Meanwhile, the PFA have listened to a room where the government is having to rip up its economic philosophy and so much more, throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at dealing with the virus emergency and its consequences, and...
I don't necessarily agree with the school of thought that footballers should be obliged to take a pay cut, but that response from the PFA is just disgusting. Who are they trying to kid?
The Government is throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at this problem and that's their response? Suddenly they're worried about the players not paying enough tax. Yet they didn't say a word when just about every top earning player was setting up "image rights" companies for a little tax dodge, did they?
I can never understand why this country is so obsessed with footballers wages. Doesn’t seem to be the same for top golfers, tennis players, F1 drivers, actors or musicians.
I would guess that more people dream of being a footballer when they are young than any other profession, Premier League players (even if they just warm the bench) are at the apex of that profession, the very top of an industry which generates billions every year, they are going to get big bucks.
I can only imagine that the vilification of footballers for their salaries in contrast to others in comparable professions is because of their predominantly working class backgrounds.
I suspect, like you its exactly because footballers are largely working class. The establishment have cleverly brainwashed us to think that they , the establishment , have a right to wealth, privilege and all that goes with it. The working class' are allowed a few heroes and some titbits from the table but woe-betide any challenge to the status quo. Its exemplifies in the Daily Mail attitude whose readers are made of largely second or third gen working class made good kind of people. They appear desperate to not see the working class succeed. There are few, if any countries in the world where class still matters like GB
As you say no criticism of tennis players or rugby players , or indeed bankers for that matter etc.
As a slight aside this situation has demonstrated starkly how in any business , of whatever size "Cash is King" .
I run a Social Business , turnover circa £9,000,000 . I have had to close down about 35% of our work. That work attracts income largely paid by the public for services , or government grant via the individuals. We are a solid enterprise and I a proud of what we do and the fiscal competence we have demonstrated over many years. We will likely lost approx 30-50k per month ( this net of the furlough income) which although problematic , wont destroy us in the short term as we have cash reserves and investments and borrowing facilities. In the longer term though we need to close the gap or we are finished
I know of other colleagues in my field running similar sized or larger organisations who due to slightly different business models will lose significantly more. One will likely lose £3,000,000 before September. Cash is most certainly king in all business it seems to me.
So whats this got to do with footballers pay etc
A football club has contractual costs it must meet , the most significant being salaries. I assume they still will be receiving some contractual income TV rights , ( who knows) but match day income will have just stopped and cash flow will be severely prejudiced. Most premier clubs are saddled with debt which they will need to service. My guess is that Premiership clubs , like me in my Charity, will be assessing one fundamental thing right now and that is "how long have we got before the cash runs out " and " what action can we undertake to push that date as far into the distance as is possible" Hence Furloughing staff.
Its also true that the supply chains that are linked to football clubs are significant and so indirectly we need the clubs to survive if we arent going to see fallout in the supply chain in the longer term ( I suspect this is inevitable in any event but hey ho ; wicked problems eh)
Remember that huge corporate companies are doing similar. I know the CEO of McDonalds UK and they have furloughed virtually all staff. I think this numbers in six figures.
The tax contribution to the exchequer by footballers is significant. Do bear in mind that any cut in wages will hit the treasury significantly. The tax take is after all funding public services. Perhaps the best solution is a reversion to the 19th century and a strong encouragement to personal philanthropy from those who have the means. That approach produced some of the most radical social change in our countries history
But why do you think Football clubs would not “need the money”?
Other than the exception, surely most Football Clubs are in dire straights right now?
According to Roland, CAFC lose a million pounds a month. That is a ridiculous amount of money. Many may scoff at this figure, as it’s from Roland, however it certainly wasn’t profit making.
Clubs will go under, those furloughing lots of staff included.
Perhaps those clubs are in dire straights because they pay SOME of their staff more than they can afford.
I can never understand why this country is so obsessed with footballers wages. Doesn’t seem to be the same for top golfers, tennis players, F1 drivers, actors or musicians.
I would guess that more people dream of being a footballer when they are young than any other profession, Premier League players (even if they just warm the bench) are at the apex of that profession, the very top of an industry which generates billions every year, they are going to get big bucks.
I can only imagine that the vilification of footballers for their salaries in contrast to others in comparable professions is because of their predominantly working class backgrounds.
Because the tabloid press tell them to be.
With a couple of exceptions, basically, if you are socialist minded, you like Lineker, if you are a Tory, you don't. Some of the right wing even re-writing history to try to back up their opinion.
Oh come on mate, not you as well?!
What the fuck is going on here?
Don't see much wrong with what I have written mate? I said there were exceptions to my "rule", and read comments that are trying to claim he was not a great player. I have not said it applies to everyone. The bit about the tabloids telling a lot of people how to think is indisputable.
So if you like Lineker youre left wing and if you dont you're right wing? "With a couple of exceptions"?
