Football & Coronavirus [READ MOD NOTE IN FIRST POST - updated 06-05-20]

~Rebel~

RasTa wrote: »

If you're too thick to understand then there is no point.

Is this stuff really necessary?

paulbok

paulbok wrote: »

It'll be difficult to get t-shirts printed up at the moment mind you.

Terrible stuff from the club again after the CL game madness

In fairness to Klopp he wouldn't behave like Daglish I don't think

He wasnt happy about the CL game from what I read

I doubt he is happy about this either

brinty

brinty wrote: »

A club legend calls the club it on it

But but but everyone who hates us is focusing on us....

Nobody defending Liverpool or any other multi million pound company sucking up government cash. They deserve to be called out on it.

More concerned with it happening this side of the water.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Is this stuff really necessary?

There is plenty of it in the soccer forum lately

Why call it out now when it's a fellow liverpool fan

I could point to multiple other examples only today

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

If you're too thick to understand then there is no point. Tax exiles and foreign based billionaires should not be taking advantage.

and Sunak thinks the self employed will be the ones committing fraud regarding this scheme.

And yet Bournemouths owner is Russian isn't he? They get a pass though?

brinty

From the club who turned the area around the ground into a slum to drive down property prices for their ground expansion this is par for the course yet the fans who lap it up.

~Rebel~

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is plenty of it in the soccer forum lately

Why call it out now when it's a fellow liverpool fan

I could point to multiple other examples only today

I’m literally arguing against that same Liverpool fan right now on another thread. But that sort of rhetoric isn’t needed.

I saw it, I pointed it out. I’ve pointed it out before when I’ve seen it. I’ll point it out again when I see it. I don’t care who supports who.

Mitch Connor

As I said with Spurs, it is very poor looking when regular staff are getting this treatment but the footballers are not - but then this is what the players get for being in a powerful Union and being huge assets to their clubs.

In an ideal world, the players would be first to take a cut, to prevent the need to cut the wages of lower paid staff at the club (though they effectively are not getting a cut, the club is just leaning on the tax payer in a way people would prefer they did not).

The reality is that the money saved by this move, will be multiples less than the money they will pay the footballers (and coaches, directors) this month. This saving is nothing more than a bandaid on a wound.

I've no doubt that players will be asked to take a cut (or deferal) - and it would have been far better if their cut had come first.

The PFA is right to be questioning the overall request for a 30% cut though - to understand why and the effect of the cut etc.

Its a distasteful issue, and I don't want to dogpile on top of Liverpool over it. Though I am surprised Liverpool have gone this direction at this point in time. At the least it is a tone-def move from those in charge of a club that would loudly espouse their community and empathy. That will ring hollow for a time now.

I'd say Henderson (and others) will be disappointed as much as anyone else. While Henderson is leading a discussion for widescale donations to causes, his club is leaning on the tax payer to pay staff. Its not Henderson's fault, and I do think clubs (in geneal) are trying to force players into accepting cuts by this type of move, cyncially.

RasTa

6 wrote: »

And yet Bournemouths owner is Russian isn't he? They get a pass though?

Stop your usual deflections and whataboutery. I dunno who the owner is but if he's a Russian billionaire then obviously scum but I'd be surprised with their massive 11k stadium, same for Glazers if they try this rubbish.

ozzy jr

DeanAustin wrote: »

Match day revenue is gone.

If things are so tight at Liverpool, why is everyone pushing for playing games behind closed doors?

DeanAustin wrote: »

Do the maths.

Rayne Wooney

I thought the 30% cut was on the basis that it would be divided up between the staff first, then lower leagues and NHS etc

They aren’t asking for 30% given back to the owners for nothing? Or am I missing something here?

I’m not sure what Jon Walters was on about the other day to be honest.

citytillidie

J. Marston wrote: »

"Cash runs out." Liverpool. Any top level Premier League club for that matter.

Are you even reading what you type?

hmm not that long ago Liverpool nearly went bust

DeanAustin

ozzy jr wrote: »

If things are so tight at Liverpool, why is everyone pushing for playing games behind closed doors?

Because that will give them the TV money which is their biggest income stream even though match day revenue is not insignificant by any means.

citytillidie

6 wrote: »

5 premier league clubs doing it so far.

Can any business in the UK claim?

I am thankful i am still getting paid 100% by my company up here

DeanAustin

Mitch Connor wrote: »

As I said with Spurs, it is very poor looking when regular staff are getting this treatment but the footballers are not - but then this is what the players get for being in a powerful Union and being huge assets to their clubs.

