Furloughing staff

[dontcallme]

I agree with both of these points. It's not simple is it?!?!

Nope, really isn't easy. I totally get the moral argument.

I think once this whole thing is over we are going to need to have a serious look at our system, in all respects.

 

[DFF]

How the fuck can people say we're no different to any other business and say that thinking "this means more" is deluded. I give up if that's the way we're supposed to feel.

If we're just like any other business then should I be booing the team every time they play shit? Should I be demanding my money back after getting smashed by Bayern Munich? Should I support Man City this season because they offer a way better product for much cheaper?

Actually - I think you're onto something. I'm off to go post my outrage in "McDonalds Community" forum where a bunch of us can wildly celebrate when a new franchise makes better than expected profits in Year 1. We'll also have a really strong community feeling where I'll actually care about other people's mental health and will probably share very personal things with a bunch of strangers all because we are bonded by our love of how profitable McDonald's is.

Calm down. No one's telling you how to feel.

 

[malin]

So Bobbins - unless you’re a tax consultant please tell me why it’s ok to starve the NHS, Schools and the welfare system of money to line your own pocket?

I think the point Bobbins is making is that the term tax avoidance refers to any number of schemes legally designed to avoid paying tax, which include areas which people wouldn’t normally consider to be tax avoidance, including for example, salary sacrifice into a pension or investing into an ISA. As a result we shouldn’t declare all tax avoidance as reprehensible, particularly when it is used as per design.

I do agree though that some areas of tax avoidance are morally questionable and that, just because something is legal, that doesn’t make it acceptable, particularly where the action is actually counter to the intent of the law, although we’ll all have different perspectives on what is and isn’t acceptable.

Ultimately though, it is the responsibility of the governments and legislators across the globe to ‘fix’ the problems / ‘loopholes’ within the system through the legislative process. This doesn’t mean though that we can’t continue to hold businesses and individuals responsible for actions that we consider morally corrupt.

 

[robin09]

It's a business that sells football entertainment. They have been forced to stop operating without any idea of when they can resume business.

Why shouldn't the club use the government scheme to pay the staff that are prohibited from working? Isn't this one of the reasons businesses pay tax on revenue to the government?

Many love sticking their noses into others finances with the certainty of how they could afford to not earn money here, or take a loss there 'for a while'.

What about if there is a fire in the stadium? Should the club not make an insurance claim, because it could put end up having the knock on effect of putting other people's premiums up?

 

[Rocksuperstar]

What's going to lose a lot of weight due to needing to fund smoking in the next few weeks because, as of half an hour ago, he was furloughed?

<-- this guy right here.

 

[Graham Minshall]

It's a business that sells football entertainment. They have been forced to stop operating without any idea of when they can resume business.

Why shouldn't the club use the government scheme to pay the staff that are prohibited from working? Isn't this one of the reasons businesses pay tax on revenue to the government?

Many love sticking their noses into others finances with the certainty of how they could afford to not earn money here, or take a loss there 'for a while'.

What about if there is a fire in the stadium? Should the club not make an insurance claim, because it could put end up having the knock on effect of putting other people's premiums up?

Please! Try not to use common sense.

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

Calm down. No one's telling you how to feel.

I can forgive Levy for seeing the club purely as a business. I just can't believe how many fans don't think it's more than just a business.

 

[topper]

Tax avoidance isn't a crime - it's just morally repugnant

So I got one disagree and one wtf rating - obviously wrong, tax avoidance is acceptable; shame I’m PAYE I could join in with everyone else!

 

[DFF]

I can forgive Levy for seeing the club purely as a business. I just can't believe how many fans don't think it's more than just a business.

You can have an emotional investment in the team whilst recognising that it is indeed just a business nowadays. It's not either/or.

 

[dontcallme]

So I got one disagree and one wtf rating - obviously wrong, tax avoidance is acceptable; shame I’m PAYE I could join in with everyone else!

I believe the reasons you are getting those ratings, not from me is because you appear to have misunderstood what tax avoidance is. Not saying I have full understanding of it.

Not all tax avoidance is bad, which is why it is allowed and in some cases encouraged.

ISAs are a form of tax avoidance, though not everyone agrees. Not bad as people saving is seen as a good thing. Pensions are tax avoidance as it is for the benefit of society if people have finances once they are no longer in position to work.

Even as PAYE you can take part in tax avoidance.