How noble of Premier League footballers to think of the tax man and the NHS by rejecting a pay cut! I'm sure that Clubs would be as equally worried about paying more Corporation Tax as a result of their profits potentially going up
Two simple solutions:
(1) Players take a 20% cut of their NET pay of which half goes to the NHS and the other half goes to cover furloughed staff. On average, a PL footballer will have to "survive" on £32K a week (as opposed to £40K)
(2) As tax is such a big issue might I suggest that when this is over they start paying say 60%?
How would they feel if they missed out on their dream move because all parties dragged their feet for a couple of weeks?
Or, if those working in the NHS decided that they were only going to work so many hours a week or, that they were going to take a couple of weeks sitting on their backsides deciding what hours they were prepared to do? Because that is what the PFA are doing. We have been in shut down for over two weeks. The last time that any of them had to kick a ball in anger was almost four weeks ago!
As I said before this is not just about footballers because any number of millionaires have chosen not to make not just the right decision but one that could be made in a matter of hours and not weeks. A Doctor or Nurse doesn't wait weeks to decide how to treat them after all.
In a world of massively overpaid primadonna's Lineker is up there with the best of them. Fair play though for his salary donation. As much as I detest the bloke it's certainly not something he was obliged to do.
Honestly, how can anyone really 'detest' Lineker. Good player, decent presenter. Dislike maybe, disagree with probably perhaps, but detest seems unnecessarily hateful imho. We're so polarised in this country. Everything is black and white, grey seems to have vanished from the vocabulary.
In a world of massively overpaid primadonna's Lineker is up there with the best of them. Fair play though for his salary donation. As much as I detest the bloke it's certainly not something he was obliged to do.
Honestly, how can anyone really 'detest' Lineker. Good player, decent presenter. Dislike maybe, disagree with probably perhaps, but detest seems unnecessarily hateful imho. We're so polarised in this country. Everything is black and white, grey seems to have vanished from the vocabulary.
I can never understand why this country is so obsessed with footballers wages. Doesn’t seem to be the same for top golfers, tennis players, F1 drivers, actors or musicians.
I would guess that more people dream of being a footballer when they are young than any other profession, Premier League players (even if they just warm the bench) are at the apex of that profession, the very top of an industry which generates billions every year, they are going to get big bucks.
I can only imagine that the vilification of footballers for their salaries in contrast to others in comparable professions is because of their predominantly working class backgrounds.
I suspect, like you its exactly because footballers are largely working class. The establishment have cleverly brainwashed us to think that they , the establishment , have a right to wealth, privilege and all that goes with it. The working class' are allowed a few heroes and some titbits from the table but woe-betide any challenge to the status quo. Its exemplifies in the Daily Mail attitude whose readers are made of largely second or third gen working class made good kind of people. They appear desperate to not see the working class succeed. There are few, if any countries in the world where class still matters like GB
As you say no criticism of tennis players or rugby players , or indeed bankers for that matter etc.
Tennis players earn prize money, if you don't play and win you get nothing unlike footballers who are on regular salaries Rugby players don't earn the sums footballers do. Indeed the rugby premiership has a salary cap Banks aren't furloughing their lower paid workers. And aren't in an entertainment industry where the public directly pay their wages (through tickets or TV subscriptions)
£200k a month footballer...... tax = £100k reduce that to £100k ......tax = £50k
if football club making money , funnily enough on these joke wages and inflated fees they all don’t
the £100k profit for company at corporation tax of 19% = £19k ..
from that £200k tax man gets £100k or £69k 🤷♂️
the football club paying the furloughed staff is more the issue .
the crazy wages have always been crazy not just now cos the World is going skint
I’m no tax expert and could be completely wrong but this is how I see it and it seems the PFA have read what I said on CL earlier and used my line ....
Lineker doesn't come across as being stupid. Tweeting about bien pensant causes when you work for an organisation like the BBC isn't going to do his future employment prospects any harm.
£200k a month footballer...... tax = £100k reduce that to £100k ......tax = £50k
if football club making money , funnily enough on these joke wages and inflated fees they all don’t
the £100k profit for company at corporation tax of 19% = £19k ..
from that £200k tax man gets £100k or £69k 🤷♂️
the football club paying the furloughed staff is more the issue .
the crazy wages have always been crazy not just now cos the World is going skint
I’m no tax expert and could be completely wrong but this is how I see it and it seems the PFA have read what I said on CL earlier and used my line ....
That being the case, why have they not come up with my idea of giving away say 20% of their net pay? Using your £100k figure that would mean them losing £20K but still taking home £80K a week! Most people could survive on that.
The real issues are one the furlough of non playing workers but, as importantly, the fact that they are taking so long to agree to something - and then coming out with the fact that they would be denying the NHS tax as an excuse but offering nothing concrete in mitigation.
They've been sitting on their backsides for over 3 weeks during which time a hospital has been built from scratch, Barcleona have agreed a 70% cut in wages and clubs have managed to furlough their staff. My understanding is that this meeting yesterday lasted one hour!!!
I have not heard of a single Union that has come out and argued with an employer that a company should furlough their staff. And they shouldn't either because it is all about protecting jobs. And yet footballers have a Union that refuses to come to a meaningful decision in what has been almost a month since their members have had to work.