In an ideal world, the players would be first to take a cut, to prevent the need to cut the wages of lower paid staff at the club (though they effectively are not getting a cut, the club is just leaning on the tax payer in a way people would prefer they did not).

The reality is that the money saved by this move, will be multiples less than the money they will pay the footballers (and coaches, directors) this month. This saving is nothing more than a bandaid on a wound.

I've no doubt that players will be asked to take a cut (or deferal) - and it would have been far better if their cut had come first.

The PFA is right to be questioning the overall request for a 30% cut though - to understand why and the effect of the cut etc.

Its a distasteful issue, and I don't want to dogpile on top of Liverpool over it. Though I am surprised Liverpool have gone this direction at this point in time. At the least it is a tone-def move from those in charge of a club that would loudly espouse their community and empathy. That will ring hollow for a time now.

I'd say Henderson (and others) will be disappointed as much as anyone else. While Henderson is leading a discussion for widescale donations to causes, his club is leaning on the tax payer to pay staff. Its not Henderson's fault, and I do think clubs (in geneal) are trying to force players into accepting cuts by this type of move, cyncially.

Your post is well thought out and I agree with a lot of it but there seems to be a notion that clubs have a massive pot of money to fall back on. They don't. They may turn over hundreds of millions but it's rare that their profit runs into that sort of number if they make a profit at all. Clubs cannot afford to take this hit for very long without borrowing or having a cash injection.

Another way of looking at this, and it's mental gymnastics a bit but also factually correct. Around 45% of a player's wages goes in tax (or should go in tax). The clubs want the players to take a pay cut. If that happened, the government would lose 45% of whatever the cut is. So perhaps in an owner's head, this is their way of recovering some of the money which, morally, the players (and consequently the government) shouldn't be taking.

I'm not saying I agree with what Spurs and Liverpool have done. However, the issue is being simplified by some into "clubs have loads of cash" when they don't and Levy, Ashley and Henry are some sort of evil villains just trying to line their own pockets which they aren't.

noodler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yea the multi million companies in ireland, the big bad Pharma companies who are still working as normal making life saving medicines for the rest of world

For shame on them and their hard working employees who are going to work and risking their health for actual essential services

The mask slipping for a few alright

Defence of the ethics of big pharma..

I've heard it all now.

There really are no limits to your agenda.

ozzy jr

Been on a couple of Liverpool forums since this was make public and it's total condemnation of the pub for doing this, well apart from the couple of players here.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Defence of the ethics of big pharma..

I've heard it all now.

There really are no limits to your agenda.

His argument is all over the shop.

Offended by football clubs getting government aid but big pharma which are multiples of football clubs are ok to do the same. Hmmm.

Give the money to companies that really need it

~Rebel~

6 wrote: »

His argument is all over the shop.

Offended by football clubs getting government aid but big pharma which are multiples of football clubs are ok to do the same. Hmmm.

Give the money to companies that really need it

Stepping away from football for a moment, I think some people are missing the point of what this is for...

Under normal circumstances, if an employee can no longer work for a potentially prolonged period of time, and if their contract allows it, they will either be furloughed or laid off.

This virus means that lots and lots of people cannot work.

So to stop them being laid off entirely, the governments have stepped in to take care of a large % of wages up to a set figure.

This is not to protect the company so much as to protect the employees.

So if you say that this is only for company's that don't have much money, and the rich ones can go do one, what you're really saying is "the employees of rich companies can go fuck themselves." Just because a company is rich, doesn't mean they will be any more willing to spend wage money unnecessarily. If they have staff that cannot work, make no mistake, they will simply lay off those non-working employees whether this program exists or not. Just look at the US where in less than 2 weeks, unemployment has risen by almost 9 million - and that's without any such protective scheme.

Again, if you start benchmarking what company's get this, the only people you hurt are random innocent employees.

Mitch Connor

DeanAustin wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree with what Spurs and Liverpool have done. However, the issue is being simplified by some into "clubs have loads of cash" when they don't and Levy, Ashley and Henry are some sort of evil villains just trying to line their own pockets which they aren't.

the money saved on the cuts to the staff, is inconsequential in comparison to the wages they pay both themselves and the players. that is the point, I've not (and wouldn't, argue the clubs have bottomless pits of cash. But they money saved on these cuts won't make any material difference when we are talking about a lack of match day income or the potential of TV money being clawed back.

The clubs don't have loads of cash - but this isn't solving anything.
The owners are using this, imo, to put pressure on the players to take a cut - which is ultimately what they need, not to save 80% of the tea-ladies wage.

