Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton furlough staff
Comments
-
northstandsteve said:
Maybe you should try running a business during the current pandemic then you would see how utterly ridiculous that statement is.ricky_otto said:
Because it’s the right thing to do - let’s not forget how many times they have been shit upon in the past we well.MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.
I must buy you a pint next time I go to The Valley.
0 -
I get this. But theoretically we're owned by a man with a lot of money. So why isn't he offering to top up the remaining 20%? You know, since he's "Red Army" and all that.bobmunro said:The furlough scheme is designed to protect jobs that would otherwise have been made redundant. Redundancy: work of that nature has diminished or ceased at that location.Why would anyone be against any organisation using a scheme to protect jobs, rather than throw people out of work? Why is a football club different to a restaurant, pub, hairdressers et al?We are not talking about £50k a week footballers here - these are operational staff, many of whom would not be on much more than the minimum wage.
This is not a question for you Bob, more a rhetorical one.2 -
Henry Irving said:
I really don't think it shows that at all.Croydon said:
Because we're meant to be backed by rich owners who are ready to invest in the club. This is just further evidence that they're potless.bobmunro said:The furlough scheme is designed to protect jobs that would otherwise have been made redundant. Redundancy: work of that nature has diminished or ceased at that location.Why would anyone be against any organisation using a scheme to protect jobs, rather than throw people out of work? Why is a football club different to a restaurant, pub, hairdressers et al?We are not talking about £50k a week footballers here - these are operational staff, many of whom would not be on much more than the minimum wage.
QPR, Derby, Millwall and I don't know how many other championship clubs furloughed staff weeks ago.
It's the logical decision to make as the HR director for Stoke City has said on this thread.
I don't think the use of the scheme in its self proves anything either way about Charlton as we far from unique.
Not paying the 20% perhaps does but I'm not sure how that will work out as yet or what other clubs are doing.Yes it is the logical decision for the vast majority of clubs who operate as stand alone businesses. It would be unfair to the staff not to do so if the club simply do not have the cash flow to pay wages.Stoke City are not stand alone and are part of a very profitable group - and as such we have taken the decision to take the hit, rather than the taxpayer, and to not furlough any staff. Full contractual salary has been guaranteed for every employee until September, by when hopefully things will be getting back to some form of normal.That's our decision but I can fully understand the decision taken by CAFC and other clubs.9 -
I can’t see why some people think it’s wrong . It’s a sensible decision that most firms have had to make .4
-
Can’t see the problem myself, just surprised it hasn’t happened sooner.1
-
Agree with others that its a sensible decision, yet people are using it to attack the club read the responses to that tweet and pretty much all of them are saying it proves TN has no money.
Does it?
Or is he trying to be sensible and not lose any extra money with no revenue currently coming in.0 -
Or course it doesn't prove it but can anyone say with confidence that they expect money to be put in? I'd say it's looking extremely unlikely.paulie8290 said:Agree with others that its a sensible decision, yet people are using it to attack the club read the responses to that tweet and pretty much all of them are saying it proves TN has no money.
Does it?
Or is he trying to be sensible and not lose any extra money with no revenue currently coming in.1 -
let's get real here, there are many companies furloughing staff and not toping up the wages, not pleasant for the staff on furlough but better than being made redundant which is the other option for companies with no income but still have overheads.0
-
Where should the money for the extra 20% come from considering there's currently no income coming in to the business?ricky_otto said:
Because it’s the right thing to do - let’s not forget how many times they have been shit upon in the past we well.MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.0 -
Out of interest, does anybody know if the government scheme actually allows firms to not pay the 20% when the government is paying 80% ? Surely the intention is to pay 80% of the wages, which charlton are now saying are only 80% of what they were.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Our company have now furloughed 11 members of staff. I’d like to be furloughed but they see me as an essential staff member. I believe that on furlough you are in reality no worse off. Savings on buying lunch, coffees, petrol or other travel and other incidentals plus savings on things like Sky subscriptions etc without taking into account mortgage holidays and most people’s jobs will be there for them at the end of this.lancashire lad said:let's get real here, there are many companies furloughing staff and not toping up the wages, not pleasant for the staff on furlough but better than being made redundant which is the other option for companies with no income but still have overheads.2 -
I find it strange that the medical department have been specified as included in the furlough.Surely with players on self training programmes, then their fitness should be monitored, even if remotely looking at data, and any niggles/injuries assessed and programmes adjusted.
also unclear whether the ground staff are included. You won be able to get pitches and training areas up to scratch overnight if they are left unmaintained for a month or 2. Also not sure that all players have adequate accommodation to undertake the programmes. I know Lyle Taylor has been seen out (on his own) on the pitches at the training ground.0 -
I do know that if Southall hadn’t gone on his spending spree there would be a hell of a lot of money available to have covered the 20% that people are missing out on - for how long, I don’t know. Obviously if there is no source of income you can’t just find money. It just seems a bit unjust that money was squandered that could have been put to better use.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Where should the money for the extra 20% come from considering there's currently no income coming in to the business?ricky_otto said:
Because it’s the right thing to do - let’s not forget how many times they have been shit upon in the past we well.MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.2 -
letthegoodtimesroll said:Out of interest, does anybody know if the government scheme actually allows firms to not pay the 20% when the government is paying 80% ? Surely the intention is to pay 80% of the wages, which charlton are now saying are only 80% of what they were.
There is no obligation for the employer to top-up the 20%, although many will be doing so if cash flow allows.
