As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 42 seconds ago
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP said players on £500 a week should lose 30% as well though...
I'm sure most of us earn more than that.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 42 seconds ago
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP said players on £500 a week should lose 30% as well though...
I'm sure most of us earn more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he? Must have missed that. That’s comparable, anyone taking 20K+ a week home is not..
I was just wondering, what if a player was making a huge investment before all this, and therefore has relatively little cash and huge instalments to pay?
Also, some African players might have a few hundred school fees to pay. There could be many such scenarios.
The PFA was suggesting a case by case wage cut. Would anyone support this?
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
If Henderson is leading that then that's absolutely fantastic from him.
Exactly as it should be. Players coming together to do their bit and the billionaire owners being the ones that get hit.
At the lower levels players will have to take a pay cut to keep their clubs alive, at the top level it's the owners who should be footing the bill.
Over a certain level players should be taking a proper pay cut. Not all are on 50k+ per week but that is an insane amount when put into context.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 5 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 42 seconds ago
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP said players on £500 a week should lose 30% as well though...
I'm sure most of us earn more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP.did not say anyone making £500 should take a paycut. Stop twisting words to suit your argument.
I used £500 & £1000 to explain different lifestyles with different incomes.
No premier leagur player will be on £500 a week. Footballers earn way more than £500 a week, even youth players.earn way more than that.
If the clubs are able to pay all staff, I see no reason for the players to take a pay cut at all. If the owners of the club can't pay the staff, they should then discuss with high earners at the clubs from the top to take a cut in pay before they go to the staff. Then they can go to the staff.
As it is, those demanding the players take a pay cut are pretty much saying players should be forced into losing 30% of their wages and those 30% then ends up in the owners pocket. The players in such a case are better off declining such demands and spread their wealth where many have, such as the Stoke players, United players, etc.
If you take away 30% of wages of only say 70% of the players in the prem for a few months, then therein that number you are guaranteed to financially ruin at least one or a few of them.
Failing that you are guaranteed to put some of them in some sort of financial struggle. People think because they're paid a lot they must have this ability but everyone invests what they earn and take out loans at the level of your income etc. and some of them are astute businessmen. If this catches such a player at the wrong time then they will not want to take a pay cut.
So the greedy, arrogant, self centred players have set up an NHS fund, and players and clubs are discussing wage cuts between themselves.
Thoughts OP?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
So the greedy, arrogant, self centred players have set up an NHS fund, and players and clubs are discussing wage cuts between themselves.
Thoughts OP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He won't answer you. This whole sharticle was a (not very well) veiled bash at Jordan Henderson, nothing more, nothing less.
The fact that what Henderson was talking to the other PL captains about setting up a charity specifically to help the NHS goes against his agenda.
To be honest maybe it wouldn't be so bad if there is some type of correction in the whole football industry. It's unsustainable anyway.
I know people talk about that billionaire owners should prop at the club but most have their money in shares, assets, other businesses it's not as if they have cash sitting in the banks.
I think pay cuts should be on a club by club basis, it's great to give money to the NHS but the real battle is keeping the economy ticking and I doubt many clubs will survive this.
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you can’t. There are these small bits of paper called contracts and one party just cannot unilaterally decide to change the terms and conditions. It can only be done with the agreement of the other party to the contract. They have not broken the terms of their contract
As it stands the players still have to complete the season, and they still get paid in the off season. If you take 30% off them and then expect them to complete the season you will run into trouble.
The only players you could really force into a pay cut are those whose contract ends in June if they are leaving then.
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you can’t. There are these small bits of paper called contracts and one party just cannot unilaterally decide to change the terms and conditions. It can only be done with the agreement of the other party to the contract. They have not broken the terms of their contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and conditions means playing. You know your first condition for getting paid. What do you think they are contracted to do? make you tube fitness videos?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 53 minutes ago
As it stands the players still have to complete the season, and they still get paid in the off season. If you take 30% off them and then expect them to complete the season you will run into trouble.
The only players you could really force into a pay cut are those whose contract ends in June if they are leaving then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats always the case. The 30% deduction was only in case they couldn't complete the season which would also mean no Tv money for at least the portion of the season not completed.
Norwich furloughed a load of non-playing staff last week (presumably the govt. are now coughing up £2500 a month towards their salaries), and today they announce they've agreed to sign a new player for next season.
Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do so if their current (or short term) finances dictate that they have to get governmental assistance to help pay existing employees wages?
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 4 minutes ago
Norwich furloughed a load of non-playing staff last week (presumably the govt. are now coughing up £2500 a month towards their salaries), and today they announce they've agreed to sign a new player for next season.
Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do so if their current (or short term) finances dictate that they have to get governmental assistance to help pay existing employees wages?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that’s true they should be made to give it all back.