They wouldn't need a month to agree to a uniformal 20% pay increase would they - especially given the extra amount that they would be paying extra in tax that could then fund the NHS. Perhaps that's the solution they are looking for!
£200k a month footballer...... tax = £100k reduce that to £100k ......tax = £50k
if football club making money , funnily enough on these joke wages and inflated fees they all don’t
the £100k profit for company at corporation tax of 19% = £19k ..
from that £200k tax man gets £100k or £69k 🤷♂️
the football club paying the furloughed staff is more the issue .
the crazy wages have always been crazy not just now cos the World is going skint
I’m no tax expert and could be completely wrong but this is how I see it and it seems the PFA have read what I said on CL earlier and used my line ....
That being the case, why have they not come up with my idea of giving away say 20% of their net pay? Using your £100k figure that would mean them losing £20K but still taking home £80K a week! Most people could survive on that.
The real issues are one the furlough of non playing workers but, as importantly, the fact that they are taking so long to agree to something - and then coming out with the fact that they would be denying the NHS tax as an excuse but offering nothing concrete in mitigation.
They've been sitting on their backsides for over 3 weeks during which time a hospital has been built from scratch, Barcleona have agreed a 70% cut in wages and clubs have managed to furlough their staff. My understanding is that this meeting yesterday lasted one hour!!!
I have not heard of a single Union that has come out and argued with an employer that a company should furlough their staff. And they shouldn't either because it is all about protecting jobs. And yet footballers have a Union that refuses to come to a meaningful decision in what has been almost a month since their members have had to work.
They wouldn't need a month to agree to a uniformal 20% pay increase would they - especially given the extra amount that they would be paying extra in tax that could then fund the NHS. Perhaps that's the solution they are looking for!
I think that’s what they should do. Let the tax man take the large sums because that’s going to a good cause right now.
But I would love them to put money into a pot, at the very least for all the furloughed staff at the clubs.
How noble of Premier League footballers to think of the tax man and the NHS by rejecting a pay cut! I'm sure that Clubs would be as equally worried about paying more Corporation Tax as a result of their profits potentially going up
Two simple solutions:
(1) Players take a 20% cut of their NET pay of which half goes to the NHS and the other half goes to cover furloughed staff. On average, a PL footballer will have to "survive" on £32K a week (as opposed to £40K)
(2) As tax is such a big issue might I suggest that when this is over they start paying say 60%?
How would they feel if they missed out on their dream move because all parties dragged their feet for a couple of weeks?
Or, if those working in the NHS decided that they were only going to work so many hours a week or, that they were going to take a couple of weeks sitting on their backsides deciding what hours they were prepared to do? Because that is what the PFA are doing. We have been in shut down for over two weeks. The last time that any of them had to kick a ball in anger was almost four weeks ago!
As I said before this is not just about footballers because any number of millionaires have chosen not to make not just the right decision but one that could be made in a matter of hours and not weeks. A Doctor or Nurse doesn't wait weeks to decide how to treat them after all.
How noble of Premier League footballers to think of the tax man and the NHS by rejecting a pay cut! I'm sure that Clubs would be as equally worried about paying more Corporation Tax as a result of their profits potentially going up
Two simple solutions:
(1) Players take a 20% cut of their NET pay of which half goes to the NHS and the other half goes to cover furloughed staff. On average, a PL footballer will have to "survive" on £32K a week (as opposed to £40K)
(2) As tax is such a big issue might I suggest that when this is over they start paying say 60%?
How would they feel if they missed out on their dream move because all parties dragged their feet for a couple of weeks?
Or, if those working in the NHS decided that they were only going to work so many hours a week or, that they were going to take a couple of weeks sitting on their backsides deciding what hours they were prepared to do? Because that is what the PFA are doing. We have been in shut down for over two weeks. The last time that any of them had to kick a ball in anger was almost four weeks ago!
As I said before this is not just about footballers because any number of millionaires have chosen not to make not just the right decision but one that could be made in a matter of hours and not weeks. A Doctor or Nurse doesn't wait weeks to decide how to treat them after all.
Over to you Gary Lineker!
Counting other people’s money is easy, isn’t it?
Very, but doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do.
How noble of Premier League footballers to think of the tax man and the NHS by rejecting a pay cut! I'm sure that Clubs would be as equally worried about paying more Corporation Tax as a result of their profits potentially going up
Two simple solutions:
(1) Players take a 20% cut of their NET pay of which half goes to the NHS and the other half goes to cover furloughed staff. On average, a PL footballer will have to "survive" on £32K a week (as opposed to £40K)
(2) As tax is such a big issue might I suggest that when this is over they start paying say 60%?
How would they feel if they missed out on their dream move because all parties dragged their feet for a couple of weeks?
Or, if those working in the NHS decided that they were only going to work so many hours a week or, that they were going to take a couple of weeks sitting on their backsides deciding what hours they were prepared to do? Because that is what the PFA are doing. We have been in shut down for over two weeks. The last time that any of them had to kick a ball in anger was almost four weeks ago!
