No one fires people on a whim Winston. You said days ago that you would take a hit and not do it. And I said to you in response why do you think that Arsenal are doing without reason? Some take a moral duty towards their staff, smaller companies usually treat staff as friends rather than colleagues. However there is such a strong business case for not firing people unless its a last resort, that corporates in my experince also abide by the principle.
But I think you fail to grasp that many companies have an already failing business models. I gave you an example above one high street giant in trouble. And when black swan events hit these companies need to change systemically. Its not that one source of income has dried up so lets wait it out. Arsenal are one such entity. You may not know but they have changed their entire board structure and the CEO has moved on long before Covid hit. Arsenal have been out of the CL for 4 years and making losses every year. There is no justification of carrying the number of employees they do. Liverpool, Man Utd (a far bigger operation) even oil clubs like Man City and Chelsea all run better and more profitable commercial operations than Arsenal with fewer people.
All over the big business world right now. People are being axed left right and centre. With each billionaire owner, crying company Covid poverty. The thing is the only reason their company is now stuck for cash. Is that every April for years, all those same billionaires took all of the company's money out of the bank and paid it to themselves.
Smaller to tiny business have justification here because neither their company nor they personally have that kind of cash. Big business and billionaires however just don't. Because they could ALL simply give back a little of the money they have taken for years. I think far too many people don't really understand/comprehend that these people can not only afford it. But they could do so without it even making a dent in their wealth.
Here in the UK, the sackings we're seeing by big business have nothing to do with companies not being able to afford it. But everything to do with us being out of the EU for good and all of them now being able to ditch EU employment laws. Shortly Priti Patel will carve up those rules and plunge the UK back 30 years with workers rights. THAT'S when big business will rehire. All staff on crappy rights free contracts. Not those pesky protected rights contracts the old staff had. In the post Covid UK employment landscape, workers will be powerless against their bosses once again. Please don't by into ANY billionaire saying these sackings have to be made in big business...
They most certainly do not.
Jenius99 (U4918)
I don't fail to grasp it at all - I just don't agree that it applies to Arsenal.
Forget Arsenal for a minute, you seem to be rejecting the notion that the practice I describe exists at all.
If you can't accept that there are many, many business owners who are greedy, who take advantage of their staff and who will use the COVID-19 situation to get rid of people and to get as much from the tax payer as possible to ensure that they remain as wealthy as ever, then there's not really much else to say.
Have no doubt that when this pandemic is gone, the rich will have got richer and the poor will have got poorer, and you can perhaps ask yourself why that is.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Jenius99 (U4918)
If you can't accept that there are many, many business owners who are greedy, who take advantage of their staff and who will use the COVID-19 situation to get rid of people and to get as much from the tax payer as possible to ensure that they remain as wealthy as ever, then there's not really much else to say.
Have no doubt that when this pandemic is gone, the rich will have got richer and the poor will have got poorer, and you can perhaps ask yourself why that is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First explain to me why any company needs to use covid to fire staff. Any company can lay-off people whenever they want. If any portion of their company is redundant so are the staff involved and most companies don't hesitate to cut costs whenever they can. The burden of that always falls on the tax payer because the government has to pick up unemployment benefits and sometimes that can last for years because its very difficult to retrain people.
Have no doubt that when this pandemic is gone, the rich will have got richer and the poor will have got poorer, and you can perhaps ask yourself why that is.
-------------------------
Yes. And thats an issue with government policy. Governments set the agenda and companies operate under those rules. Do large companies spend millions to influence what they do? Of course they do. And politicians are very corruptible. This is a society problem.
However understanding basic business principles is important to comprehend what goes on intrabusiness. When a company automates to save costs and that means losing jobs it is a cold hard decision. And that is usually to increase shareholder value. But thats how industries evolve. For example the fossil fuel industry is shrinking and collapsing because of the rise of cheaper renewable. Thats evolution. But its no less diffcult for the millions of workers in the oil industry who know they will be unmployed within the next decade.
