haven’t been chastised ) 

 

but Newcastle are probably in the process of a sale and perhaps the new owners will also reverse the call ..... 

[inckley fox]

From a legally naive viewpoint, I'd have thought one of the obvious solutions was a ruling within the game that if you furlough staff then everybody earning a superior wage to those workers - who has a contract for more than six months and who isn't furloughed - should be required to take a cut too. If they don't, or won't, then you're not allowed to use the scheme.

 

That money should go firstly towards the running of their own clubs, and preferably towards 'un-furloughing' the staff in question.

 

Beyond that, securing a voluntary contribution from clubs and players towards the upkeep of the football pyramid would be a good idea, and would sidestep the issue of lost tax revenue. Plus I'm not sure why players specifically should be obliged to bolster the medium-term future of state institutions. If they choose to, that's admirable. If a windfall tax is in order then I'd be looking at some of those EPL clubs' owners before I looked at the players. Yes, their wages are obscene and yes, it'd be nice to see them give something back, even if it's symbolic, but the practicalities of it seem tricky.

 

I understand and agree with those who say that a contract should be sacrosanct (though that should have been explained previously to the likes of, say, Mahrez), but we're living in an era in which many far more essential god-given rights have, by necessity, been taken away from us all.

 

And that includes financial penalties, if you look at the 2% of the Spanish population which has received fines of over €600 in the past five weeks due to exercising the most basic of human rights (i.e. freedom) in the midst the outbreak. Or several European countries which have seen millions laid off but haven't been able to get them the dole money to which they're legally entitled. So I'm not sure that footballers' contracts should, in a moralistic argument, be held in loftier esteem than any of those things.

[UHDrive]

7 hours ago, mozartfox said:

Shaking my head at this. You are missing the point.  May be even responding to the wrong post??  Spreadsheet on all sectors- WTF is that all about?

 

This is about the future of football. 

 

The facts are Football must change to survive, and this dreadful Virus has probably brought this to a head.  The longer this football shut down goes on, the more critical this situation becomes for ALL football clubs bar 3 in this Country.  

 

Employment contracts are worthless if the Employer goes to the wall - ask the poor millions who have lost their jobs already or who are surviving on reduced salaries.  EPL Football Players are immune to most normal life challenges, but this one may end up biting them on the bum.

 

 

With all due respect it's you who's missing the point.

 

You are talking about employment contracts that are both none of your concern and frankly none of your business. 

 

Some of the posts on here it's as if reality has gone out of the window. Stick to coronation street..   

 

Ps. I want to clarify that my points are in relation to current player contracts and the wider football world. I'm all for change otherwise unless it avoids silly proposals to cap salaries and so on.

 

People are shortsighted if they think that the economy isnt going to rebounding in the last half of this year.

Edited 14 April 2020 by UHDrive

[mozartfox]

Sadly Coronation Street is not available here. I can see now why there is so much concern from the medical experts about the consequences of this enforced lock down.

 

May God be with all FT members during these trying times.

Edited 15 April 2020 by mozartfox

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, inckley fox said:

From a legally naive viewpoint, I'd have thought one of the obvious solutions was a ruling within the game that if you furlough staff then everybody earning a superior wage to those workers - who has a contract for more than six months and who isn't furloughed - should be required to take a cut too. If they don't, or won't, then you're not allowed to use the scheme.

 

That money should go firstly towards the running of their own clubs, and preferably towards 'un-furloughing' the staff in question.

 

Beyond that, securing a voluntary contribution from clubs and players towards the upkeep of the football pyramid would be a good idea, and would sidestep the issue of lost tax revenue. Plus I'm not sure why players specifically should be obliged to bolster the medium-term future of state institutions. If they choose to, that's admirable. If a windfall tax is in order then I'd be looking at some of those EPL clubs' owners before I looked at the players. Yes, their wages are obscene and yes, it'd be nice to see them give something back, even if it's symbolic, but the practicalities of it seem tricky.

 

I understand and agree with those who say that a contract should be sacrosanct (though that should have been explained previously to the likes of, say, Mahrez), but we're living in an era in which many far more essential god-given rights have, by necessity, been taken away from us all.

 

And that includes financial penalties, if you look at the 2% of the Spanish population which has received fines of over €600 in the past five weeks due to exercising the most basic of human rights (i.e. freedom) in the midst the outbreak. Or several European countries which have seen millions laid off but haven't been able to get them the dole money to which they're legally entitled. So I'm not sure that footballers' contracts should, in a moralistic argument, be held in loftier esteem than any of those things.

I think you might be ignoring the fact that if a club breaks the contract, the player would potentially be a free-agent. Clubs won’t want to lose a very valuable asset, especially when things are going wrong almost everywhere else for the stakeholders.

[StanSP]

Bournemouth have reversed their furlough decision now as well. 

[Hales]

I think they are all panicking about a possible transfer ban to be honest!

