Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
comment by Passion Power - Pablo, Marí me¯\_... (U8398)
posted 3 minutes ago
Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winstaaaaan can
fekkin Andy Murray is back
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Passion Power - Pablo, Marí me¯\_... (U8398)
posted 3 minutes ago
Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winstaaaaan can
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just on hold to Arsenal's HR department - should be sorted in 15 mins mate
Can you ask them why it took them so long to get rid of Gazidis while you're at it?
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 3 minutes ago
Can you ask them why it took them so long to get rid of Gazidis while you're at it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will add it to the list!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Passion Power - Pablo, Marí me¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (U8398)
posted 1 day, 10 hours ago
Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea but I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say I bet no more than 5 of them earn over 20k a year.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
No Welshpool, I’m giving my opinion.
I find it hard to believe Arsenal would go bust if they don’t make this move.
What this based on? Well, a combination of a rudimentary understanding of Premier League finances and common sense.
Disagree? That’s fine.
It is viable to run at a loss for a period of time in order to protect staff jobs. You were wrong.
Will you admit it?
Of course you won’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you know how long you are going tk be running at a loss. You have already admitted that you have no idea how long Arsenal are able to do so, nor what sort of losses they can sustain for any length of time.
I have already ackniwledged you can run at a loss if you have other ways of raising money that makes up for the losses. You simply chose to ignore this.
You claimed this was down to greed and that Arsenal can afford to run at a loss, despite admitting you have no idea how long this situation will last or how long they can run at a loss. Therefore your claim has no basis. You always go on about how easy it is for you to admit that you are wrong, so here is a very easy opportunity for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston the spineless doesn't have the minerals to admit he's wrong. Bad trait to have when you are wrong nearly 100% of the time
The jobs being made redundant are administrative and commercial. Our scouting team have also been shrunk. All very obvious moves in a new world where we have no fans attending games and travel restrictions and restrictions who can go to watch games meaning scouting is less required
This is just another reason for the media to bash the club you can bet when inevitable happens and others follow suit there wont be the same uproar.
Just like when eduardo gets accused of diving and its national news and he gets retrospective ban for the first and only time in CL history. Different rules if its arsenal
Employees:
Arsenal - 1125
Man Utd - 922
Man City - 1047
Liverpool - 853
Spurs - 549
The truth is Wenger loved empire building with a socialist model. Arsenal needed to restructure for 2 years. The virus only sped up the process.
comment by The One (U22189)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
No Welshpool, I’m giving my opinion.
I find it hard to believe Arsenal would go bust if they don’t make this move.
What this based on? Well, a combination of a rudimentary understanding of Premier League finances and common sense.
Disagree? That’s fine.
It is viable to run at a loss for a period of time in order to protect staff jobs. You were wrong.
Will you admit it?
Of course you won’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you know how long you are going tk be running at a loss. You have already admitted that you have no idea how long Arsenal are able to do so, nor what sort of losses they can sustain for any length of time.
I have already ackniwledged you can run at a loss if you have other ways of raising money that makes up for the losses. You simply chose to ignore this.
You claimed this was down to greed and that Arsenal can afford to run at a loss, despite admitting you have no idea how long this situation will last or how long they can run at a loss. Therefore your claim has no basis. You always go on about how easy it is for you to admit that you are wrong, so here is a very easy opportunity for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston the spineless doesn't have the minerals to admit he's wrong. Bad trait to have when you are wrong nearly 100% of the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet he says he is always happy to admit when he is wrong
comment by The One (U22189)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
The jobs being made redundant are administrative and commercial. Our scouting team have also been shrunk. All very obvious moves in a new world where we have no fans attending games and travel restrictions and restrictions who can go to watch games meaning scouting is less required
This is just another reason for the media to bash the club you can bet when inevitable happens and others follow suit there wont be the same uproar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are supposed to be a classy club who do things the right way, our owner could easily afford to keep these staff on a while longer until the economy settles down at least. Throwing them under the bus at a time like this when Stan has seen his wealth increase by £323 million during the Coronavirus months is immoral to say the least, disgusting I'd say actually.
What percentage of that £323,000,000 would have been required to not send 55 people's lives on low to low-medium salaries into potential chaos and turmoil right now? You do the math.