That is the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.
Well thanks Jenius, as a business owner it's always nice when someone helps me understand basic business principles.
May I politely suggest that you haven't stopped and considered my point that this situation is somewhat different to the norm.
This is nothing to do with a sector collapsing or changing consumer demand. This is a global pandemic that should, in principle, cease to become a problem within a certain period of time - after which, many affected businesses might reasonably expect to return to pre-COVID trading.
That is very different and opens up the option of protecting staff in that interim period.
I understand you don't agree and that's fine, but making out that I disagree because I don't understand business principles is ridiculous.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 53 minutes ago
Well thanks Jenius, as a business owner it's always nice when someone helps me understand basic business principles.
May I politely suggest that you haven't stopped and considered my point that this situation is somewhat different to the norm.
This is nothing to do with a sector collapsing or changing consumer demand. This is a global pandemic that should, in principle, cease to become a problem within a certain period of time - after which, many affected businesses might reasonably expect to return to pre-COVID trading.
That is very different and opens up the option of protecting staff in that interim period.
I understand you don't agree and that's fine, but making out that I disagree because I don't understand business principles is ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem has been pointed out and you have alluded to it yourself. Nobody knows how long this will last. 6 months? A year? Two years?
You say that you have taken the hit on revenue to ensure your staff are kept on; which is commendable. How long can you keep that up, based on making a loss of 7% of revenue prior to COVID and being forecast to lose about 25% of your annual revenue if restrictions aren't lifted over the next year?
If COVID restriction mean fans cannot attend for the next season then Arsenal would be looking at a loss of nearly £120 million if their operating costs remained the same. That is clearly a worst case scenario but that would account for nearly a third of their revenue last year.
I obviously have no idea about your business but could you afford to keep all your staff in if you were forecast to make a loss of nearly a tbird of your revenue?
"If COVID restriction mean fans cannot attend for the next season"
If you read back welshpool, this is exactly the point I was making when you first challenged me on this.
Why now, when the next season hasn't started and the league and government haven't offered any definitive timelines about allowing spectators back in?
It's precisely because of the lack of timings that I find it such a strange time to announce this.
I did previously say this though. I also said that if it subsequently comes to light that the clubs have been given bad news about this point and the public are not aware of it then I would certainly see this differently.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
"If COVID restriction mean fans cannot attend for the next season"
If you read back welshpool, this is exactly the point I was making when you first challenged me on this.
Why now, when the next season hasn't started and the league and government haven't offered any definitive timelines about allowing spectators back in?
It's precisely because of the lack of timings that I find it such a strange time to announce this.
I did previously say this though. I also said that if it subsequently comes to light that the clubs have been given bad news about this point and the public are not aware of it then I would certainly see this differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you cannot plan for the future based on best case scenarios if that future is completely unknown. If you make your decisions on the hope that fans will definitely be allowed in, and they subsequently are not, then you are in a worse place than if you allowed for them to not be allowed in.
We have had some negative (if still undefined) news regarding attendances since sporting events were already meant to be allowing limited crowds back in as part of easing of restrictions. This was stopped due to the increase of r rate. Whilst this isnt a definitive answer it is an indication that it might be a while before we do have any crowds.
welshpoolfan (U7693)
But equally, in this situation, you don't necessarily need to plan for the worst case scenario i.e. that fans won't be allowed in until 2022, so we need to get rid of our staff now.
There's a balance that is dependent on a number of variables.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
But equally, in this situation, you don't necessarily need to plan for the worst case scenario i.e. that fans won't be allowed in until 2022, so we need to get rid of our staff now.
There's a balance that is dependent on a number of variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that is fair enough, so an assessment needs to be made based on the situation and how risk averse a company is.
Personally I tend to be a little more risk averse and so I would probably be looking at what would happen if we lost a year of revenue and how would we best manage that.