0 -
The extra 20% is an optional top up at the discretion of the employerletthegoodtimesroll said:Out of interest, does anybody know if the government scheme actually allows firms to not pay the 20% when the government is paying 80% ? Surely the intention is to pay 80% of the wages, which charlton are now saying are only 80% of what they were.0 -
Completely the right decision from the club3
-
and many won’t even if cash flow does allow as they will just see it as an excuse to save money.bobmunro said:letthegoodtimesroll said:Out of interest, does anybody know if the government scheme actually allows firms to not pay the 20% when the government is paying 80% ? Surely the intention is to pay 80% of the wages, which charlton are now saying are only 80% of what they were.
There is no obligation for the employer to top-up the 20%, although many will be doing so if cash flow allows.0 -
LargeAddick said:
and many won’t even if cash flow does allow as they will just see it as an excuse to save money.bobmunro said:letthegoodtimesroll said:Out of interest, does anybody know if the government scheme actually allows firms to not pay the 20% when the government is paying 80% ? Surely the intention is to pay 80% of the wages, which charlton are now saying are only 80% of what they were.
There is no obligation for the employer to top-up the 20%, although many will be doing so if cash flow allows.
There's always some ....
0 -
I should imagine he will want to enjoy going to football, no need to ruin it for him.ElfsborgAddick said:northstandsteve said:
Maybe you should try running a business during the current pandemic then you would see how utterly ridiculous that statement is.ricky_otto said:
Because it’s the right thing to do - let’s not forget how many times they have been shit upon in the past we well.MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.
I must buy you a pint next time I go to The Valley.2 -
Do we know if the money that Nimer has shown us post Social Media meltdown has actually been paid to all those listed?ricky_otto said:
I do know that if Southall hadn’t gone on his spending spree there would be a hell of a lot of money available to have covered the 20% that people are missing out on - for how long, I don’t know. Obviously if there is no source of income you can’t just find money. It just seems a bit unjust that money was squandered that could have been put to better use.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Where should the money for the extra 20% come from considering there's currently no income coming in to the business?ricky_otto said:
Because it’s the right thing to do - let’s not forget how many times they have been shit upon in the past we well.MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
at the moment is there a lot for the staff to do ? .. better to stay at home on 80% than be made redundant .. the government/tax payer will be picking up the tab and I am sure that many other football club fans will be cheesed off at the thought of subsidising CAFC as well as other club's personnel .. has Southall been furloughed ? .. though in his case defenestration or at best eviction would be well in order1
-
Totally agree with regards to Southall, the bloke is a lower than a snakes belly thief and I hope he gets taken to the cleaners, but we are where we are at the momentricky_otto said:
I do know that if Southall hadn’t gone on his spending spree there would be a hell of a lot of money available to have covered the 20% that people are missing out on - for how long, I don’t know. Obviously if there is no source of income you can’t just find money. It just seems a bit unjust that money was squandered that could have been put to better use.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Where should the money for the extra 20% come from considering there's currently no income coming in to the business?ricky_otto said:
Because it’s the right thing to do - let’s not forget how many times they have been shit upon in the past we well.MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.2 -
it didAFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?0 -
I mean the thing that proves that TN doesn’t have any money to put in us that he hasn’t put any money in (unless I’ve missed something, disengaged with the “bonkers” thread a couple of weeks ago).paulie8290 said:Agree with others that its a sensible decision, yet people are using it to attack the club read the responses to that tweet and pretty much all of them are saying it proves TN has no money.
Does it?
Or is he trying to be sensible and not lose any extra money with no revenue currently coming in.
This is probably a good business move, wish we could have topped up the 20% for those impacted.0 -
Obviously this isn't the thread to discuss this lol, but I dont get people saying this.se9addick said:
I mean the thing that proves that TN doesn’t have any money to put in us that he hasn’t put any money in (unless I’ve missed something, disengaged with the “bonkers” thread a couple of weeks ago).paulie8290 said:Agree with others that its a sensible decision, yet people are using it to attack the club read the responses to that tweet and pretty much all of them are saying it proves TN has no money.
Does it?
Or is he trying to be sensible and not lose any extra money with no revenue currently coming in.
This is probably a good business move, wish we could have topped up the 20% for those impacted.
Why does he need to put loads of money in right this second, as long as the club has enough to survive then its ok, then we will see what money gets put in when the transfer window is open and we are able to actually spend money1 -
Inevitable unfortunately & why wouldn't the club use the Govt Scheme to protect jobs, this bloody virus is a menace.0
-
My company is topping it up... Why would you purposefully leave your staff financially compromised?MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.0 -
Surprised no one heard about the furlough if it did happen.bertpalmer said:
it didAFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?
0 -
The only wrong thing is to not pay the 20% top up on salaries. I can't imagine many of our staff are on more than £2.5k a month anyway so it's not going to be a lot of topping up. Compare that to our players that I am certain they are still claiming full salaries.SporadicAddick said:Furlough has been introduced to enable businesses to offset cost and ensure there is a business to return to. Millions are furloughed. I don't see why Charlton doing this is wrong?0 -
Staff wages are usually paid for by profits. It's not necessarily about leaving staff compromised, but topping up the 20% when your business is closed is not an option for many businesses.Dazzler21 said:
My company is topping it up... Why would you purposefully leave your staff financially compromised?MartinCAFC said:Copied from the bonkers thread.
Why would you pay the extra 20% if you don't have any money coming in and weren't obliged to? Nothing to read into this.
2