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by The One (U22189)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
The jobs being made redundant are administrative and commercial. Our scouting team have also been shrunk. All very obvious moves in a new world where we have no fans attending games and travel restrictions and restrictions who can go to watch games meaning scouting is less required
This is just another reason for the media to bash the club you can bet when inevitable happens and others follow suit there wont be the same uproar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are supposed to be a classy club who do things the right way, our owner could easily afford to keep these staff on a while longer until the economy settles down at least. Throwing them under the bus at a time like this when Stan has seen his wealth increase by £323 million during the Coronavirus months is immoral to say the least, disgusting I'd say actually.
What percentage of that £323,000,000 would have been required to not send 55 people's lives on low to low-medium salaries into potential chaos and turmoil right now? You do the math.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously why would you keep people on you don't need? Do you expect people to play solitaire all day? I've posted the employee numbers. We already have too many people employed. More than any other club even after the redundancies.
Why should I bother to respond when you've already chosen to ignore everything I wrote?
Because the circumstances are extreme and we could do it without blinking? Are you really so heartless? Easy to sit there in your armchair with that opinion. The club and owner have plenty enough money to push restructuring back a little and not obliterate people's lives right now, are you a fan of suicides? Or are you just a selfish pric|< like Stan?
Final point, the players were promised that there wage cuts would mean no redundancies. So you're all for the club failing to keep promises to the players aka lying and upsetting the entire squad so long as we save a million or two over the next year+ that is going to make no difference to the club or your life? There is actually no good argument for what you are trying to say at this time given the state of the World, it's greed, pure and simple.
Btw, you misspelled Genius.
Can see both sides to this.
It is interesting that arsenal players are annoyed that staff have been made redundant, despite promises that if the players took a wage cut, staff wouldn’t be made redundant.
Some may feel that had the players taken a bigger pay cut, then those staff wouldn’t have to have been made redundant?
But I feel that would be an unfair point to make. It isn’t up to the players to ensure the job safety of other staff. It’s up to the club to do that.
On the other hand, a person isn’t made redundant. The job they do is made redundant. Is it really the case that Arsenal no longer need those jobs at the club anymore? And in this respect, if Arsenal’s finances take an up turn, and those jobs are made available again, would the same people who lost their jobs be asked to return?
There is also the issue of redundancy pay. That alone will mean that Arsenal must feel that the effects of the current situation will last for several months at least. As it could cost them several months worth of wages for each individual that has been made redundant through redundancy pay.
Looking at this from a wider perspective, why are Arsenal being singled out as a separate entity? A lot of people have and will lose their jobs during the current situation, and a lot of jobs at companies that have very rich owners, will be lost. Should the criticism aimed towards Arsenal be aimed at all employers who are cutting jobs? I ask this of the poster You can’t buy class, who brings an emotional debate to the table, mentioning something as severe as possible suicides, I imagine doing so just to try and elicit the extreme but possible effect that this kind of thing can have on people’s lives. It is an emotive but valid point, so how far should we be expected to take such a point? For me, that kind of point is far bigger than being critical of any individual company (regardless of whether that company is a football club or not).
Another point I feel worth considering is that, if the figure of over 1000 employees is correct, then Arsenal have made redundant approximately 5% of its work force. If making redundant 5% ensures the safety of the remaining employees as long as this situation lasts, then could that be seen as a positive step to take? What if Arsenal held off for longer, subsidised the waves through the owner’s pocket, but things don’t improve and further down the line 10% end up losing their jobs?
That’s a hypothetical, but could it be one that has influenced the decision to take this action now?
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 3 hours, 12 minutes ago
Why should I bother to respond when you've already chosen to ignore everything I wrote?
Because the circumstances are extreme and we could do it without blinking? Are you really so heartless? Easy to sit there in your armchair with that opinion. The club and owner have plenty enough money to push restructuring back a little and not obliterate people's lives right now, are you a fan of suicides? Or are you just a selfish pric|< like Stan?
Final point, the players were promised that there wage cuts would mean no redundancies. So you're all for the club failing to keep promises to the players aka lying and upsetting the entire squad so long as we save a million or two over the next year+ that is going to make no difference to the club or your life? There is actually no good argument for what you are trying to say at this time given the state of the World, it's greed, pure and simple.