All this sort of behaviour is doing is ensuring that the chancellor will introduce a special tax on football. The tax payer money will have to be recouped. There is no such thing as free lunch.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you can’t. There are these small bits of paper called contracts and one party just cannot unilaterally decide to change the terms and conditions. It can only be done with the agreement of the other party to the contract. They have not broken the terms of their contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and conditions means playing. You know your first condition for getting paid.What do you think they are contracted to do? make you tube fitness videos?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are contracted to be available to play, unless you think all 40 plus players of a football club are contracted to play twice a week for the duration of their contract
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 8 seconds ago
All this sort of behaviour is doing is ensuring that the chancellor will introduce a special tax on football. The tax payer money will have to be recouped. There is no such thing as free lunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. He should be taxing the fack out if prem clubs anyway given the huge sums of money the generate (and register themselves outside of Britain).
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 6 minutes ago
Norwich furloughed a load of non-playing staff last week (presumably the govt. are now coughing up £2500 a month towards their salaries), and today they announce they've agreed to sign a new player for next season.
Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do so if their current (or short term) finances dictate that they have to get governmental assistance to help pay existing employees wages?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s shocking that football clubs can furlough non playing staff and get assistance from the government and still pay players tens of thousands a week. I think the whole furlough thing will end up means tested and I would be surprised if clubs are elegible come end April when applications are made
Sign in if you want to comment
Greedy, self-centred & arrogant players
Page 4 of 6
6
posted on 7/4/20
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
posted on 7/4/20
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 42 seconds ago
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP said players on £500 a week should lose 30% as well though...
I'm sure most of us earn more than that.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 42 seconds ago
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP said players on £500 a week should lose 30% as well though...
I'm sure most of us earn more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he? Must have missed that. That’s comparable, anyone taking 20K+ a week home is not..
posted on 7/4/20
I was just wondering, what if a player was making a huge investment before all this, and therefore has relatively little cash and huge instalments to pay?
Also, some African players might have a few hundred school fees to pay. There could be many such scenarios.
The PFA was suggesting a case by case wage cut. Would anyone support this?
posted on 7/4/20
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
posted on 7/4/20
If Henderson is leading that then that's absolutely fantastic from him.
Exactly as it should be. Players coming together to do their bit and the billionaire owners being the ones that get hit.
At the lower levels players will have to take a pay cut to keep their clubs alive, at the top level it's the owners who should be footing the bill.
posted on 7/4/20
Over a certain level players should be taking a proper pay cut. Not all are on 50k+ per week but that is an insane amount when put into context.
posted on 8/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 5 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 42 seconds ago
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
—
Seen this retort a few times, , how many on here earn north of 50k a week? It’s not comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP said players on £500 a week should lose 30% as well though...
I'm sure most of us earn more than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP.did not say anyone making £500 should take a paycut. Stop twisting words to suit your argument.
I used £500 & £1000 to explain different lifestyles with different incomes.
No premier leagur player will be on £500 a week. Footballers earn way more than £500 a week, even youth players.earn way more than that.
posted on 8/4/20
If the clubs are able to pay all staff, I see no reason for the players to take a pay cut at all. If the owners of the club can't pay the staff, they should then discuss with high earners at the clubs from the top to take a cut in pay before they go to the staff. Then they can go to the staff.
As it is, those demanding the players take a pay cut are pretty much saying players should be forced into losing 30% of their wages and those 30% then ends up in the owners pocket. The players in such a case are better off declining such demands and spread their wealth where many have, such as the Stoke players, United players, etc.
posted on 8/4/20
If you take away 30% of wages of only say 70% of the players in the prem for a few months, then therein that number you are guaranteed to financially ruin at least one or a few of them.
Failing that you are guaranteed to put some of them in some sort of financial struggle. People think because they're paid a lot they must have this ability but everyone invests what they earn and take out loans at the level of your income etc. and some of them are astute businessmen. If this catches such a player at the wrong time then they will not want to take a pay cut.
posted on 9/4/20
So the greedy, arrogant, self centred players have set up an NHS fund, and players and clubs are discussing wage cuts between themselves.
Thoughts OP?
posted on 9/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
So the greedy, arrogant, self centred players have set up an NHS fund, and players and clubs are discussing wage cuts between themselves.
Thoughts OP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He won't answer you. This whole sharticle was a (not very well) veiled bash at Jordan Henderson, nothing more, nothing less.
The fact that what Henderson was talking to the other PL captains about setting up a charity specifically to help the NHS goes against his agenda.
posted on 9/4/20
To be honest maybe it wouldn't be so bad if there is some type of correction in the whole football industry. It's unsustainable anyway.
