Fully agree with Rooney

comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Jalisco Red (U4195)
posted 5 minutes ago
Personally I've found it quite dispiriting how society has turned against the exceptionally talented, and footballers in particular, during this crisis. I can't help but wonder if this is happening in other countries as well, or if it's just a British thing?

I can only assume that once all this is over, these people won't be watching football, going to the cinema, buying albums or going to concerts, and will instead be donating the money they would have spent on these frivolities to charities or to the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if you were to be sick, hope a footballer can help you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what a stupid response morespurs. i agree nurses should be better paid but in normal times footballers are an important diversion from society's problems.
when this is all over are you going to watch football or go to the hospital and watch someone get their temperature taken.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Importante diversión’ essentially pointless entertainers.

And why only pick on footballers? Why not all rich people?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the government were never going to pick on their corporate buddies. So they have pointed the finger at footy players, which also helps create a distraction from their handling of this pandemic.

The issue isn't taking money from the NHS. The government will see the NHS gets the money it needs, whatever (not least because doing otherwise would be a shot in the foot).

The issue is about all those other people taking a financial hit or equivalent suffering, or likely to. So it's a question of helping clubs genuinely in dire straits, who may have to furlough staff just to survive. It's a question about supporting local organisations who are doing their best to help people. And so on.

Fact is some footballers realise that and are trying to help. Some are incapable of realising anything like that.

Let's be honest, players taking a 30% wage hit will benefit the directors and owners of the club, nobody else. The fact a quarter of the league's clubs have already furloughed staff is evidence enough of that.

The best thing to do is continue to collect their full wages, pay their full taxes and then come to an agreement on donating a certain proportion to worthy causes. That's the only way that it can be guaranteed that the money will go to the right places

Whatever happens you can't force people to donate to charity.

The only reason we should be talking about players reducing their wages is to help clubs that might struggle to stay afloat while receiving no income. No doubt we'll see more on this once a decision about ending the 2019/20 season has been made.

Of course you can't force people to donate. But I see more logic in letting the players make that decision, than in enforcing a 30% wage cut, then leaving it up to the money men to donate that money to good causes. As it just won't happen

Neither will happen. They cannot and will not be coerced to contribute in any way to 'good causes' because that's patently ridiculous.

The 30% is to share the burden of the clubs likely having to pay a rebate on their sponsorship deals, and I would think it'd go some way to keeping the rest of the staff and public on side.

comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 26 seconds ago
Neither will happen. They cannot and will not be coerced to contribute in any way to 'good causes' because that's patently ridiculous.

The 30% is to share the burden of the clubs likely having to pay a rebate on their sponsorship deals, and I would think it'd go some way to keeping the rest of the staff and public on side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isn't. It can't possibly be enforced. The 30% will go straight into the pockets of the Daniel Levy's of this world. He's already completely unnecessarily exploited the furlough loophole. The 30% idea is an absolute nonsense tbh

comment by merrysupersteve - Jose'd he wouldn't... (U1132)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 26 seconds ago
Neither will happen. They cannot and will not be coerced to contribute in any way to 'good causes' because that's patently ridiculous.

The 30% is to share the burden of the clubs likely having to pay a rebate on their sponsorship deals, and I would think it'd go some way to keeping the rest of the staff and public on side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isn't. It can't possibly be enforced. The 30% will go straight into the pockets of the Daniel Levy's of this world. He's already completely unnecessarily exploited the furlough loophole. The 30% idea is an absolute nonsense tbh
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, it can't be enforced. Neither should it - it would set a terrible precedent. It should be voluntary like charity work. Though bearing in mind the context of non-playing staff losing money and potentially their jobs it's a terrible PR decision to do nothing. If players agree to make up those wages even Levy wouldn't have the balls to pocket the money. He'd be forced out of the club and probably the country.

comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve - Jose'd he wouldn't... (U1132)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 26 seconds ago
Neither will happen. They cannot and will not be coerced to contribute in any way to 'good causes' because that's patently ridiculous.

The 30% is to share the burden of the clubs likely having to pay a rebate on their sponsorship deals, and I would think it'd go some way to keeping the rest of the staff and public on side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isn't. It can't possibly be enforced. The 30% will go straight into the pockets of the Daniel Levy's of this world. He's already completely unnecessarily exploited the furlough loophole. The 30% idea is an absolute nonsense tbh
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, it can't be enforced. Neither should it - it would set a terrible precedent. It should be voluntary like charity work. Though bearing in mind the context of non-playing staff losing money and potentially their jobs it's a terrible PR decision to do nothing. If players agree to make up those wages even Levy wouldn't have the balls to pocket the money. He'd be forced out of the club and probably the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true 👍