DeanAustin

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the money saved on the cuts to the staff, is inconsequential in comparison to the wages they pay both themselves and the players. that is the point, I've not (and wouldn't, argue the clubs have bottomless pits of cash. But they money saved on these cuts won't make any material difference when we are talking about a lack of match day income or the potential of TV money being clawed back.

The clubs don't have loads of cash - but this isn't solving anything.
The owners are using this, imo, to put pressure on the players to take a cut - which is ultimately what they need, not to save 80% of the tea-ladies wage.

I think there is definitely an element of that and that’s fairly cynical. But Spurs furloughed 550 staff. That’ll save 1.0m to 1.3m a month. That’s probably close to a weeks wages for the players so it is actually making a material difference.

fyfe79

Deleted User wrote: »

Yea the multi million companies in ireland, the big bad Pharma companies who are still working as normal making life saving medicines for the rest of world

For shame on them and their hard working employees who are going to work and risking their health for actual essential services

The mask slipping for a few alright

I'm one of those employees. In fact, was in work today for 12 hours. Lots of Liverpool fans in my company as we are in that 35-50 bracket.

My own company is full of sh!t - doing the 'social distancing' for show, they even sent a bunch of employees home for the day as they knew a government health official was paying a visit recently. On the floor it's a different story.

Sardines, ye say??? :rolleyes:

fyfe79

RasTa wrote: »

If you're too thick to understand then there is no point. Tax exiles and foreign based billionaires should not be taking advantage.

and Sunak thinks the self employed will be the ones committing fraud regarding this scheme.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Is this stuff really necessary?

I thought Rasta's were supposed to be chilled out?

But, sure, the Sisters thanked it so that's the main thing. They liked it.

noodler

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Stepping away from football for a moment, I think some people are missing the point of what this is for...

Under normal circumstances, if an employee can no longer work for a potentially prolonged period of time, and if their contract allows it, they will either be furloughed or laid off.

This virus means that lots and lots of people cannot work.

So to stop them being laid off entirely, the governments have stepped in to take care of a large % of wages up to a set figure.

This is not to protect the company so much as to protect the employees.

So if you say that this is only for company's that don't have much money, and the rich ones can go do one, what you're really saying is "the employees of rich companies can go fuck themselves." Just because a company is rich, doesn't mean they will be any more willing to spend wage money unnecessarily. If they have staff that cannot work, make no mistake, they will simply lay off those non-working employees whether this program exists or not. Just look at the US where in less than 2 weeks, unemployment has risen by almost 9 million - and that's without any such protective scheme.

Again, if you start benchmarking what company's get this, the only people you hurt are random innocent employees.

All true.

Essentially, people think one of two things:

The club's actually do have the revenue or the the accumulated wealth within their operation to weather this without resorting to the scheme.

Or

The club's owners should step in with their own money.

fyfe79

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the money saved on the cuts to the staff, is inconsequential in comparison to the wages they pay both themselves and the players. that is the point, I've not (and wouldn't, argue the clubs have bottomless pits of cash. But they money saved on these cuts won't make any material difference when we are talking about a lack of match day income or the potential of TV money being clawed back.

The clubs don't have loads of cash - but this isn't solving anything.
The owners are using this, imo, to put pressure on the players to take a cut - which is ultimately what they need, not to save 80% of the tea-ladies wage.

Could well be a stand-off between the players and the owners.

The players will know that taking a pay-cut will benefit the owners, while if they take full wages as normal, it increases the tax-take for the government. They can then give, say, 30% (just for example, as that's the figure mentioned by the government fella) of their wages, after tax, to charities/NHS. Isn't that what Henderson's trying to set up with all the other PL captains?

~Rebel~

noodler wrote: »

All true.

Essentially, people think one of two things:

The club's actually do have the revenue or the the accumulated wealth within their operation to weather this without resorting to the scheme.

Or

The club's owners should step in with their own money.

Yeah, when you bring football into it, you bring in a very different, and very unique dynamic with the moral obligation people attribute towards a local football club.

I started my post with "Stepping away from football for a moment", because quite a few posts from people were talking about large (non-football) companies in general taking advantage of the scheme, and that their employees shouldn't be allowed to avail of it. Which points towards a general misunderstanding of what, and who, the government program is actually for.


Now stepping back towards football... it's a tricky one. From a business standpoint I don't think it's as simple as people make out -- but because of the local tie-ins, and especially simply the optics of it all, they would perhaps have been better served by paying those wages in-house and chalking the cost down to good marketing and publicity.