 

[Lighty64]

Can't disagree with thinking Lewis should be putting the money in to help the workers. If he's not willing to do it though it does force a decision on those who are actually working at the club.

he might have been the 1 that pushed Levy to do what's done.

yes he does have a fortune but the majority of it is tied up in many industries, and paintings and a yacht, I doubt he has 4.?b sitting in his own back pocket, a bit like Levy who might have received a 3m bonus last season, which is taxed quite high.

don't know what's happening though as reports on SSN are saying Southampton players are taking a cut, yet didn't think that could happen unless the PFA agree.

the country is in a bloody mess with over 7k deaths, and that's over 7k of people that a lot of them had to say goodbye to their loved 1's over a phone call if they were even lucky to do that

 

[Lighty64]

If the players are taking this position then I'm

Whether it's 550 or lower I stand corrected, but the point is not the number is the decision to do it in the first place. I've already responded elsewhere, and I could be wrong but on the balance of probabilities I'm finding it difficult to believe that we are one of the most unhealthiest clubs financially in PL or in English football in terms of financial positions and cashflow to require this type of government bailout and be almost first in the queue for it along with Mike Adhley.

what cash flow?

 

[Saoirse]

One of the guys on one of the football Podcasts was saying any team that uses the furlough scheme should receive a transfer ban. Hard to argue with that really. Or those sides should have a net zero spend in the next transfer window. Which isn't unusual for us anyway.

I've got to disagree with this one. I think one of the main reasons for furloughing is the degree of uncertainty. Everyone's talking about this season, but the Athletic have said Levy is worried that football may not return until later this year or even next year, and that's not a possibility any of us can rule out. In a bad scenario, the club loses an entire year of income, while having minimal chance to avoid expenses. That's obviously a terrible situation for us. But at least we can, in all likelihood, borrow money at a decent-ish rate against the stadium. Many, many other teams, including some very big names, would face bankruptcy. The only responsible thing for any club to do right now is to act to protect themselves. The 20% cut is bad for staff, but not as bad as it seems - low earners in particular will be topping up their wages using Universal Credit even in normal times anyway, and that system has been made more generous for the next year to help cover the burden, while other expenses nearly everyone partakes in (e.g. an occasional night out, a trip to the cinema etc) aren't happening. And the last thing we want to do is to pressure businesses away from the help that's been put in place for a reason, only to find that it leads to them needing bailouts, administrations and bankruptcy at much greater expense to the economy than use of the furlough scheme. I will say that should things work out better than this, we're back soonish and the financial impact is minimal, the club should then make a contribution in return - but I wouldn't bet my game on it.

 

[Trotter]

he might have been the 1 that pushed Levy to do what's done.

yes he does have a fortune but the majority of it is tied up in many industries, and paintings and a yacht, I doubt he has 4.?b sitting in his own back pocket, a bit like Levy who might have received a 3m bonus last season, which is taxed quite high.

don't know what's happening though as reports on SSN are saying Southampton players are taking a cut, yet didn't think that could happen unless the PFA agree.

the country is in a bloody mess with over 7k deaths, and that's over 7k of people that a lot of them had to say goodbye to their loved 1's over a phone call if they were even lucky to do that

You don't know what is happening because you don't understand finance at all, but always feel compelled to bring it up.

To try and help.
Southampton players are not taking a cut, they have agreed to take a partial deferral, as it says on SSN.
They are taking it only on condition that Southampton do not cut wages or furlough any non-playing staff.
Southampton will still have to pay the players their wages in full, just the amount they have deferred will be paid to them in 3 months time for example, along with that months wages *so a bumper pay packet)
Just helps out the clubs short term cashflow.

They have done exactly as I was told yesterday would happen with our club, Our players will not entertain anything the club wants, without the protection of the staff and in our case that will mean the decision to cut wages and furlough our non-playing staff being reversed.

PFA have told the clubs there will be no overall settlement, and they must each negotiate individually with their own players, however the players hold all the cards, and Daniel will have to back-track if he wants any contribution from our players (who are now not seen as the bad guys due to the Charity announcement yesterday)

 

[nailsy]

he might have been the 1 that pushed Levy to do what's done.

yes he does have a fortune but the majority of it is tied up in many industries, and paintings and a yacht, I doubt he has 4.?b sitting in his own back pocket, a bit like Levy who might have received a 3m bonus last season, which is taxed quite high.

don't know what's happening though as reports on SSN are saying Southampton players are taking a cut, yet didn't think that could happen unless the PFA agree.

the country is in a bloody mess with over 7k deaths, and that's over 7k of people that a lot of them had to say goodbye to their loved 1's over a phone call if they were even lucky to do that

Obviously he's not going to have billions available, but I'd be surprised if he couldn't lay his hands on several million pretty easily.