As I said before this is not just about footballers because any number of millionaires have chosen not to make not just the right decision but one that could be made in a matter of hours and not weeks. A Doctor or Nurse doesn't wait weeks to decide how to treat them after all.
Over to you Gary Lineker!
Counting other people’s money is easy, isn’t it?
As is counting and protecting ones own money whilst other people are unnecessarily being furloughed or, even worse, dying
£200k a month footballer...... tax = £100k reduce that to £100k ......tax = £50k
if football club making money , funnily enough on these joke wages and inflated fees they all don’t
the £100k profit for company at corporation tax of 19% = £19k ..
from that £200k tax man gets £100k or £69k 🤷♂️
the football club paying the furloughed staff is more the issue .
the crazy wages have always been crazy not just now cos the World is going skint
I’m no tax expert and could be completely wrong but this is how I see it and it seems the PFA have read what I said on CL earlier and used my line ....
That being the case, why have they not come up with my idea of giving away say 20% of their net pay? Using your £100k figure that would mean them losing £20K but still taking home £80K a week! Most people could survive on that.
The real issues are one the furlough of non playing workers but, as importantly, the fact that they are taking so long to agree to something - and then coming out with the fact that they would be denying the NHS tax as an excuse but offering nothing concrete in mitigation.
They've been sitting on their backsides for over 3 weeks during which time a hospital has been built from scratch, Barcleona have agreed a 70% cut in wages and clubs have managed to furlough their staff. My understanding is that this meeting yesterday lasted one hour!!!
I have not heard of a single Union that has come out and argued with an employer that a company should furlough their staff. And they shouldn't either because it is all about protecting jobs. And yet footballers have a Union that refuses to come to a meaningful decision in what has been almost a month since their members have had to work.
They wouldn't need a month to agree to a uniformal 20% pay increase would they - especially given the extra amount that they would be paying extra in tax that could then fund the NHS. Perhaps that's the solution they are looking for!
Who knows how much philanthropy is done or not by these players but I don’t think it’s for anyone but themselves how to decide what to do with their earnings . Of course we can all wish what we’d like everyone to do .
How noble of Premier League footballers to think of the tax man and the NHS by rejecting a pay cut! I'm sure that Clubs would be as equally worried about paying more Corporation Tax as a result of their profits potentially going up
Two simple solutions:
(1) Players take a 20% cut of their NET pay of which half goes to the NHS and the other half goes to cover furloughed staff. On average, a PL footballer will have to "survive" on £32K a week (as opposed to £40K)
(2) As tax is such a big issue might I suggest that when this is over they start paying say 60%?
How would they feel if they missed out on their dream move because all parties dragged their feet for a couple of weeks?
Or, if those working in the NHS decided that they were only going to work so many hours a week or, that they were going to take a couple of weeks sitting on their backsides deciding what hours they were prepared to do? Because that is what the PFA are doing. We have been in shut down for over two weeks. The last time that any of them had to kick a ball in anger was almost four weeks ago!
As I said before this is not just about footballers because any number of millionaires have chosen not to make not just the right decision but one that could be made in a matter of hours and not weeks. A Doctor or Nurse doesn't wait weeks to decide how to treat them after all.
Over to you Gary Lineker!
Counting other people’s money is easy, isn’t it?
As is counting and protecting ones own money whilst other people are unnecessarily being furloughed or, even worse, dying
I mean, you’re literally coming up with the percentages that other people should pay. It’s a bit much.
Are you going to do a breakdown of the percentages that every demographic in society should be contributing from their salaries or just focusing on footballers for today?
£200k a month footballer...... tax = £100k reduce that to £100k ......tax = £50k
if football club making money , funnily enough on these joke wages and inflated fees they all don’t
the £100k profit for company at corporation tax of 19% = £19k ..
from that £200k tax man gets £100k or £69k 🤷♂️
the football club paying the furloughed staff is more the issue .
the crazy wages have always been crazy not just now cos the World is going skint
I’m no tax expert and could be completely wrong but this is how I see it and it seems the PFA have read what I said on CL earlier and used my line ....
That being the case, why have they not come up with my idea of giving away say 20% of their net pay? Using your £100k figure that would mean them losing £20K but still taking home £80K a week! Most people could survive on that.
The real issues are one the furlough of non playing workers but, as importantly, the fact that they are taking so long to agree to something - and then coming out with the fact that they would be denying the NHS tax as an excuse but offering nothing concrete in mitigation.
They've been sitting on their backsides for over 3 weeks during which time a hospital has been built from scratch, Barcleona have agreed a 70% cut in wages and clubs have managed to furlough their staff. My understanding is that this meeting yesterday lasted one hour!!!
I have not heard of a single Union that has come out and argued with an employer that a company should furlough their staff. And they shouldn't either because it is all about protecting jobs. And yet footballers have a Union that refuses to come to a meaningful decision in what has been almost a month since their members have had to work.
They wouldn't need a month to agree to a uniformal 20% pay increase would they - especially given the extra amount that they would be paying extra in tax that could then fund the NHS. Perhaps that's the solution they are looking for!