You are right that this is a unique and (hopefully) temporary situation and so could just be a blip in the finances, but we are also being predicted to hit the biggest recession and unemployment since the 80s. Obviously predictions can be wrong but that might also be affecting their thinking. Even if we do re-open, we may not have the income jumping straight back up etc.
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Absolutely, and I'm not advocating to be irresponsible, but I would have thought at the very least that the club could wait until they know more about spectators being allowed in before they make moves like this.
The figures are scary but again, there's every reason to think that the recovery will be quicker because it's almost like an artificial period of unemployment.
I have said all along that I understand none of us can know the real truth behind the scenes at Arsenal and maybe things are worse than we know... but when you read reports about the main shareholder swimming in increase wealth since the start of this year, it's hard not to see this as greed.
Ultimately we can only have our opinion on the subject because there's no proof either way.
But one thing I fundamentally disagree on is that if the business could keep these people employed then they should.
Shareholders make a lot of money off the back of relatively low paid workers. During the good times, they benefit, so during the bad times they should show a bit of loyalty.
I appreciate not everyone shares that view but it's how I run my business and nothing will convince me that it's wrong.
Winston
I won't disagree with anything in your previous post. As a unionised member of my workforce I am a big advocate for secure rights and treatment of workers.
The behaviour of shareholders is a difficult subject because (my understanding may be wrong) they are not actually required to put their own money in beyond the purchase of shares. Whilst any of us may see them as greedy or saying they can afford it so they should do it, it doesn't make it happen and businesses need to be able to run themselves.
I have no idea fully about Arsenal's finances but my only reason for commenting was because you had made a claim about this being a purely greedy decision by the board to ensure maintenance of profit. Thos could be true but I just wanted to point out that without any real evidence it was an unfair claim to make.
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Appreciate that on paper, it can seem that way.
But based on what I know of the majority shareholder and Premier League clubs, as well as the behaviour of big businesses, I don't think it's unfair at all.
Doesn't mean of course that I am saying it's a fact - far from it.
But generally the behaviour of big businesses disgusts me and it is an emotive subject, hence the hyperbolic language.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Appreciate that on paper, it can seem that way.
But based on what I know of the majority shareholder and Premier League clubs, as well as the behaviour of big businesses, I don't think it's unfair at all.
Doesn't mean of course that I am saying it's a fact - far from it.
But generally the behaviour of big businesses disgusts me and it is an emotive subject, hence the hyperbolic language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, and if it transpired that it was true then I would share your attitude.
I just try not to do so if I cannot back it up in case I am wrong.
Out of curiosity what sort of business are you in? (If you don't mind me asking)
welshpoolfan (U7693)
No problem - I run a small creative agency.
It's all nice and proper not judging people without the full facts, but it gives people an easy ride imo.
The Mike Ashleys, Jeff Bezos and Philip Greens of this world are a problem and I don't need a copy of their accounts to know it.
Arsenal don't pay shareholder dividends and profits don't go to the owner. We've been making a loss for a few years now, we're selling players to raise money to buy the players we need. Lose a couple of games next season and the fans will be on the boards back telling them to spend some facking money! nobody would remember or care that we kept these 55 jobs on for charitable reasons, at the end of the day this is top level competitive sports.
"nobody would remember or care that we kept these 55 jobs on for charitable reasons"
I bet the 55 people would remember.
I'm not advocating it as a PR exercise - I'm advocating it as a human decency exercise.
That's not what the priority of a football club is though, it's harsh but that's the reality. The club is answerable to the fans and if we fail to meet out targets fans won't be won't be giving the club a free pass for keeping those employees on.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
No problem - I run a small creative agency.
It's all nice and proper not judging people without the full facts, but it gives people an easy ride imo.
The Mike Ashleys, Jeff Bezos and Philip Greens of this world are a problem and I don't need a copy of their accounts to know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats cool.