I've got to disagree with this one. I think one of the main reasons for furloughing is the degree of uncertainty. Everyone's talking about this season, but the Athletic have said Levy is worried that football may not return until later this year or even next year, and that's not a possibility any of us can rule out. In a bad scenario, the club loses an entire year of income, while having minimal chance to avoid expenses. That's obviously a terrible situation for us. But at least we can, in all likelihood, borrow money at a decent-ish rate against the stadium. Many, many other teams, including some very big names, would face bankruptcy. The only responsible thing for any club to do right now is to act to protect themselves. The 20% cut is bad for staff, but not as bad as it seems - low earners in particular will be topping up their wages using Universal Credit even in normal times anyway, and that system has been made more generous for the next year to help cover the burden, while other expenses nearly everyone partakes in (e.g. an occasional night out, a trip to the cinema etc) aren't happening. And the last thing we want to do is to pressure businesses away from the help that's been put in place for a reason, only to find that it leads to them needing bailouts, administrations and bankruptcy at much greater expense to the economy than use of the furlough scheme. I will say that should things work out better than this, we're back soonish and the financial impact is minimal, the club should then make a contribution in return - but I wouldn't bet my game on it.

I agree with most of that and I don't really have an issue with us furloughing staff, but it does seem wrong to ask for a government grant in April and then go out and spend millions on new players in July/August. Saying that there will be many big businesses who are going the same route of furloughing workers who will then have to go out and spend millions developing their products.

As you say it would be great if we could pay it back and maybe give the workers their lost earnings when we're back in profit.

 

['O Zio]

That's a good point, but this is all getting caught up in words on paperwork when, in the real world, where they apparently don't live on a full time basis, facts are facts and the world is in a bind. If it was declared football wasn't going to restart for months more, that the club they are contracted to is going to fold, the league they compete in's main sponsor goes broke or anything like that - what they expect the world to do, pick up that enormous pay packet while they don't do what they're being paid for?

Musicians and actors are very similar to footballers in as much as they entertain crowds and, right now, not a single musician or actor can make a penny - Their entire industry is, right now, dead and they get to lump in with everyone else because their skill, their career right now isn't happening. Why are footballers so different? Is it just because they have several more zeroes arrive in their account each month?

It makes, literally no sense. The levels of respect that I had for footballers is evaporating rapidly and when people would gripe over their pay, I used to argue that - it's a short, precarious career, that could be ended with one errant boot. Well here's a big fucking virus smothered boot... pull your weight.

I've been thinking recently that maybe this whole scenario will result in a trend toward players wages being much more heavily performance/appearance-based. It's already a bit daft that that isnt the case so a massive situation like we have now might make clubs as a whole more wary about giving players these massive guaranteed contracts in the future.

 

[jay2040]

So I got one disagree and one wtf rating - obviously wrong, tax avoidance is acceptable; shame I’m PAYE I could join in with everyone else!

You got those ratings as people did not concur with your view and post which had no facts. Morality is subjective.

There are a lot of reasons why some people are better on PAYE, one being that they dont have the ability to take the risk that goes with being self employed/director/WTC...

 

[Trotter]

I've been thinking recently that maybe this whole scenario will result in a trend toward players wages being much more heavily performance/appearance-based. It's already a bit daft that that isnt the case so a massive situation like we have now might make clubs as a whole more wary about giving players these massive guaranteed contracts in the future.

Some undoubtedly will try and reduce down the line, but that will make them uncompetitive as there will still be many throwing the money around like confetti. The only thing that will stop those clubs would be a big cut in TV Revenue.
I would imagine Sky would be looking at reducing the value of the next contract when it is up for renewal, as a way to claw back some of the losses.
What we will almost certainly see this window is a contraction in the transfer values.

 

[Lighty64]

How the fuck can people say we're no different to any other business and say that thinking "this means more" is deluded. I give up if that's the way we're supposed to feel.

If we're just like any other business then should I be booing the team every time they play shit? Should I be demanding my money back after getting smashed by Bayern Munich? Should I support Man City this season because they offer a way better product for much cheaper?

Actually - I think you're onto something. I'm off to go post my outrage in "McDonalds Community" forum where a bunch of us can wildly celebrate when a new franchise makes better than expected profits in Year 1. We'll also have a really strong community feeling where I'll actually care about other people's mental health and will probably share very personal things with a bunch of strangers all because we are bonded by our love of how profitable McDonald's is.

but you're not demanding they take the staff off or at least pay the 20% top-up due to performance, you are asking the club to do it because you believe we can afford it, just because other clubs aren't. the poster you quoted is just saying that those companies earnings are above ours and that they have furloughed their staff.

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

but you're not demanding they take the staff off or at least pay the 20% top-up due to performance, you are asking the club to do it because you believe we can afford it, just because other clubs aren't. the poster you quoted is just saying that those companies earnings are above ours and that they have furloughed their staff.

What he was mostly saying was that we're a business and the idea that "this means more" is bollocks. Saying we should be judged exactly like any other big company.

I don't actually agree on what your saying either but don't want to start another cycle of debate so let's all agree to disagree.