Who knows how much philanthropy is done or not by these players but I don’t think it’s for anyone but themselves how to decide what to do with their earnings . Of course we can all wish what we’d like everyone to do .
And I don't disagree with any of that. But footballers are not being forced to take any pay cut. Those being furloughed (and on a reduced wage in the case of Spurs and Newcastle amongst others) are working for the very same company as them. Are we also forgetting that the maximum furlough benefit is £2,500 per month so those earning more are not losing 20% but facing a massive reduction in income?
I don't work and haven't done so for five years. I worked non stop for 38 years from the age of 17 and was lucky to be able to do so. My main issue is one of health and the need to ferry my son here there and everywhere but I have never sought to claim (even if I could) a single penny of any unemployment benefits in that time. Any work I have undertaken has been on purely a voluntary basis. Any contributions that I make to charity has been from my own savings and not from those of my wife who does her own thing in that regard.
We are, however, in an extremely fortunate situation that my wife is on a very good salary. The company she works for has chosen not to furlough a single individual but that employer is, like most, losing serious money right now. So they have decided to reduce the salary of anyone earning more than £50K per annum. My wife is included in that and neither she nor any of those in that position has any right to complain about it. She still works a full day from home starting at 7.30am.
So why are clubs not doing the same thing? Why are the poorest workers being forced to take a pay cut but the richest ones not? Why does the tax argument (albeit at 25%) of making the poorest take a reduction not hold the same water?
I have no doubt whatsoever that many footballers are doing their own thing so far as charity is concerned. But that is purely voluntary. Many people in society are doing the same thing as evidenced by the tremendous response to fund raising for Seb's statue. And many of those are on reduced salary.
Actors, tennis players, golfers etc etc are self-employed. No work no pay. Footballers aren't. In fact, they are currently being paid not to work. If it wasn't for the ticket collectors, cleaners, stewards, scouts, marketing workers etc etc and those that pay for tickets or subscribe to Sky, BT etc etc footballers wouldn't even have a job. And Clubs wouldn't exist.
Someone has to bang the heads of the Chairmen of Clubs and footballers together.
Reducing football players wages might help clubs survive at a time when their incomes may be reduced, but it decreases tax revenues. Surely one solution is to introduce emergency tax rises on anyone earning over 150k:
150-200k 50%
200k + 60%
And a windfall tax on the lines of Amazon and Google, who get away with seemingly paying zilch.
How noble of Premier League footballers to think of the tax man and the NHS by rejecting a pay cut! I'm sure that Clubs would be as equally worried about paying more Corporation Tax as a result of their profits potentially going up
Two simple solutions:
(1) Players take a 20% cut of their NET pay of which half goes to the NHS and the other half goes to cover furloughed staff. On average, a PL footballer will have to "survive" on £32K a week (as opposed to £40K)
(2) As tax is such a big issue might I suggest that when this is over they start paying say 60%?
How would they feel if they missed out on their dream move because all parties dragged their feet for a couple of weeks?
Or, if those working in the NHS decided that they were only going to work so many hours a week or, that they were going to take a couple of weeks sitting on their backsides deciding what hours they were prepared to do? Because that is what the PFA are doing. We have been in shut down for over two weeks. The last time that any of them had to kick a ball in anger was almost four weeks ago!
As I said before this is not just about footballers because any number of millionaires have chosen not to make not just the right decision but one that could be made in a matter of hours and not weeks. A Doctor or Nurse doesn't wait weeks to decide how to treat them after all.
Over to you Gary Lineker!
Counting other people’s money is easy, isn’t it?
As is counting and protecting ones own money whilst other people are unnecessarily being furloughed or, even worse, dying
I mean, you’re literally coming up with the percentages that other people should pay. It’s a bit much.
Are you going to do a breakdown of the percentages that every demographic in society should be contributing from their salaries or just focusing on footballers for today?
The starting point for these figures was the amount that the non playing workers have lost due to the cuts as a result of being furloughed and how much footballers would have to contribute to make up that shortfall.
Anything would be better than nothing. And footballers, unlike the poorest paid workers, are not being made to give up a penny. They live in a bubble and are protected by the Boards of the Clubs and the PFA who are have failed to come up with a thing. They gave up a whole one hour of their time to discuss this. Wow! What an effort!
I can never understand why this country is so obsessed with footballers wages. Doesn’t seem to be the same for top golfers, tennis players, F1 drivers, actors or musicians.
I would guess that more people dream of being a footballer when they are young than any other profession, Premier League players (even if they just warm the bench) are at the apex of that profession, the very top of an industry which generates billions every year, they are going to get big bucks.
I can only imagine that the vilification of footballers for their salaries in contrast to others in comparable professions is because of their predominantly working class backgrounds.
Because the tabloid press tell them to be.
With a couple of exceptions, basically, if you are socialist minded, you like Lineker, if you are a Tory, you don't. Some of the right wing even re-writing history to try to back up their opinion.
significant difference to golfers, tennis, artistes of all kinds currently have no earnings from performing their 'day jobs', sponsorship/endorsement contracts aside. The vast majority of professional footballers across the spectrum are still receiving all their contract salaries
Meanwhile, the PFA have listened to a room where the government is having to rip up its economic philosophy and so much more, throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at dealing with the virus emergency and its consequences, and...