Btw, you misspelled Genius.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try to keep insults out of it. Its a bit of ironic moniker anyway. I don't consider myself a genius at all.
Its not about being heartless. Its life. A lot of people are losing their jobs because the economics do not support their employment. Do you want them to terminate their employment now when they could find other jobs or do you want them to do it just before Christmas? I also doubt very much that they are very low grade as those jobs usually don't go in restructuring and the numbers don't support it. I suspect they are middle to upper tier management. However irrespective the cold facts are this happens in all companies and all sectors when the economy takes a downturn. Why should those people be protected while the cook down your local chippie is not?
As I showed you on the employee figures Arsenal are top heavy and club is under performing both commercially and on the football side. The number of job losses are pretty minimal.
And as for the players. They got 5% back for qualifying for Europe. Did they forgo that because they were sticking up for the those fired? Did Aubameyang give the club a discount. The salary cut they and all the executives took (btw they took a bigger cut) were to save the club as a whole. The club didn't furlough staff. The club didn't borrow from the Bank of England and endanger the other 1070 staff who still have a job.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 15 hours, 26 minutes ago
Can see both sides to this.
It is interesting that arsenal players are annoyed that staff have been made redundant, despite promises that if the players took a wage cut, staff wouldn’t be made redundant.
Some may feel that had the players taken a bigger pay cut, then those staff wouldn’t have to have been made redundant?
But I feel that would be an unfair point to make. It isn’t up to the players to ensure the job safety of other staff. It’s up to the club to do that.
On the other hand, a person isn’t made redundant. The job they do is made redundant. Is it really the case that Arsenal no longer need those jobs at the club anymore? And in this respect, if Arsenal’s finances take an up turn, and those jobs are made available again, would the same people who lost their jobs be asked to return?
There is also the issue of redundancy pay. That alone will mean that Arsenal must feel that the effects of the current situation will last for several months at least. As it could cost them several months worth of wages for each individual that has been made redundant through redundancy pay.
Looking at this from a wider perspective, why are Arsenal being singled out as a separate entity? A lot of people have and will lose their jobs during the current situation, and a lot of jobs at companies that have very rich owners, will be lost. Should the criticism aimed towards Arsenal be aimed at all employers who are cutting jobs? I ask this of the poster You can’t buy class, who brings an emotional debate to the table, mentioning something as severe as possible suicides, I imagine doing so just to try and elicit the extreme but possible effect that this kind of thing can have on people’s lives. It is an emotive but valid point, so how far should we be expected to take such a point? For me, that kind of point is far bigger than being critical of any individual company (regardless of whether that company is a football club or not).
Another point I feel worth considering is that, if the figure of over 1000 employees is correct, then Arsenal have made redundant approximately 5% of its work force. If making redundant 5% ensures the safety of the remaining employees as long as this situation lasts, then could that be seen as a positive step to take? What if Arsenal held off for longer, subsidised the waves through the owner’s pocket, but things don’t improve and further down the line 10% end up losing their jobs?
That’s a hypothetical, but could it be one that has influenced the decision to take this action now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very well reasoned post. Unfortunately nobody here knows the detailed workings of Arsenal's finances enough to say if this is a justified decision or if it is just greed. It has been pointed out that Arsenal already made a loss last year, have a larger than average workforce, and make a larger than average proportion of their revenue from matchday income. These things suggest to me that this isn't just being done to keep profits going to owners.
The key point for me has always been keeping as many employees in employment and income for as long as possible, which is why I was a bit surprised at the outrage when clubs said they would use the furlough programme. It may not have made a difference, but i figured anything that might help stave off redundancies made complete sense to make use of.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very well reasoned post. Unfortunately nobody here knows the detailed workings of Arsenal's finances enough to say if this is a justified decision or if it is just greed. It has been pointed out that Arsenal already made a loss last year, have a larger than average workforce, and make a larger than average proportion of their revenue from matchday income. These things suggest to me that this isn't just being done to keep profits going to owners.