I do agree to an extent, but the people you explicitly list (and their bisinesses) have a very well established history of poor treatment of staff and enforcing bad condition and so it is reasonable to use that as context for any announcements they make. Happily concur that they do not treat their staff well.
As far as I am aware (and I happily admit I could be entirely wrong) Arsenal haven't been found to have been engaging in such practices.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 18 minutes ago
That's not what the priority of a football club is though, it's harsh but that's the reality. The club is answerable to the fans and if we fail to meet out targets fans won't be won't be giving the club a free pass for keeping those employees on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the priority for my business either, yet I've done it.
This isn't a normal situation.
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Agreed, but I'm sure someone could come along and defend those people based on us not knowing the full facts, if they wanted to.
And they'd be right.
But I do agree there's more of an unknown to this.
That's your choice and well done to you, but a football club isn't the same a regular business that doesn't have millions of fans to answer to and where the goal is on field sucess and not just profit.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 12 seconds ago
That's your choice and well done to you, but a football club isn't the same a regular business that doesn't have millions of fans to answer to and where the goal is on field sucess and not just profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree with this. Businesses have millions of customers, which is essentially all that fans are from a corporate point of view.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Agreed, but I'm sure someone could come along and defend those people based on us not knowing the full facts, if they wanted to.
And they'd be right.
But I do agree there's more of an unknown to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah fair enough
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 4 minutes ago
That's your choice and well done to you, but a football club isn't the same a regular business that doesn't have millions of fans to answer to and where the goal is on field sucess and not just profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, two problems with that:
1. If the owner takes the hit then the business needn't necessarily suffer.
2. The idea that 55 staff at Arsenal are the difference between success and failure on the pitch, and would be considered that way by fans, is a bit far fetched imo.
Sign in if you want to comment
55 staff made redundant
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 10/8/20
No one fires people on a whim Winston. You said days ago that you would take a hit and not do it. And I said to you in response why do you think that Arsenal are doing without reason? Some take a moral duty towards their staff, smaller companies usually treat staff as friends rather than colleagues. However there is such a strong business case for not firing people unless its a last resort, that corporates in my experince also abide by the principle.
But I think you fail to grasp that many companies have an already failing business models. I gave you an example above one high street giant in trouble. And when black swan events hit these companies need to change systemically. Its not that one source of income has dried up so lets wait it out. Arsenal are one such entity. You may not know but they have changed their entire board structure and the CEO has moved on long before Covid hit. Arsenal have been out of the CL for 4 years and making losses every year. There is no justification of carrying the number of employees they do. Liverpool, Man Utd (a far bigger operation) even oil clubs like Man City and Chelsea all run better and more profitable commercial operations than Arsenal with fewer people.
posted on 10/8/20
All over the big business world right now. People are being axed left right and centre. With each billionaire owner, crying company Covid poverty. The thing is the only reason their company is now stuck for cash. Is that every April for years, all those same billionaires took all of the company's money out of the bank and paid it to themselves.
Smaller to tiny business have justification here because neither their company nor they personally have that kind of cash. Big business and billionaires however just don't. Because they could ALL simply give back a little of the money they have taken for years. I think far too many people don't really understand/comprehend that these people can not only afford it. But they could do so without it even making a dent in their wealth.
Here in the UK, the sackings we're seeing by big business have nothing to do with companies not being able to afford it. But everything to do with us being out of the EU for good and all of them now being able to ditch EU employment laws. Shortly Priti Patel will carve up those rules and plunge the UK back 30 years with workers rights. THAT'S when big business will rehire. All staff on crappy rights free contracts. Not those pesky protected rights contracts the old staff had. In the post Covid UK employment landscape, workers will be powerless against their bosses once again. Please don't by into ANY billionaire saying these sackings have to be made in big business...
They most certainly do not.
posted on 10/8/20
Jenius99 (U4918)
I don't fail to grasp it at all - I just don't agree that it applies to Arsenal.
