Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton furlough staff
Comments
-
I would expect an employer and employee to come to an arrangementcafcfan1990 said:
True, but then you might only get 80% of your wages when you were indeed working.supaclive said:LargeAddick said:supaclive said:AFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?
It can be backdated to March 1st
Only if you furloughed staff on 1st March. You can't furlough someone on say 16th April but claim from 1st March.
No, but if the staff sign the letter and you both agree that nobody was working from "lockdown" date, nobody can prove you were....0 -
What that employers state you have been furloughed and employees accept 80% of their wages even though they worked for part of that period? Can’t imagine many employees accepting their employers fraud alongside it costing them.supaclive said:
I would expect an employer and employee to come to an arrangementcafcfan1990 said:
True, but then you might only get 80% of your wages when you were indeed working.supaclive said:LargeAddick said:supaclive said:AFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?
It can be backdated to March 1st
Only if you furloughed staff on 1st March. You can't furlough someone on say 16th April but claim from 1st March.
No, but if the staff sign the letter and you both agree that nobody was working from "lockdown" date, nobody can prove you were....0 -
Not at all. I'm pretty sure Charlton admin staff etc haven't actually been working for a bit and the club have gone through the relevant periods of consultation before announcing it publically yesterday!cafcfan1990 said:
What that employers state you have been furloughed and employees accept 80% of their wages even though they worked for part of that period? Can’t imagine many employees accepting their employers fraud alongside it costing them.supaclive said:
I would expect an employer and employee to come to an arrangementcafcfan1990 said:
True, but then you might only get 80% of your wages when you were indeed working.supaclive said:LargeAddick said:supaclive said:AFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?
It can be backdated to March 1st
Only if you furloughed staff on 1st March. You can't furlough someone on say 16th April but claim from 1st March.
No, but if the staff sign the letter and you both agree that nobody was working from "lockdown" date, nobody can prove you were....
0 -
That’s not what you said though. You were saying the club could state the staff weren’t working even if they were because it couldn’t be proven.supaclive said:
Not at all. I'm pretty sure Charlton admin staff etc haven't actually been working for a bit and the club have gone through the relevant periods of consultation before announcing it publically yesterday!cafcfan1990 said:
What that employers state you have been furloughed and employees accept 80% of their wages even though they worked for part of that period? Can’t imagine many employees accepting their employers fraud alongside it costing them.supaclive said:
I would expect an employer and employee to come to an arrangementcafcfan1990 said:
True, but then you might only get 80% of your wages when you were indeed working.supaclive said:LargeAddick said:supaclive said:AFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?
It can be backdated to March 1st
Only if you furloughed staff on 1st March. You can't furlough someone on say 16th April but claim from 1st March.
No, but if the staff sign the letter and you both agree that nobody was working from "lockdown" date, nobody can prove you were....0 -
You don't think an employer and employee could decide between them that they'll get the 20% topped up themselves but from the moment it is announced in the press (NO DATE GIVEN) that they get 80% only, whatever the employer claims to HMRC?cafcfan1990 said:
That’s not what you said though. You were saying the club could state the staff weren’t working even if they were because it couldn’t be proven.supaclive said:
Not at all. I'm pretty sure Charlton admin staff etc haven't actually been working for a bit and the club have gone through the relevant periods of consultation before announcing it publically yesterday!cafcfan1990 said:
What that employers state you have been furloughed and employees accept 80% of their wages even though they worked for part of that period? Can’t imagine many employees accepting their employers fraud alongside it costing them.supaclive said:
I would expect an employer and employee to come to an arrangementcafcfan1990 said:
True, but then you might only get 80% of your wages when you were indeed working.supaclive said:LargeAddick said:supaclive said:AFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?
It can be backdated to March 1st
Only if you furloughed staff on 1st March. You can't furlough someone on say 16th April but claim from 1st March.
No, but if the staff sign the letter and you both agree that nobody was working from "lockdown" date, nobody can prove you were....