As a slight aside, I wonder what this means with regards the remaining 4 home games, and the payment for the staff that are required then? The current furloughed staff are getting 80% of their wages for those 4 unplayed games paid from the government scheme, because of course those games are not being played... but when they do get played, presumably some of those staff members will be needed to work, even if its behind-closed-doors, and so the club will then pay those same staff members once again for actually working those games, so in effect some will be getting double their wages for those 4 specific games. Unless the only staff members being furloughed are those that would not be needed in a behind-closed-doors scenario. Interesting little caveat.

Fitz*

The match day staff have already been paid for the remaining games. Or at least there is a commitment to them being paid by Liverpool. Something that seems to be forgotten in this thread.

As for being double paid, I'm not sure. They might well be. It could be a similar situation to here in Ireland where a teenager who was working 10 hours a week in the local pub suddenly finds themselves earning 3 times their wage by being let go and getting the new Covid payment.

As I've said before, as a fan it's not great from the owners of Liverpool. They should be able to support the staff. But, to play devils advocate here, from a business perspective, why wouldn't they (the owners of the club) take advantage of the situation. The opportunity is there to have staff wages propped up by someone else so they are taking it. Nearly all small businesses are taking advantage of it, as they should. Big businesses should not, but they are. Was Michael o Leary wrong to take advantage of 9/11 and buy up planes while they were cheap? Morally, perhaps. In a business sense, it was smart. And that's not me defending the owners either. I don't agree with what they are doing.

Shanotheslayer

People need to realise business is business.

They didn't get into that position by having a strong moral compass. If I remember correctly I believe there's some stat that stats a lot of wealthy business people are psychopaths( Or maybe sociopaths) due to the decisions they make.

Personally from a business perspective I have no problem with what Liverpool did.

Fitz*

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

People need to realise business is business.

They didn't get into that position by having a strong moral compass. If I remember correctly I believe there's some stat that stats a lot of wealthy business people are psychopaths( Or maybe sociopaths) due to the decisions they make.

Personally from a business perspective I have no problem with what Liverpool did.

As Bill Gates said in the Simpsons, "I didn't get rich by writing a lot of cheques"

J. Marston

citytillidie wrote: »

hmm not that long ago Liverpool nearly went bust

Due to years and years of mismanagement.

You've now had years and years of great management, off-field and on-field, leading to colossal amounts of money generated.

Are Liverpool gonna go bust after 2-3 months of paying workers wages, yeah?

"Hmm."

noodler

J. Marston wrote: »

Due to years and years of mismanagement.

You've now had years and years of great management, off-field and on-field, leading to colossal amounts of money generated.

Are Liverpool gonna go bust after 2-3 months of paying workers wages, yeah?

"Hmm."

Will they have 2020 revenue to pay 2020 expenses?

Honestly don't know. The scheme here requires you to evidence a 25% reduction in revenue, I dunno what the criteria is for the UK one.

If you are saying that the owners have the cash to pay those ways then that is obviously correct.

The_Kew_Tour

From a Business perspective it's fine, no problemo.

But next time they try think they are just that little bit different to even rest of England that's when the wide smiles and smirks will arise.

They wont be last though in my opinion. England's curve is worse then Italy. Lockdown is not working in England. It will be mayhem and the people at the Frontline will sadly suffer the most.

Strumms

Forgetting what club it is for a second, Liverpool wouldn't think twice about splashing 40 million on a midfielder this summer, and associated fees... can they not continue to invest a fücking fraction of that on supporting staff ?

noodler

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

From a Business perspective it's fine, no problemo.

But next time they try think they are just that little bit different to even rest of England that's when the wide smiles and smirks will arise.

They wont be last though in my opinion. England's curve is worse then Italy. Lockdown is not working in England. It will be mayhem and the people at the Frontline will sadly suffer the most.

Ah yeah but you are a utd fan like Brinty and the weird lad who thanks every anti-liverpool post.

It'll be something for people with a chip on their shoulder to emphasize despite all the other good things the club does.

Like really, wide smiles and smirks? It's impossible to discuss anything on here.

The_Kew_Tour

noodler wrote: »

Ah yeah but you are a utd fan like Brinty and the weird lad who thanks every anti-liverpool post.

It'll be something for people with a chip on their shoulder to emphasize despite all the other good things the club does.

Like really, wide smiles and smirks? It's impossible to discuss anything on here.

Maybe if you stopped mocking people. Ya maybe then it would be easier to discuss

Iused2likebusts

What Liverpool have done doesnt look good but it just shows why the world will have to change strategy over the next couple of months and a big percentage of the workforce will have to go back to work including footballers. The world economy cant maintain the current restrictions until a vaccine is found so alternative solutions will have to be found.