Forget Arsenal for a minute, you seem to be rejecting the notion that the practice I describe exists at all.
If you can't accept that there are many, many business owners who are greedy, who take advantage of their staff and who will use the COVID-19 situation to get rid of people and to get as much from the tax payer as possible to ensure that they remain as wealthy as ever, then there's not really much else to say.
Have no doubt that when this pandemic is gone, the rich will have got richer and the poor will have got poorer, and you can perhaps ask yourself why that is.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Jenius99 (U4918)
If you can't accept that there are many, many business owners who are greedy, who take advantage of their staff and who will use the COVID-19 situation to get rid of people and to get as much from the tax payer as possible to ensure that they remain as wealthy as ever, then there's not really much else to say.
Have no doubt that when this pandemic is gone, the rich will have got richer and the poor will have got poorer, and you can perhaps ask yourself why that is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First explain to me why any company needs to use covid to fire staff. Any company can lay-off people whenever they want. If any portion of their company is redundant so are the staff involved and most companies don't hesitate to cut costs whenever they can. The burden of that always falls on the tax payer because the government has to pick up unemployment benefits and sometimes that can last for years because its very difficult to retrain people.
Have no doubt that when this pandemic is gone, the rich will have got richer and the poor will have got poorer, and you can perhaps ask yourself why that is.
-------------------------
Yes. And thats an issue with government policy. Governments set the agenda and companies operate under those rules. Do large companies spend millions to influence what they do? Of course they do. And politicians are very corruptible. This is a society problem.
However understanding basic business principles is important to comprehend what goes on intrabusiness. When a company automates to save costs and that means losing jobs it is a cold hard decision. And that is usually to increase shareholder value. But thats how industries evolve. For example the fossil fuel industry is shrinking and collapsing because of the rise of cheaper renewable. Thats evolution. But its no less diffcult for the millions of workers in the oil industry who know they will be unmployed within the next decade.
That is the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.
posted on 10/8/20
Well thanks Jenius, as a business owner it's always nice when someone helps me understand basic business principles.
May I politely suggest that you haven't stopped and considered my point that this situation is somewhat different to the norm.
This is nothing to do with a sector collapsing or changing consumer demand. This is a global pandemic that should, in principle, cease to become a problem within a certain period of time - after which, many affected businesses might reasonably expect to return to pre-COVID trading.
That is very different and opens up the option of protecting staff in that interim period.
I understand you don't agree and that's fine, but making out that I disagree because I don't understand business principles is ridiculous.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 53 minutes ago
Well thanks Jenius, as a business owner it's always nice when someone helps me understand basic business principles.
May I politely suggest that you haven't stopped and considered my point that this situation is somewhat different to the norm.
This is nothing to do with a sector collapsing or changing consumer demand. This is a global pandemic that should, in principle, cease to become a problem within a certain period of time - after which, many affected businesses might reasonably expect to return to pre-COVID trading.
That is very different and opens up the option of protecting staff in that interim period.
I understand you don't agree and that's fine, but making out that I disagree because I don't understand business principles is ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem has been pointed out and you have alluded to it yourself. Nobody knows how long this will last. 6 months? A year? Two years?
You say that you have taken the hit on revenue to ensure your staff are kept on; which is commendable. How long can you keep that up, based on making a loss of 7% of revenue prior to COVID and being forecast to lose about 25% of your annual revenue if restrictions aren't lifted over the next year?
If COVID restriction mean fans cannot attend for the next season then Arsenal would be looking at a loss of nearly £120 million if their operating costs remained the same. That is clearly a worst case scenario but that would account for nearly a third of their revenue last year.
I obviously have no idea about your business but could you afford to keep all your staff in if you were forecast to make a loss of nearly a tbird of your revenue?
posted on 10/8/20
"If COVID restriction mean fans cannot attend for the next season"
If you read back welshpool, this is exactly the point I was making when you first challenged me on this.