I know people talk about that billionaire owners should prop at the club but most have their money in shares, assets, other businesses it's not as if they have cash sitting in the banks.
I think pay cuts should be on a club by club basis, it's great to give money to the NHS but the real battle is keeping the economy ticking and I doubt many clubs will survive this.
posted on 9/4/20
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
posted on 10/4/20
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you can’t. There are these small bits of paper called contracts and one party just cannot unilaterally decide to change the terms and conditions. It can only be done with the agreement of the other party to the contract. They have not broken the terms of their contract
posted on 10/4/20
As it stands the players still have to complete the season, and they still get paid in the off season. If you take 30% off them and then expect them to complete the season you will run into trouble.
The only players you could really force into a pay cut are those whose contract ends in June if they are leaving then.
posted on 10/4/20
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you can’t. There are these small bits of paper called contracts and one party just cannot unilaterally decide to change the terms and conditions. It can only be done with the agreement of the other party to the contract. They have not broken the terms of their contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and conditions means playing. You know your first condition for getting paid. What do you think they are contracted to do? make you tube fitness videos?
posted on 10/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 53 minutes ago
As it stands the players still have to complete the season, and they still get paid in the off season. If you take 30% off them and then expect them to complete the season you will run into trouble.
The only players you could really force into a pay cut are those whose contract ends in June if they are leaving then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats always the case. The 30% deduction was only in case they couldn't complete the season which would also mean no Tv money for at least the portion of the season not completed.
posted on 10/4/20
Norwich furloughed a load of non-playing staff last week (presumably the govt. are now coughing up £2500 a month towards their salaries), and today they announce they've agreed to sign a new player for next season.
Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do so if their current (or short term) finances dictate that they have to get governmental assistance to help pay existing employees wages?
posted on 10/4/20
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 4 minutes ago
Norwich furloughed a load of non-playing staff last week (presumably the govt. are now coughing up £2500 a month towards their salaries), and today they announce they've agreed to sign a new player for next season.
Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do so if their current (or short term) finances dictate that they have to get governmental assistance to help pay existing employees wages?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that’s true they should be made to give it all back.
posted on 10/4/20
All this sort of behaviour is doing is ensuring that the chancellor will introduce a special tax on football. The tax payer money will have to be recouped. There is no such thing as free lunch.
posted on 10/4/20
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 day, 4 hours ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
comment by Momo’s Goggles (U22339)
posted 24 minutes ago
As I understand it
Jordan Henderson is leading a campaign with 19 other PL captains to be paid in full and for players themselves to donate a portion up to 30% of their wages to the NHS.
It’s simple really.
A 30% pay cut would be a reduction in revenue to HMRC. That money is used to fund the NHS.
That 30% would also remain in the billionaire club owners pocket. Maybe they’d donate it, maybe they won’t.
Can you trust the owners to pass on the savings? Just look at Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool until recently costing the treasury millions by furloughing their non playing staff.
How many here are taking a 30% pay cut?
How many here are donating 30% of their wage to the NHS?
The players I’m sure will do their best the help. It just won’t be resolved quickly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is absolutely the correct way to do it and not the hair brainer idea the OP puts forward
It may also make other high earners from other sectors do the same
You simply cannot take 30% off someone’s wages simply due to what they do for a living when other people earning more are untouched
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf.
If they are not doing the work for which they contracted of course you can!
And to put forward a defence of a smaller tax payment to HMRC?
Most of them are using every trick in the book not to pay tax at all! Greedy w@nkers, the lot of them!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you can’t. There are these small bits of paper called contracts and one party just cannot unilaterally decide to change the terms and conditions. It can only be done with the agreement of the other party to the contract. They have not broken the terms of their contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and conditions means playing. You know your first condition for getting paid.What do you think they are contracted to do? make you tube fitness videos?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are contracted to be available to play, unless you think all 40 plus players of a football club are contracted to play twice a week for the duration of their contract
posted on 10/4/20
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 8 seconds ago
All this sort of behaviour is doing is ensuring that the chancellor will introduce a special tax on football. The tax payer money will have to be recouped. There is no such thing as free lunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. He should be taxing the fack out if prem clubs anyway given the huge sums of money the generate (and register themselves outside of Britain).
posted on 10/4/20
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 6 minutes ago
Norwich furloughed a load of non-playing staff last week (presumably the govt. are now coughing up £2500 a month towards their salaries), and today they announce they've agreed to sign a new player for next season.
Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do so if their current (or short term) finances dictate that they have to get governmental assistance to help pay existing employees wages?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s shocking that football clubs can furlough non playing staff and get assistance from the government and still pay players tens of thousands a week. I think the whole furlough thing will end up means tested and I would be surprised if clubs are elegible come end April when applications are made
Page 4 of 6
6