I don't necessarily agree with the school of thought that footballers should be obliged to take a pay cut, but that response from the PFA is just disgusting. Who are they trying to kid?
The Government is throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at this problem and that's their response? Suddenly they're worried about the players not paying enough tax. Yet they didn't say a word when just about every top earning player was setting up "image rights" companies for a little tax dodge, did they?
This with bells on.
This reeks of that wretched craven profiteer martinet Gordon Taylor. Footballers should no more be dictated to than any other, true. Some of them earn more in a week than almost all of us do in a year, so what?
The line from the PFA that gives away its hollow hollow dishonesty in this: "...will reduce the money going to the NHS..." Absofuckinglutely appalling shallow horseshit of the lowest order. 1) what arrogance suggests that anybody at the PFA has the first fucking idea about fiscal policy or politics at all? 2) what lunacy suggests that the PFA has any role in deciding what the Treasury spends our money on? 3) the Government has just committed billions upon billions to the relief effort, business support, etc, etc - £200M p.a. isn't even a drop in the national bucket in a normal year, let alone now.
If there was an atom of sincerity in the PFA executive, all they had to say was "we're in discussions, we want to come to a consensus, it won't be today, we'll do it as quickly as we can, the members particularly want to understand that their contribution has the best impact in the areas of most concern" but no they concoct an utterly self-defeating dribble of rancid bullshit, as I said Gordon grasping Taylor all over. He ranks right down with the loathsome profiteering scum: Levy, Ashley, Green, the yank wankers that own Liverpool etc
When Wayne Rooney is making more sense than the world's most highly paid union official ever, that union needs a root and branch cleanout.
Meanwhile, the PFA have listened to a room where the government is having to rip up its economic philosophy and so much more, throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at dealing with the virus emergency and its consequences, and...
I don't necessarily agree with the school of thought that footballers should be obliged to take a pay cut, but that response from the PFA is just disgusting. Who are they trying to kid?
The Government is throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at this problem and that's their response? Suddenly they're worried about the players not paying enough tax. Yet they didn't say a word when just about every top earning player was setting up "image rights" companies for a little tax dodge, did they?
This with bells on.
This reeks of that wretched craven profiteer martinet Gordon Taylor. Footballers should no more be dictated to than any other, true. Some of them earn more in a week than almost all of us do in a year, so what?
The line from the PFA that gives away its hollow hollow dishonesty in this: "...will reduce the money going to the NHS..." Absofuckinglutely appalling shallow horseshit of the lowest order. 1) what arrogance suggests that anybody at the PFA has the first fucking idea about fiscal policy or politics at all? 2) what lunacy suggests that the PFA has any role in deciding what the Treasury spends our money on? 3) the Government has just committed billions upon billions to the relief effort, business support, etc, etc - £200M p.a. isn't even a drop in the national bucket in a normal year, let alone now.
If there was an atom of sincerity in the PFA executive, all they had to say was "we're in discussions, we want to come to a consensus, it won't be today, we'll do it as quickly as we can, the members particularly want to understand that their contribution has the best impact in the areas of most concern" but no they concoct an utterly self-defeating dribble of rancid bullshit, as I said Gordon grasping Taylor all over. He ranks right down with the loathsome profiteering scum: Levy, Ashley, Green, the yank wankers that own Liverpool etc
When Wayne Rooney is making more sense than the world's most highly paid union official ever, that union needs a root and branch cleanout.
Except Rooney was one of those who did try to avoid paying tax
Tottenham's decision to furlough 550 non-playing staff at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly £3 million is disgraceful for a club that made a profit of £113 million last season and paid its chief executive £7 million. I'd expect nothing more from Levy, who appears to have a different world view than most people (I believe he is also deploying some of the club's ground staff to work on his Hertfordshire estate, albeit at his cost, I understand). Liverpool went down the same route with their non-playing staff but reversed it following a storm of protest from their fans and a realisation that the £2.25 million they would save over 3 months would be far outweighed by damage to 'the brand' (as I believe it's now called).
As to the players, those in the Premier League are a soft target, given their high profile and the fact that they are young, mostly working class guys earning huge sums (something which is bound to spark envy). It's also always handy for a government to do a bit of finger pointing to deflect attention away from other issues.
As nakedly self-serving as the PFA's statement was, the tax issue is a legitimate one, as it equates to 45% less in tax receipts at a time when public finances are under intolerable strain. More fundamentally, given that the estimated wealth of the Premier League owners is put at around £80 billion, you have to ask who would benefit from wage reductions other than the owners. I can see why the players are being circumspect about agreeing big wage reductions unless and until there is some sort of structure whereby the money in question finds its way to the right beneficiaries, rather than relieving wealthy owners of the need to fund their clubs over the next five or six months. Not all Premier League clubs are in that position, of course, and some accommodations will have to be reached with the players but this is not a case of 'one size fits all'.