Why now, when the next season hasn't started and the league and government haven't offered any definitive timelines about allowing spectators back in?
It's precisely because of the lack of timings that I find it such a strange time to announce this.
I did previously say this though. I also said that if it subsequently comes to light that the clubs have been given bad news about this point and the public are not aware of it then I would certainly see this differently.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
"If COVID restriction mean fans cannot attend for the next season"
If you read back welshpool, this is exactly the point I was making when you first challenged me on this.
Why now, when the next season hasn't started and the league and government haven't offered any definitive timelines about allowing spectators back in?
It's precisely because of the lack of timings that I find it such a strange time to announce this.
I did previously say this though. I also said that if it subsequently comes to light that the clubs have been given bad news about this point and the public are not aware of it then I would certainly see this differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you cannot plan for the future based on best case scenarios if that future is completely unknown. If you make your decisions on the hope that fans will definitely be allowed in, and they subsequently are not, then you are in a worse place than if you allowed for them to not be allowed in.
We have had some negative (if still undefined) news regarding attendances since sporting events were already meant to be allowing limited crowds back in as part of easing of restrictions. This was stopped due to the increase of r rate. Whilst this isnt a definitive answer it is an indication that it might be a while before we do have any crowds.
posted on 10/8/20
welshpoolfan (U7693)
But equally, in this situation, you don't necessarily need to plan for the worst case scenario i.e. that fans won't be allowed in until 2022, so we need to get rid of our staff now.
There's a balance that is dependent on a number of variables.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
But equally, in this situation, you don't necessarily need to plan for the worst case scenario i.e. that fans won't be allowed in until 2022, so we need to get rid of our staff now.
There's a balance that is dependent on a number of variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that is fair enough, so an assessment needs to be made based on the situation and how risk averse a company is.
Personally I tend to be a little more risk averse and so I would probably be looking at what would happen if we lost a year of revenue and how would we best manage that.
You are right that this is a unique and (hopefully) temporary situation and so could just be a blip in the finances, but we are also being predicted to hit the biggest recession and unemployment since the 80s. Obviously predictions can be wrong but that might also be affecting their thinking. Even if we do re-open, we may not have the income jumping straight back up etc.
posted on 10/8/20
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Absolutely, and I'm not advocating to be irresponsible, but I would have thought at the very least that the club could wait until they know more about spectators being allowed in before they make moves like this.
The figures are scary but again, there's every reason to think that the recovery will be quicker because it's almost like an artificial period of unemployment.
I have said all along that I understand none of us can know the real truth behind the scenes at Arsenal and maybe things are worse than we know... but when you read reports about the main shareholder swimming in increase wealth since the start of this year, it's hard not to see this as greed.
Ultimately we can only have our opinion on the subject because there's no proof either way.
But one thing I fundamentally disagree on is that if the business could keep these people employed then they should.
Shareholders make a lot of money off the back of relatively low paid workers. During the good times, they benefit, so during the bad times they should show a bit of loyalty.
I appreciate not everyone shares that view but it's how I run my business and nothing will convince me that it's wrong.
posted on 10/8/20
Winston
I won't disagree with anything in your previous post. As a unionised member of my workforce I am a big advocate for secure rights and treatment of workers.
The behaviour of shareholders is a difficult subject because (my understanding may be wrong) they are not actually required to put their own money in beyond the purchase of shares. Whilst any of us may see them as greedy or saying they can afford it so they should do it, it doesn't make it happen and businesses need to be able to run themselves.
I have no idea fully about Arsenal's finances but my only reason for commenting was because you had made a claim about this being a purely greedy decision by the board to ensure maintenance of profit. Thos could be true but I just wanted to point out that without any real evidence it was an unfair claim to make.
posted on 10/8/20
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Appreciate that on paper, it can seem that way.
But based on what I know of the majority shareholder and Premier League clubs, as well as the behaviour of big businesses, I don't think it's unfair at all.