The key point for me has always been keeping as many employees in employment and income for as long as possible, which is why I was a bit surprised at the outrage when clubs said they would use the furlough programme. It may not have made a difference, but i figured anything that might help stave off redundancies made complete sense to make use of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is off course that in many cases it only staves of the inevitable for a few months. At the time the Chancellor implemented the furlough scheme to stop that happening during the peak of the pandemic worsening an already dire situation. Now that the economy is open those companies that are not viable are shutting and others are slimming to stop any unnecessary insolvencies.
John Lewis for example were in a similar situation to Arsenal. They appointed a new Chief Exec because the company needed change in order to survive before the pandemic struck. The result was that already needed redundancies were brought forward afterwards because an already poor systematic problem was made worse.
Although I am sympathetic to those who have lost their jobs its a part of life. I've changed job 4 times in the past 20 years. The idea Arsenal should be singled out when every business is suffering is just ridiculous. Even huge commercial operations such as Man Utd have a smaller organisational structure than Arsenal.
"The problem is off course that in many cases it only staves of the inevitable for a few months."
Not necessarily.
This isn't a normal economic downturn. This could be a short, sharp downturn that is overcome within the space of 12-18 months.
If that happens, the notion that companies and the government can combine to take much of the hit in order to keep people employed and to keep society moving is absolutely valid.
Of course, we don't know how long this will last, but labelling it as 'just life' I think is not correct - it's unprecedented.
Arsenal aren't being singled out and even on this thread I have made reference to the fact that this criticism is levelled at many greedy, wealthy business owners and not just them.
As Money Can't Buy Class alluded to, as a business owner you have options here (assuming your finances are not on a knife edge).
If you disagree about which option one should take then that is your prerogative but make no mistake, for many businesses the option of taking a hit and keeping people in work is there.
Sign in if you want to comment
55 staff made redundant
Page 6 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 6/8/20
Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
posted on 6/8/20
comment by Passion Power - Pablo, Marí me¯\_... (U8398)
posted 3 minutes ago
Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winstaaaaan can
posted on 6/8/20
Anyone for tennis??
posted on 6/8/20
fekkin Andy Murray is back
posted on 6/8/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Passion Power - Pablo, Marí me¯\_... (U8398)
posted 3 minutes ago
Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winstaaaaan can
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just on hold to Arsenal's HR department - should be sorted in 15 mins mate
posted on 6/8/20
Can you ask them why it took them so long to get rid of Gazidis while you're at it?
posted on 6/8/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 3 minutes ago
Can you ask them why it took them so long to get rid of Gazidis while you're at it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will add it to the list!
posted on 6/8/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/20
Essex?
posted on 7/8/20
comment by Passion Power - Pablo, Marí me¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (U8398)
posted 1 day, 10 hours ago
Could someone tell me which job positions are part of the redundancy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea but I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say I bet no more than 5 of them earn over 20k a year.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
No Welshpool, I’m giving my opinion.
I find it hard to believe Arsenal would go bust if they don’t make this move.
What this based on? Well, a combination of a rudimentary understanding of Premier League finances and common sense.
Disagree? That’s fine.
It is viable to run at a loss for a period of time in order to protect staff jobs. You were wrong.
Will you admit it?
Of course you won’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you know how long you are going tk be running at a loss. You have already admitted that you have no idea how long Arsenal are able to do so, nor what sort of losses they can sustain for any length of time.
I have already ackniwledged you can run at a loss if you have other ways of raising money that makes up for the losses. You simply chose to ignore this.
You claimed this was down to greed and that Arsenal can afford to run at a loss, despite admitting you have no idea how long this situation will last or how long they can run at a loss. Therefore your claim has no basis. You always go on about how easy it is for you to admit that you are wrong, so here is a very easy opportunity for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston the spineless doesn't have the minerals to admit he's wrong. Bad trait to have when you are wrong nearly 100% of the time
posted on 9/8/20
The jobs being made redundant are administrative and commercial. Our scouting team have also been shrunk. All very obvious moves in a new world where we have no fans attending games and travel restrictions and restrictions who can go to watch games meaning scouting is less required
This is just another reason for the media to bash the club you can bet when inevitable happens and others follow suit there wont be the same uproar.