The Premier League captains have set up a charity fund, the PFA are separately donating £1 million and even the odious Gordon Taylor is making a personal donation of £500,000. I doubt that it will stem the flow of criticism, especially with people like Ashley and Levy pouring petrol on the fire, but there is a populist edge to a lot of the criticism being aimed at players.
Comments
She hated the publicity stuff, especially while George was sick, and since then has lived a normal, private life.
The Government is throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at this problem and that's their response? Suddenly they're worried about the players not paying enough tax. Yet they didn't say a word when just about every top earning player was setting up "image rights" companies for a little tax dodge, did they?
As you say no criticism of tennis players or rugby players , or indeed bankers for that matter etc.
I run a Social Business , turnover circa £9,000,000 . I have had to close down about 35% of our work. That work attracts income largely paid by the public for services , or government grant via the individuals. We are a solid enterprise and I a proud of what we do and the fiscal competence we have demonstrated over many years. We will likely lost approx 30-50k per month ( this net of the furlough income) which although problematic , wont destroy us in the short term as we have cash reserves and investments and borrowing facilities. In the longer term though we need to close the gap or we are finished
I know of other colleagues in my field running similar sized or larger organisations who due to slightly different business models will lose significantly more. One will likely lose £3,000,000 before September. Cash is most certainly king in all business it seems to me.
So whats this got to do with footballers pay etc
A football club has contractual costs it must meet , the most significant being salaries. I assume they still will be receiving some contractual income TV rights , ( who knows) but match day income will have just stopped and cash flow will be severely prejudiced. Most premier clubs are saddled with debt which they will need to service. My guess is that Premiership clubs , like me in my Charity, will be assessing one fundamental thing right now and that is "how long have we got before the cash runs out " and " what action can we undertake to push that date as far into the distance as is possible" Hence Furloughing staff.
Its also true that the supply chains that are linked to football clubs are significant and so indirectly we need the clubs to survive if we arent going to see fallout in the supply chain in the longer term ( I suspect this is inevitable in any event but hey ho ; wicked problems eh)
Remember that huge corporate companies are doing similar. I know the CEO of McDonalds UK and they have furloughed virtually all staff. I think this numbers in six figures.
The tax contribution to the exchequer by footballers is significant. Do bear in mind that any cut in wages will hit the treasury significantly. The tax take is after all funding public services. Perhaps the best solution is a reversion to the 19th century and a strong encouragement to personal philanthropy from those who have the means. That approach produced some of the most radical social change in our countries history
Two simple solutions:
(1) Players take a 20% cut of their NET pay of which half goes to the NHS and the other half goes to cover furloughed staff. On average, a PL footballer will have to "survive" on £32K a week (as opposed to £40K)
(2) As tax is such a big issue might I suggest that when this is over they start paying say 60%?
How would they feel if they missed out on their dream move because all parties dragged their feet for a couple of weeks?
Or, if those working in the NHS decided that they were only going to work so many hours a week or, that they were going to take a couple of weeks sitting on their backsides deciding what hours they were prepared to do? Because that is what the PFA are doing. We have been in shut down for over two weeks. The last time that any of them had to kick a ball in anger was almost four weeks ago!
As I said before this is not just about footballers because any number of millionaires have chosen not to make not just the right decision but one that could be made in a matter of hours and not weeks. A Doctor or Nurse doesn't wait weeks to decide how to treat them after all.
Over to you Gary Lineker!
Rich clubs furloughing staff wasn't a good look regardless of if they are allowed to.
The Matt Hancock comments came about because he was asked about footballers particularl in the news briefing.
He probably just answered on the hop with no thought of mentioning all the other multi millionaires around.
Whoever came up with that statement should be the next CEO at Sunderland.
Rugby players don't earn the sums footballers do. Indeed the rugby premiership has a salary cap
Banks aren't furloughing their lower paid workers. And aren't in an entertainment industry where the public directly pay their wages (through tickets or TV subscriptions)
reduce that to £100k ......tax = £50k
if football club making money , funnily enough on these joke wages and inflated fees they all don’t
the £100k profit for company at corporation tax of 19% = £19k ..
from that £200k tax man gets £100k or £69k 🤷♂️
the football club paying the furloughed staff is more the issue .
the crazy wages have always been crazy not just now cos the World is going skint
I’m no tax expert and could be completely wrong but this is how I see it and it seems the PFA have read what I said on CL earlier and used my line ....
The real issues are one the furlough of non playing workers but, as importantly, the fact that they are taking so long to agree to something - and then coming out with the fact that they would be denying the NHS tax as an excuse but offering nothing concrete in mitigation.
They've been sitting on their backsides for over 3 weeks during which time a hospital has been built from scratch, Barcleona have agreed a 70% cut in wages and clubs have managed to furlough their staff. My understanding is that this meeting yesterday lasted one hour!!!
I have not heard of a single Union that has come out and argued with an employer that a company should furlough their staff. And they shouldn't either because it is all about protecting jobs. And yet footballers have a Union that refuses to come to a meaningful decision in what has been almost a month since their members have had to work.
