comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
It’s not a 30% pay cut though.
20% is a deferral I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It says 30% pay cut on most articles
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52148955
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Raiola is frantically Googling “which countries haven’t closed their leagues or imposed financial penalties on players?”
Pogba linked to some Kazakh team any day now.
I don't think the players quite get what is happening. A wage cut should be to protect non playing staff wages and the rich owners should also be paying their share. That's the pressure and demands the players should be making.
Not trying to play politics and Robin Hood, and pretend to be the good guys.
Its not about supporting the government or NHS its about supporting the clubs and its fans and from where they currently take from the cookie jar otherwise the cookies will soon run out no matter which clubs cookie jar they turn to in the future. What happens to their precious lifestyles then?
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
It’s not a 30% pay cut though.
20% is a deferral I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It says 30% pay cut on most articles
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52148955
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Raiola is frantically Googling “which countries haven’t closed their leagues or imposed financial penalties on players?”
Pogba linked to some Kazakh team any day now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Belarus Premier League #1
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 13 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanity
I thought the point of players taking a wage cut was to protect the clubs, and by extension all of the non-playing staff's jobs, not to fund the NHS.
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 27 seconds ago
I thought the point of players taking a wage cut was to protect the clubs, and by extension all of the non-playing staff's jobs, not to fund the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well even on 30% less they could still play the hero and give to good causes if that's what soothes their egos. So their argument about being singled out is a diversion.
comment by Jalisco Red (U4195)
posted 1 hour, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At times like this you have to take a step back and watch the movie unfold.
On this site, people talk about social media and the media in general controlling narratives but when the material time comes everyone seems to fall in line and follow the narrative anyway.
It's all about angles presented in the media, who all seem to copy and paste stories from each other. Soon they will all be owned by the same entity if the current trend continues. Whatever angle is presented, the sheep toe the line.
Many give with the right hand and take with the left. Ui are an angel or devil depending in what makes the mainstream media.
If you take a closer look at United's players decision to break ranks and announce a pay cut before others you will see what I mean. They've been showered with so much praise but if you read between the lines you will see other things.
Criticising a person who is donating millions of money can never look like a smart move, so any attempt to highlight how it could actually work in United's players favour will be met by ridicule and abuse of an extraordinary nature.
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 19 minutes ago
I thought the point of players taking a wage cut was to protect the clubs, and by extension all of the non-playing staff's jobs, not to fund the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
protect them from what?
they haven't refunded sponsorships, season tickets or returned TV money.
PL seem adamant they will finish the season so isn't this just the summer break with the end of season taking place over summer. clubs will keep all their tv money and sponsorships.
IF the league was canned then maybe there'd be some loss depending on individual deals but the PL & Liverpool supporters keep insisting it will be finished, so should be no losses to anyone.
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 👍
Sign in if you want to comment
Fully agree with Rooney
Page 2 of 2
posted on 5/4/20
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
It’s not a 30% pay cut though.
20% is a deferral I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It says 30% pay cut on most articles
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52148955
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Raiola is frantically Googling “which countries haven’t closed their leagues or imposed financial penalties on players?”
Pogba linked to some Kazakh team any day now.
posted on 5/4/20
I don't think the players quite get what is happening. A wage cut should be to protect non playing staff wages and the rich owners should also be paying their share. That's the pressure and demands the players should be making.
Not trying to play politics and Robin Hood, and pretend to be the good guys.
Its not about supporting the government or NHS its about supporting the clubs and its fans and from where they currently take from the cookie jar otherwise the cookies will soon run out no matter which clubs cookie jar they turn to in the future. What happens to their precious lifestyles then?
posted on 5/4/20
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 seconds ago
It’s not a 30% pay cut though.
20% is a deferral I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It says 30% pay cut on most articles
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52148955
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Raiola is frantically Googling “which countries haven’t closed their leagues or imposed financial penalties on players?”
Pogba linked to some Kazakh team any day now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Belarus Premier League #1
posted on 5/4/20
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 13 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanity
posted on 5/4/20
I thought the point of players taking a wage cut was to protect the clubs, and by extension all of the non-playing staff's jobs, not to fund the NHS.
posted on 5/4/20
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 27 seconds ago
I thought the point of players taking a wage cut was to protect the clubs, and by extension all of the non-playing staff's jobs, not to fund the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well even on 30% less they could still play the hero and give to good causes if that's what soothes their egos. So their argument about being singled out is a diversion.
posted on 5/4/20
comment by Jalisco Red (U4195)
posted 1 hour, 28 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At times like this you have to take a step back and watch the movie unfold.
On this site, people talk about social media and the media in general controlling narratives but when the material time comes everyone seems to fall in line and follow the narrative anyway.
It's all about angles presented in the media, who all seem to copy and paste stories from each other. Soon they will all be owned by the same entity if the current trend continues. Whatever angle is presented, the sheep toe the line.
Many give with the right hand and take with the left. Ui are an angel or devil depending in what makes the mainstream media.
If you take a closer look at United's players decision to break ranks and announce a pay cut before others you will see what I mean. They've been showered with so much praise but if you read between the lines you will see other things.
Criticising a person who is donating millions of money can never look like a smart move, so any attempt to highlight how it could actually work in United's players favour will be met by ridicule and abuse of an extraordinary nature.
posted on 5/4/20
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 19 minutes ago
I thought the point of players taking a wage cut was to protect the clubs, and by extension all of the non-playing staff's jobs, not to fund the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
protect them from what?
they haven't refunded sponsorships, season tickets or returned TV money.
PL seem adamant they will finish the season so isn't this just the summer break with the end of season taking place over summer. clubs will keep all their tv money and sponsorships.
IF the league was canned then maybe there'd be some loss depending on individual deals but the PL & Liverpool supporters keep insisting it will be finished, so should be no losses to anyone.
posted on 5/4/20
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.
posted on 5/4/20
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.
posted on 5/4/20
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.
posted on 6/4/20
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
posted on 6/4/20
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.
posted on 6/4/20
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
posted on 6/4/20
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.
posted on 6/4/20
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
posted on 6/4/20
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.
posted on 6/4/20
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 👍
Page 2 of 2