Just like when eduardo gets accused of diving and its national news and he gets retrospective ban for the first and only time in CL history. Different rules if its arsenal
posted on 9/8/20
Employees:
Arsenal - 1125
Man Utd - 922
Man City - 1047
Liverpool - 853
Spurs - 549
The truth is Wenger loved empire building with a socialist model. Arsenal needed to restructure for 2 years. The virus only sped up the process.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by The One (U22189)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
No Welshpool, I’m giving my opinion.
I find it hard to believe Arsenal would go bust if they don’t make this move.
What this based on? Well, a combination of a rudimentary understanding of Premier League finances and common sense.
Disagree? That’s fine.
It is viable to run at a loss for a period of time in order to protect staff jobs. You were wrong.
Will you admit it?
Of course you won’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you know how long you are going tk be running at a loss. You have already admitted that you have no idea how long Arsenal are able to do so, nor what sort of losses they can sustain for any length of time.
I have already ackniwledged you can run at a loss if you have other ways of raising money that makes up for the losses. You simply chose to ignore this.
You claimed this was down to greed and that Arsenal can afford to run at a loss, despite admitting you have no idea how long this situation will last or how long they can run at a loss. Therefore your claim has no basis. You always go on about how easy it is for you to admit that you are wrong, so here is a very easy opportunity for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston the spineless doesn't have the minerals to admit he's wrong. Bad trait to have when you are wrong nearly 100% of the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet he says he is always happy to admit when he is wrong
posted on 9/8/20
comment by The One (U22189)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
The jobs being made redundant are administrative and commercial. Our scouting team have also been shrunk. All very obvious moves in a new world where we have no fans attending games and travel restrictions and restrictions who can go to watch games meaning scouting is less required
This is just another reason for the media to bash the club you can bet when inevitable happens and others follow suit there wont be the same uproar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are supposed to be a classy club who do things the right way, our owner could easily afford to keep these staff on a while longer until the economy settles down at least. Throwing them under the bus at a time like this when Stan has seen his wealth increase by £323 million during the Coronavirus months is immoral to say the least, disgusting I'd say actually.
What percentage of that £323,000,000 would have been required to not send 55 people's lives on low to low-medium salaries into potential chaos and turmoil right now? You do the math.
posted on 9/8/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by The One (U22189)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
The jobs being made redundant are administrative and commercial. Our scouting team have also been shrunk. All very obvious moves in a new world where we have no fans attending games and travel restrictions and restrictions who can go to watch games meaning scouting is less required
This is just another reason for the media to bash the club you can bet when inevitable happens and others follow suit there wont be the same uproar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are supposed to be a classy club who do things the right way, our owner could easily afford to keep these staff on a while longer until the economy settles down at least. Throwing them under the bus at a time like this when Stan has seen his wealth increase by £323 million during the Coronavirus months is immoral to say the least, disgusting I'd say actually.
What percentage of that £323,000,000 would have been required to not send 55 people's lives on low to low-medium salaries into potential chaos and turmoil right now? You do the math.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously why would you keep people on you don't need? Do you expect people to play solitaire all day? I've posted the employee numbers. We already have too many people employed. More than any other club even after the redundancies.
posted on 9/8/20
Why should I bother to respond when you've already chosen to ignore everything I wrote?
Because the circumstances are extreme and we could do it without blinking? Are you really so heartless? Easy to sit there in your armchair with that opinion. The club and owner have plenty enough money to push restructuring back a little and not obliterate people's lives right now, are you a fan of suicides? Or are you just a selfish pric|< like Stan?
Final point, the players were promised that there wage cuts would mean no redundancies. So you're all for the club failing to keep promises to the players aka lying and upsetting the entire squad so long as we save a million or two over the next year+ that is going to make no difference to the club or your life? There is actually no good argument for what you are trying to say at this time given the state of the World, it's greed, pure and simple.
Btw, you misspelled Genius.
posted on 9/8/20
*their
posted on 9/8/20
You Can’t Buy Class
posted on 9/8/20
Can see both sides to this.
It is interesting that arsenal players are annoyed that staff have been made redundant, despite promises that if the players took a wage cut, staff wouldn’t be made redundant.