I know you're trying to goad me but are you saying NO employer or employee anywhere is actually doing this? I'm an employer myself and haven't done it, but trust me... it's happening
As is seen on the other thread.
0 -
I’m not trying to goad you.supaclive said:
You don't think an employer and employee could decide between them that they'll get the 20% topped up themselves but from the moment it is announced in the press (NO DATE GIVEN) that they get 80% only, whatever the employer claims to HMRC?cafcfan1990 said:
That’s not what you said though. You were saying the club could state the staff weren’t working even if they were because it couldn’t be proven.supaclive said:
Not at all. I'm pretty sure Charlton admin staff etc haven't actually been working for a bit and the club have gone through the relevant periods of consultation before announcing it publically yesterday!cafcfan1990 said:
What that employers state you have been furloughed and employees accept 80% of their wages even though they worked for part of that period? Can’t imagine many employees accepting their employers fraud alongside it costing them.supaclive said:
I would expect an employer and employee to come to an arrangementcafcfan1990 said:
True, but then you might only get 80% of your wages when you were indeed working.supaclive said:LargeAddick said:supaclive said:AFKABartram said:My only real question would be why didn't this happen weeks ago?
It can be backdated to March 1st
Only if you furloughed staff on 1st March. You can't furlough someone on say 16th April but claim from 1st March.
No, but if the staff sign the letter and you both agree that nobody was working from "lockdown" date, nobody can prove you were....
I know you're trying to goad me but are you saying NO employer or employee anywhere is actually doing this? I'm an employer myself and haven't done it, but trust me... it's happening
As is seen on the other thread.You said the club could commit fraud by stating employees haven’t worked in order to get the 80% from the government. Yes they could do that but it means employees are out of pocket.No employee is going to be happy accepting 80% of their salary for a period they were working.What can and will undoubtably happen is businesses claim they are topping up the extra 20% themselves when in fact the employees are still working. So therefore paying 20% out of their own pockets but their business continuing. But in that situation I would be surprised if any document is drawn up because it will be proof that the business are committing fraud.In Charltons case, I understand they are not topping up the 20% so why would any member of staff accept being paid 80% for a period of time they were working?0 -
@cafcfan1990 & @supaclive - could you kick your clash off again at 3pm tomorrow? Just trying to get back into the swing of things.0
-
Sorry, no.se9addick said:@cafcfan1990 & @supaclive - could you kick your clash off again at 3pm tomorrow? Just trying to get back into the swing of things.Im not losing this one and we all know cafc lose at 3pm on a Saturday!0 -
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............0 -
Maybe not CAFC, although their financials look extremely fragile at the moment but because most companies are losing dollars every single day and cannot afford the extra 20% because they are heading into insolvency?holyjo said:
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............
I would rather have a job to return to at 80% income, rather than 100% income now and then no job in 2 months time.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
That should only be because they simply don’t have or won’t have the cash to pay it.holyjo said:
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............The problem for all football clubs is that many players could afford a small sacrifice in salary to ensure mere mortals don’t suffer unduly but for some reason even in these unique times clubs seem to be running scared of contract/legal issues meaning their prized assets could walk in the future. Common sense just doesn’t apply.But I assume common decency would apply to most players but enforcing it or requesting it before league wide guidance seems taboo.Modern life dilemmas it seems. Doing the right thing can’t just happen.But what I see from this crisis is that actually the relative speed of government actions, business’s adapting , TV programmes changing etc etc proves that in normal times we generally take too long to change things and pursue 100% solutions or win:win outcomes (without success) unnecessarily.Mother is the necessity of invention.The schemes are well intended.0 -
Exactly. The players should be taking a cut so the lower paid staff don't lose out
HOWEVER. Anybody should be able to live on 80% of their gross salary when they have no childcare, travel costs, no entertainment costs, no holidays etc to pay for - if ;
Your usual gross was £37,500 per year max that is.
There's a global pandemic going on. Cut down on booze, cigs, takeaways and luxuries.