Edited 15 April 2020 by Hales

[inckley fox]

On 15/04/2020 at 00:59, Leeds Fox said:

I think you might be ignoring the fact that if a club breaks the contract, the player would potentially be a free-agent. Clubs won’t want to lose a very valuable asset, especially when things are going wrong almost everywhere else for the stakeholders.

No, it's not that I'm ignoring this - and you're absolutely right, of course. It's more that I said 'in a moralistic argument' wealthy people's contracts can't be of more importance than other god-given rights which have been lost.

 

What does and doesn't represent good business for stakeholders of the most well-off clubs isn't, by itself, part of that moralistic argument. If it means the loss of jobs (which is what we're talking about), or swathes of people losing the club to which they've devoted a huge part of their lives, then yes, it is. And of course the welfare of a business impacts on these things down the line. But what represents good business sense, in terms of what will and won't make stakeholders either a little more or a little less well off - I'm not sure that's on the same scale as the other sacrifices being made. We can't go saying it's alright that, in order to overcome the current crisis, we lay huge numbers of people off and deprive everyone of basic rights, and yet at the same time the wealthiest people in football's rights are sacrosanct. 

 

The primary concern, I would have thought, is to do things in a way where clubs who can afford not to furlough staff, don't furlough staff. And if the game can do something to keep itself afloat (rather than just the EPL) in the process - at a small, short-term cost for some of its wealthiest figures - then that'd be a good thing. But when you see millions of extra unemployed in every world country and basic human rights (understandably) removed everywhere, I wouldn't have thought that footballers' contractual entitlements, or the precise number of billions in the banks of their bosses, are on the same scale of priority.

 

That doesn't mean that those contracts shouldn't be looked after. It doesn't mean footballers should be forced to take a pay cut. It doesn't mean some EPL clubs won't encounter difficulties and have to resort to extreme measures. It just means that a lot of sacrifices have been made by everyone, and if they also have to make (far less serious) sacrifices, then there are other people out there to feel sorry for.

[Guest SO1]

Maybe its time to make everyones financial investments and resource/asset holdings available to the public for our scrutiny.

And that means hidden bank accounts and holdings all over the world(Panama Papers etc.). That's really the issue isn't it.

Immorality. and our personal judgement?

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, inckley fox said:

No, it's not that I'm ignoring this - and you're absolutely right, of course. It's more that I said 'in a moralistic argument' wealthy people's contracts can't be of more importance than other god-given rights which have been lost.

 

What does and doesn't represent good business for stakeholders of the most well-off clubs isn't, by itself, part of that moralistic argument. If it means the loss of jobs (which is what we're talking about), or swathes of people losing the club to which they've devoted a huge part of their lives, then yes, it is. And of course the welfare of a business impacts on these things down the line. But what represents good business sense, in terms of what will and won't make stakeholders either a little more or a little less well off - I'm not sure that's on the same scale as the other sacrifices being made. We can't go saying it's alright that, in order to overcome the current crisis, we lay huge numbers of people off and deprive everyone of basic rights, and yet at the same time the wealthiest people in football's rights are sacrosanct. 

 

The primary concern, I would have thought, is to do things in a way where clubs who can afford not to furlough staff, don't furlough staff. And if the game can do something to keep itself afloat (rather than just the EPL) in the process - at a small, short-term cost for some of its wealthiest figures - then that'd be a good thing. But when you see millions of extra unemployed in every world country and basic human rights (understandably) removed everywhere, I wouldn't have thought that footballers' contractual entitlements, or the precise number of billions in the banks of their bosses, are on the same scale of priority.

 

That doesn't mean that those contracts shouldn't be looked after. It doesn't mean footballers should be forced to take a pay cut. It doesn't mean some EPL clubs won't encounter difficulties and have to resort to extreme measures. It just means that a lot of sacrifices have been made by everyone, and if they also have to make (far less serious) sacrifices, then there are other people out there to feel sorry for.

That’s a hell of a lot for me to reply to, so in short... 

 

On a moral level, the contracts aren’t worth more than your average Joe. I’d say the opposite, a footballer is much more likely to survive financially than someone who lives hand to mouth on a modest wage. 
 
Yes, there are much more serious issues than a Billionaire’s bank balance taking a hit. They probably aren’t more serious to the person in question though. This is a time when individuals true personal traits will come to light. Clearly Levy and Co ‘wanted’ to furlough staff to save money. They’ve been shamed into reversing that morally terrible decision. Top went the other way, showing true class (but doing something someone in his position probably should be doing). 
 

It’s almost as if acting with dignity and compassion now makes people heroic, which is sad because I’m sure plenty would do the same given the opportunity. Now I’m not taking anything away from the people who do good, it is commendable how Top conducts his business.  

Edited 16 April 2020 by Leeds Fox

[Lambert09]

On 15/04/2020 at 04:01, StanSP said:

Bournemouth have reversed their furlough decision now as well. 

I wouldnt buy in to the 'fans pressure did this' argument. A lot of the clubs were doing this as a bluff to put pressure on players to accept pay cuts.