Some may feel that had the players taken a bigger pay cut, then those staff wouldn’t have to have been made redundant?
But I feel that would be an unfair point to make. It isn’t up to the players to ensure the job safety of other staff. It’s up to the club to do that.
On the other hand, a person isn’t made redundant. The job they do is made redundant. Is it really the case that Arsenal no longer need those jobs at the club anymore? And in this respect, if Arsenal’s finances take an up turn, and those jobs are made available again, would the same people who lost their jobs be asked to return?
There is also the issue of redundancy pay. That alone will mean that Arsenal must feel that the effects of the current situation will last for several months at least. As it could cost them several months worth of wages for each individual that has been made redundant through redundancy pay.
Looking at this from a wider perspective, why are Arsenal being singled out as a separate entity? A lot of people have and will lose their jobs during the current situation, and a lot of jobs at companies that have very rich owners, will be lost. Should the criticism aimed towards Arsenal be aimed at all employers who are cutting jobs? I ask this of the poster You can’t buy class, who brings an emotional debate to the table, mentioning something as severe as possible suicides, I imagine doing so just to try and elicit the extreme but possible effect that this kind of thing can have on people’s lives. It is an emotive but valid point, so how far should we be expected to take such a point? For me, that kind of point is far bigger than being critical of any individual company (regardless of whether that company is a football club or not).
Another point I feel worth considering is that, if the figure of over 1000 employees is correct, then Arsenal have made redundant approximately 5% of its work force. If making redundant 5% ensures the safety of the remaining employees as long as this situation lasts, then could that be seen as a positive step to take? What if Arsenal held off for longer, subsidised the waves through the owner’s pocket, but things don’t improve and further down the line 10% end up losing their jobs?
That’s a hypothetical, but could it be one that has influenced the decision to take this action now?
posted on 9/8/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 3 hours, 12 minutes ago
Why should I bother to respond when you've already chosen to ignore everything I wrote?
Because the circumstances are extreme and we could do it without blinking? Are you really so heartless? Easy to sit there in your armchair with that opinion. The club and owner have plenty enough money to push restructuring back a little and not obliterate people's lives right now, are you a fan of suicides? Or are you just a selfish pric|< like Stan?
Final point, the players were promised that there wage cuts would mean no redundancies. So you're all for the club failing to keep promises to the players aka lying and upsetting the entire squad so long as we save a million or two over the next year+ that is going to make no difference to the club or your life? There is actually no good argument for what you are trying to say at this time given the state of the World, it's greed, pure and simple.
Btw, you misspelled Genius.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try to keep insults out of it. Its a bit of ironic moniker anyway. I don't consider myself a genius at all.
Its not about being heartless. Its life. A lot of people are losing their jobs because the economics do not support their employment. Do you want them to terminate their employment now when they could find other jobs or do you want them to do it just before Christmas? I also doubt very much that they are very low grade as those jobs usually don't go in restructuring and the numbers don't support it. I suspect they are middle to upper tier management. However irrespective the cold facts are this happens in all companies and all sectors when the economy takes a downturn. Why should those people be protected while the cook down your local chippie is not?
As I showed you on the employee figures Arsenal are top heavy and club is under performing both commercially and on the football side. The number of job losses are pretty minimal.
And as for the players. They got 5% back for qualifying for Europe. Did they forgo that because they were sticking up for the those fired? Did Aubameyang give the club a discount. The salary cut they and all the executives took (btw they took a bigger cut) were to save the club as a whole. The club didn't furlough staff. The club didn't borrow from the Bank of England and endanger the other 1070 staff who still have a job.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 15 hours, 26 minutes ago
Can see both sides to this.
It is interesting that arsenal players are annoyed that staff have been made redundant, despite promises that if the players took a wage cut, staff wouldn’t be made redundant.
Some may feel that had the players taken a bigger pay cut, then those staff wouldn’t have to have been made redundant?
But I feel that would be an unfair point to make. It isn’t up to the players to ensure the job safety of other staff. It’s up to the club to do that.
On the other hand, a person isn’t made redundant. The job they do is made redundant. Is it really the case that Arsenal no longer need those jobs at the club anymore? And in this respect, if Arsenal’s finances take an up turn, and those jobs are made available again, would the same people who lost their jobs be asked to return?