They wouldn't need a month to agree to a uniformal 20% pay increase would they - especially given the extra amount that they would be paying extra in tax that could then fund the NHS. Perhaps that's the solution they are looking for!
I don't work and haven't done so for five years. I worked non stop for 38 years from the age of 17 and was lucky to be able to do so. My main issue is one of health and the need to ferry my son here there and everywhere but I have never sought to claim (even if I could) a single penny of any unemployment benefits in that time. Any work I have undertaken has been on purely a voluntary basis. Any contributions that I make to charity has been from my own savings and not from those of my wife who does her own thing in that regard.
We are, however, in an extremely fortunate situation that my wife is on a very good salary. The company she works for has chosen not to furlough a single individual but that employer is, like most, losing serious money right now. So they have decided to reduce the salary of anyone earning more than £50K per annum. My wife is included in that and neither she nor any of those in that position has any right to complain about it. She still works a full day from home starting at 7.30am.
So why are clubs not doing the same thing? Why are the poorest workers being forced to take a pay cut but the richest ones not? Why does the tax argument (albeit at 25%) of making the poorest take a reduction not hold the same water?
I have no doubt whatsoever that many footballers are doing their own thing so far as charity is concerned. But that is purely voluntary. Many people in society are doing the same thing as evidenced by the tremendous response to fund raising for Seb's statue. And many of those are on reduced salary.
Actors, tennis players, golfers etc etc are self-employed. No work no pay. Footballers aren't. In fact, they are currently being paid not to work. If it wasn't for the ticket collectors, cleaners, stewards, scouts, marketing workers etc etc and those that pay for tickets or subscribe to Sky, BT etc etc footballers wouldn't even have a job. And Clubs wouldn't exist.
Someone has to bang the heads of the Chairmen of Clubs and footballers together.
Anything would be better than nothing. And footballers, unlike the poorest paid workers, are not being made to give up a penny. They live in a bubble and are protected by the Boards of the Clubs and the PFA who are have failed to come up with a thing. They gave up a whole one hour of their time to discuss this. Wow! What an effort!
This reeks of that wretched craven profiteer martinet Gordon Taylor.
Footballers should no more be dictated to than any other, true.
Some of them earn more in a week than almost all of us do in a year, so what?
The line from the PFA that gives away its hollow hollow dishonesty in this: "...will reduce the money going to the NHS..."
Absofuckinglutely appalling shallow horseshit of the lowest order.
1) what arrogance suggests that anybody at the PFA has the first fucking idea about fiscal policy or politics at all?
2) what lunacy suggests that the PFA has any role in deciding what the Treasury spends our money on?
3) the Government has just committed billions upon billions to the relief effort, business support, etc, etc - £200M p.a. isn't even a drop in the national bucket in a normal year, let alone now.
If there was an atom of sincerity in the PFA executive, all they had to say was "we're in discussions, we want to come to a consensus, it won't be today, we'll do it as quickly as we can, the members particularly want to understand that their contribution has the best impact in the areas of most concern" but no they concoct an utterly self-defeating dribble of rancid bullshit, as I said Gordon grasping Taylor all over. He ranks right down with the loathsome profiteering scum: Levy, Ashley, Green, the yank wankers that own Liverpool etc
When Wayne Rooney is making more sense than the world's most highly paid union official ever, that union needs a root and branch cleanout.
Build up with Des and everything.
That's me for the afternoon
As to the players, those in the Premier League are a soft target, given their high profile and the fact that they are young, mostly working class guys earning huge sums (something which is bound to spark envy). It's also always handy for a government to do a bit of finger pointing to deflect attention away from other issues.
As nakedly self-serving as the PFA's statement was, the tax issue is a legitimate one, as it equates to 45% less in tax receipts at a time when public finances are under intolerable strain. More fundamentally, given that the estimated wealth of the Premier League owners is put at around £80 billion, you have to ask who would benefit from wage reductions other than the owners. I can see why the players are being circumspect about agreeing big wage reductions unless and until there is some sort of structure whereby the money in question finds its way to the right beneficiaries, rather than relieving wealthy owners of the need to fund their clubs over the next five or six months. Not all Premier League clubs are in that position, of course, and some accommodations will have to be reached with the players but this is not a case of 'one size fits all'.
The Premier League captains have set up a charity fund, the PFA are separately donating £1 million and even the odious Gordon Taylor is making a personal donation of £500,000. I doubt that it will stem the flow of criticism, especially with people like Ashley and Levy pouring petrol on the fire, but there is a populist edge to a lot of the criticism being aimed at players.
There was an interesting discussion about these issues on 'The Price of Football' podcast, which I think is worth a listen - https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2lzdG9yLmZtL3ByaWNlLW9mLWZvb3RiYWxs&episode=Yjg2ZmZmNTAtNDhiZS00ZmQ2LTgyYTItN2JmZjk0Y2UyOWVl&hl=en-GB&ved=2ahUKEwi5pozhkuPoAhVHUBUIHTXFAmwQjrkEegQIChAE&ep=6