RasTa

Liverpool CEO Peter Moore Oct '19: "We had this historical figure, Bill Shankly, a Scottish socialist. Today when we speak about business questions, we ask ourselves: 'what would Shankly do?' Doubt he'd have said let the taxpayer pay some wages when you've just made £42m profit.

fyfe79 wrote: »

I thought Rasta's were supposed to be chilled out?

But, sure, the Sisters thanked it so that's the main thing. They liked it.

You've obviously never seen Predator 2. Dunno why you get so upset about thanked posts

rgace

Any Liverpool supporter who believed the owners were socialists would indeed be surprised by this. I don't think most people believe the kind of PR guff like the example above.

The people of the UK elected a conservative government by a landslide so if the taxpayers are not happy they might vote differently the next time.

RasTa

I don't get this tory angle, what they have done with this 80% of wages is a pretty socialist policy.

adaminho

Strumms wrote: »

Forgetting what club it is for a second, Liverpool wouldn't think twice about splashing 40 million on a midfielder this summer, and associated fees... can they not continue to invest a fücking fraction of that on supporting staff ?

I work for a large UK firm. They are using the government scheme to Pay us 100% wages till the end of our monthly cycle. Would I have a problem with them shelling out 40 million on a new warehouse after this if I knew it could help increase sales? Players are assets to clubs and wages are like rent on a premises.

If my company doesn't take money from the government to pay my wages and uses their reserves I doubt there'll be a company to go back to!

gimli2112

I'm not happy with what Liverpool are doing but some of the stuff here is misguided. The workers are still being paid 100% but 80% is coming from the UK government. Anyone seriously thinks a US business man isn't going to screw over the UK government rather than pay for something themelves?
It's morally incorrect, bankrupt or treasonous depending on your point of view.
I seriously think this along with Brexit is going to bankrupt the UK for generations. It's going to create a very hostile environment.

rgace

RasTa wrote: »

I don't get this tory angle, what they have done with this 80% of wages is a pretty socialist policy.

You are right actually.

This kind of policy is designed to keep people in jobs and companies afloat which is a good thing, Liverpool is run for a profit just like another business.

I would love if governments took the money directly from billionaires like John Henry to pay for this but I can't see it happening.

noodler

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Maybe if you stopped mocking people. Ya maybe then it would be easier to discuss

If you are admitting the whole thing is giving you some sort of smug satisfaction then the whole honest discussion is pretty much tainted.

You are just being honest of course.

Fr Tod Umptious

RasTa wrote: »

I don't get this tory angle, what they have done with this 80% of wages is a pretty socialist policy.

People will do anything to find fault with a policy from a party/politician they don't agree with.

fyfe79

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

From a Business perspective it's fine, no problemo.

But next time they try think they are just that little bit different to even rest of England that's when the wide smiles and smirks will arise.

They wont be last though in my opinion. England's curve is worse then Italy. Lockdown is not working in England. It will be mayhem and the people at the Frontline will sadly suffer the most.

Scousers don't seem to agree with this decision from what I'm seeing. The US businessmen have made the decision, not the locals.

fyfe79

RasTa wrote: »

You've obviously never seen Predator 2. Dunno why you get so upset about thanked posts

Upset? It's simply observing something and then commenting on it. It's what people do on message boards, no big deal.

8-10

rgace wrote: »

Any Liverpool supporter who believed the owners were socialists would indeed be surprised by this. I don't think most people believe the kind of PR guff like the example above.

The people of the UK elected a conservative government by a landslide so if the taxpayers are not happy they might vote differently the next time.

Taxpayers in Liverpool don't vote Tory.

I think most clubs will end up doing this but for Liverpool's owners to be one of the first, given the opinions of the city and the fanbase, is very misguided.

Also surprised that some posters here are linking this to how Liverpool people feel in relation to the rest of England...I don't see how that's related when the decision is the US owners and every Liverpool legend and local fans are all coming out against this. I think some people here have less of an understanding about Liverpool than FSG are showing.

At its best this is terrible PR. Just hope everybody keeps their jobs.

JPA

The PFA need to stop digging here.
Look to Barcelona and Juventus for leadership on how to handle this. The players are doing irreparable damage here.

RasTa

fyfe79 wrote: »

Upset? It's simply observing something and then commenting on it. It's what people do on message boards, no big deal.

Yeah, upset. You are looking at who is thanking posts and posting about said people who thanked a post, tis odd. You're not even observing "posts" to comment on.

adox

Ashley and Levy got lambasted for their actions and so should Liverpool.

It’s amazing to see some have utter blind loyalty to the club(especially in these desperate extraordinary times) and won’t criticise anything the club do and actually try to justify it.

You look kinda silly imo, especially when you often try to take the moral high ground.