There is also the issue of redundancy pay. That alone will mean that Arsenal must feel that the effects of the current situation will last for several months at least. As it could cost them several months worth of wages for each individual that has been made redundant through redundancy pay.
Looking at this from a wider perspective, why are Arsenal being singled out as a separate entity? A lot of people have and will lose their jobs during the current situation, and a lot of jobs at companies that have very rich owners, will be lost. Should the criticism aimed towards Arsenal be aimed at all employers who are cutting jobs? I ask this of the poster You can’t buy class, who brings an emotional debate to the table, mentioning something as severe as possible suicides, I imagine doing so just to try and elicit the extreme but possible effect that this kind of thing can have on people’s lives. It is an emotive but valid point, so how far should we be expected to take such a point? For me, that kind of point is far bigger than being critical of any individual company (regardless of whether that company is a football club or not).
Another point I feel worth considering is that, if the figure of over 1000 employees is correct, then Arsenal have made redundant approximately 5% of its work force. If making redundant 5% ensures the safety of the remaining employees as long as this situation lasts, then could that be seen as a positive step to take? What if Arsenal held off for longer, subsidised the waves through the owner’s pocket, but things don’t improve and further down the line 10% end up losing their jobs?
That’s a hypothetical, but could it be one that has influenced the decision to take this action now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very well reasoned post. Unfortunately nobody here knows the detailed workings of Arsenal's finances enough to say if this is a justified decision or if it is just greed. It has been pointed out that Arsenal already made a loss last year, have a larger than average workforce, and make a larger than average proportion of their revenue from matchday income. These things suggest to me that this isn't just being done to keep profits going to owners.
The key point for me has always been keeping as many employees in employment and income for as long as possible, which is why I was a bit surprised at the outrage when clubs said they would use the furlough programme. It may not have made a difference, but i figured anything that might help stave off redundancies made complete sense to make use of.
posted on 10/8/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very well reasoned post. Unfortunately nobody here knows the detailed workings of Arsenal's finances enough to say if this is a justified decision or if it is just greed. It has been pointed out that Arsenal already made a loss last year, have a larger than average workforce, and make a larger than average proportion of their revenue from matchday income. These things suggest to me that this isn't just being done to keep profits going to owners.
The key point for me has always been keeping as many employees in employment and income for as long as possible, which is why I was a bit surprised at the outrage when clubs said they would use the furlough programme. It may not have made a difference, but i figured anything that might help stave off redundancies made complete sense to make use of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is off course that in many cases it only staves of the inevitable for a few months. At the time the Chancellor implemented the furlough scheme to stop that happening during the peak of the pandemic worsening an already dire situation. Now that the economy is open those companies that are not viable are shutting and others are slimming to stop any unnecessary insolvencies.
John Lewis for example were in a similar situation to Arsenal. They appointed a new Chief Exec because the company needed change in order to survive before the pandemic struck. The result was that already needed redundancies were brought forward afterwards because an already poor systematic problem was made worse.
Although I am sympathetic to those who have lost their jobs its a part of life. I've changed job 4 times in the past 20 years. The idea Arsenal should be singled out when every business is suffering is just ridiculous. Even huge commercial operations such as Man Utd have a smaller organisational structure than Arsenal.
posted on 10/8/20
"The problem is off course that in many cases it only staves of the inevitable for a few months."
Not necessarily.
This isn't a normal economic downturn. This could be a short, sharp downturn that is overcome within the space of 12-18 months.
If that happens, the notion that companies and the government can combine to take much of the hit in order to keep people employed and to keep society moving is absolutely valid.
Of course, we don't know how long this will last, but labelling it as 'just life' I think is not correct - it's unprecedented.
Arsenal aren't being singled out and even on this thread I have made reference to the fact that this criticism is levelled at many greedy, wealthy business owners and not just them.
As Money Can't Buy Class alluded to, as a business owner you have options here (assuming your finances are not on a knife edge).
If you disagree about which option one should take then that is your prerogative but make no mistake, for many businesses the option of taking a hit and keeping people in work is there.
Page 6 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9