Doesn't mean of course that I am saying it's a fact - far from it.
But generally the behaviour of big businesses disgusts me and it is an emotive subject, hence the hyperbolic language.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Appreciate that on paper, it can seem that way.
But based on what I know of the majority shareholder and Premier League clubs, as well as the behaviour of big businesses, I don't think it's unfair at all.
Doesn't mean of course that I am saying it's a fact - far from it.
But generally the behaviour of big businesses disgusts me and it is an emotive subject, hence the hyperbolic language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, and if it transpired that it was true then I would share your attitude.
I just try not to do so if I cannot back it up in case I am wrong.
Out of curiosity what sort of business are you in? (If you don't mind me asking)
posted on 10/8/20
welshpoolfan (U7693)
No problem - I run a small creative agency.
It's all nice and proper not judging people without the full facts, but it gives people an easy ride imo.
The Mike Ashleys, Jeff Bezos and Philip Greens of this world are a problem and I don't need a copy of their accounts to know it.
posted on 10/8/20
Arsenal don't pay shareholder dividends and profits don't go to the owner. We've been making a loss for a few years now, we're selling players to raise money to buy the players we need. Lose a couple of games next season and the fans will be on the boards back telling them to spend some facking money! nobody would remember or care that we kept these 55 jobs on for charitable reasons, at the end of the day this is top level competitive sports.
posted on 10/8/20
"nobody would remember or care that we kept these 55 jobs on for charitable reasons"
I bet the 55 people would remember.
I'm not advocating it as a PR exercise - I'm advocating it as a human decency exercise.
posted on 10/8/20
That's not what the priority of a football club is though, it's harsh but that's the reality. The club is answerable to the fans and if we fail to meet out targets fans won't be won't be giving the club a free pass for keeping those employees on.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
No problem - I run a small creative agency.
It's all nice and proper not judging people without the full facts, but it gives people an easy ride imo.
The Mike Ashleys, Jeff Bezos and Philip Greens of this world are a problem and I don't need a copy of their accounts to know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats cool.
I do agree to an extent, but the people you explicitly list (and their bisinesses) have a very well established history of poor treatment of staff and enforcing bad condition and so it is reasonable to use that as context for any announcements they make. Happily concur that they do not treat their staff well.
As far as I am aware (and I happily admit I could be entirely wrong) Arsenal haven't been found to have been engaging in such practices.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 18 minutes ago
That's not what the priority of a football club is though, it's harsh but that's the reality. The club is answerable to the fans and if we fail to meet out targets fans won't be won't be giving the club a free pass for keeping those employees on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the priority for my business either, yet I've done it.
This isn't a normal situation.
posted on 10/8/20
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Agreed, but I'm sure someone could come along and defend those people based on us not knowing the full facts, if they wanted to.
And they'd be right.
But I do agree there's more of an unknown to this.
posted on 10/8/20
That's your choice and well done to you, but a football club isn't the same a regular business that doesn't have millions of fans to answer to and where the goal is on field sucess and not just profit.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 12 seconds ago
That's your choice and well done to you, but a football club isn't the same a regular business that doesn't have millions of fans to answer to and where the goal is on field sucess and not just profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree with this. Businesses have millions of customers, which is essentially all that fans are from a corporate point of view.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Agreed, but I'm sure someone could come along and defend those people based on us not knowing the full facts, if they wanted to.
And they'd be right.
But I do agree there's more of an unknown to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah fair enough
posted on 10/8/20
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 4 minutes ago
That's your choice and well done to you, but a football club isn't the same a regular business that doesn't have millions of fans to answer to and where the goal is on field sucess and not just profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, two problems with that:
1. If the owner takes the hit then the business needn't necessarily suffer.
2. The idea that 55 staff at Arsenal are the difference between success and failure on the pitch, and would be considered that way by fans, is a bit far fetched imo.
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9