And hope we come out of this alright.
1 -
I do agree with that. I think the majority of people should be able to cope with circa 13% less of net salary. Just any luxuries and travel costs would probably account for that.supaclive said:Exactly. The players should be taking a cut so the lower paid staff don't lose out
HOWEVER. Anybody should be able to live on 80% of their gross salary when they have no childcare, travel costs, no entertainment costs, no holidays etc to pay for - if ;
Your usual gross was £37,500 per year max that is.
There's a global pandemic going on. Cut down on booze, cigs, takeaways and luxuries.
And hope we come out of this alright.0 -
Except:cafcfan1990 said:
I do agree with that. I think the majority of people should be able to cope with circa 13% less of net salary. Just any luxuries and travel costs would probably account for that.supaclive said:Exactly. The players should be taking a cut so the lower paid staff don't lose out
HOWEVER. Anybody should be able to live on 80% of their gross salary when they have no childcare, travel costs, no entertainment costs, no holidays etc to pay for - if ;
Your usual gross was £37,500 per year max that is.
There's a global pandemic going on. Cut down on booze, cigs, takeaways and luxuries.
And hope we come out of this alright.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-homeless-housing/millions-in-england-one-pay-cheque-away-from-homelessness-idUKL5N2692VV
Don't assume that everyone has holidays and luxuries that they can take away from. A lot of people are already living paycheck-to-paycheck.2 -
Im not. But as that article says, it’s working families that get hit, childcare costs are a lot of that. In the current climate, those not working will not have travel or childcare costs. That’s a lot more than 13% of their net income.SDAddick said:
Except:cafcfan1990 said:
I do agree with that. I think the majority of people should be able to cope with circa 13% less of net salary. Just any luxuries and travel costs would probably account for that.supaclive said:Exactly. The players should be taking a cut so the lower paid staff don't lose out
HOWEVER. Anybody should be able to live on 80% of their gross salary when they have no childcare, travel costs, no entertainment costs, no holidays etc to pay for - if ;
Your usual gross was £37,500 per year max that is.
There's a global pandemic going on. Cut down on booze, cigs, takeaways and luxuries.
And hope we come out of this alright.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-homeless-housing/millions-in-england-one-pay-cheque-away-from-homelessness-idUKL5N2692VV
Don't assume that everyone has holidays and luxuries that they can take away from. A lot of people are already living paycheck-to-paycheck.0 -
Have you read through this thread? Genuine question.holyjo said:
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............
0 -
Believe Millwall are topping up the 20 per cent, although it was also reported that they were furloughing their players (with top up) which seems from the above may not be true.
Millwall furloughed from March 14th. If anyone thinks the question about Charlton wasn’t being asked at that point and subsequently then they’re mistaken. It’s only been answered in recent days.
0 -
If you are furloughed are you able to receive Universal credit to top up the 20% if thar causes hardship0
-
Yes anyone can apply for Universal Credit and many are receiving a top up whilst on 80% of their wages. Whether you are entitled to anything is a different question.Kap10 said:If you are furloughed are you able to receive Universal credit to top up the 20% if thar causes hardship
1 -
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/millwall-will-not-furlough-players-as-rules-prevent-anyone-still-working-from-being-laid-off/Airman Brown said:Believe Millwall are topping up the 20 per cent, although it was also reported that they were furloughing their players (with top up) which seems from the above may not be true.
Millwall furloughed from March 14th. If anyone thinks the question about Charlton wasn’t being asked at that point and subsequently then they’re mistaken. It’s only been answered in recent days.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yes, I missed that but it was originally reported they were, i believe also by the SLP.clive said:
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/millwall-will-not-furlough-players-as-rules-prevent-anyone-still-working-from-being-laid-off/Airman Brown said:Believe Millwall are topping up the 20 per cent, although it was also reported that they were furloughing their players (with top up) which seems from the above may not be true.
Millwall furloughed from March 14th. If anyone thinks the question about Charlton wasn’t being asked at that point and subsequently then they’re mistaken. It’s only been answered in recent days.0 -
Yes I haveMartinCAFC said:
Have you read through this thread? Genuine question.holyjo said:
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............0 -
Okay so I will politely direct you to bobmunro's post in particular and all the many others in addition to my post which will provide the reasons why the club shouldn't need to provide the extra 20%holyjo said:
Yes I haveMartinCAFC said:
Have you read through this thread? Genuine question.holyjo said:
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............0 -
I appreciate your courtesy. To be clear and for the avoidance of doubt I support the decision to furlough but not at the 80%MartinCAFC said:
Okay so I will politely direct you to bobmunro's post in particular and all the many others in addition to my post which will provide the reasons why the club shouldn't need to provide the extra 20%holyjo said:
Yes I haveMartinCAFC said:
Have you read through this thread? Genuine question.holyjo said:
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............
I have read the comments yes,and appreciate there are different perspectives . I hold to a different one
I am living this out as a CEO of an organisation with 260 staff. We have furloughed 90 staff and will likely do more in two weeks time. We will likely lose hundreds of thousands of pounds during this period and yet have taken the decision to pay the differential 20% to furloughed staff and pay an enhancement to frontline staff who are putting themselves at risk at this time ( leadership team excepted)
Im not saying this stuff is easy but those furloughed within the club will likely be earning much less than the playing staff and as such I think I would be minded to find every reason as to why it should be paid
2 -
Sorry to be pedantic, but being furloughed isn’t the same as being “laid off”, in fact my understanding is that the furlough provisions are exactly to avoid people being laid off.clive said:
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/millwall-will-not-furlough-players-as-rules-prevent-anyone-still-working-from-being-laid-off/Airman Brown said:Believe Millwall are topping up the 20 per cent, although it was also reported that they were furloughing their players (with top up) which seems from the above may not be true.
Millwall furloughed from March 14th. If anyone thinks the question about Charlton wasn’t being asked at that point and subsequently then they’re mistaken. It’s only been answered in recent days.1 -
holyjo said:
I appreciate your courtesy. To be clear and for the avoidance of doubt I support the decision to furlough but not at the 80%MartinCAFC said:
Okay so I will politely direct you to bobmunro's post in particular and all the many others in addition to my post which will provide the reasons why the club shouldn't need to provide the extra 20%holyjo said:
Yes I haveMartinCAFC said:
Have you read through this thread? Genuine question.holyjo said:
Because you recognise that for lower paid workers the 20% cut in wages is likely to cause real crisis in familiesMartinCAFC 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.
Because you have a set of values as a club that live and breathe in crisis , not just when the going is good
Because you realise that 20% of the income you save is not the marginal cost that will save or sink the club
Because you know that when this is all over its the staff team that will rally round to rebuild and sustain the club
Because people remember not what you said or even what you did but how your actions made them feel
Because doing the right thing and doing things right fucking matters
Id welcome seeing the list that helps me understand why one wouldn't top u the 20% ............
I have read the comments yes,and appreciate there are different perspectives . I hold to a different one
I am living this out as a CEO of an organisation with 260 staff. We have furloughed 90 staff and will likely do more in two weeks time. We will likely lose hundreds of thousands of pounds during this period and yet have taken the decision to pay the differential 20% to furloughed staff and pay an enhancement to frontline staff who are putting themselves at risk at this time ( leadership team excepted)
Im not saying this stuff is easy but those furloughed within the club will likely be earning much less than the playing staff and as such I think I would be minded to find every reason as to why it should be paidYour decision to top up the 20% is to be commended, and should be the default position for all organisations that have the cash/cash flow/reserves available, irrespective of the fact that there is no legal obligation to do so.I'm not aware of the cash availability at the club - I would expect it to be tight, perhaps terminal, and if that is the case then it may not be possible without any income to fund the top up. If it is possible then I wholeheartedly agree with you that it should be paid for all the reasons you have listed previously.2 -
I've furrowed my gardener.1
