The Professional Footballers' Association says proposals for a 30% pay cut for Premier League players would be "detrimental to our NHS".
The PFA also called on the league to increase its own £20m charity pledge.
The league wants players to take a 30% salary cut in order to protect jobs, amid the coronavirus pandemic.
But the union says that equates to more than £500m in wage reductions, and a loss in tax contributions of more than £200m to the UK government.
The union also questioned Health Secretary Matt Hancock's public criticism of footballers' salaries during a news conference on Thursday.
"What effect does this loss of earning to the government mean for the NHS?" the statement read. "Was this considered in the Premier League proposal and did the Health Secretary factor this in when asking players to take a salary cut?"
Liverpool furlough some non-playing staff
The PFA said all Premier League players "will play their part in making significant financial contributions in these unprecedented times".
England manager Gareth Southgate is reported to have made such a gesture by agreeing a 30% pay cut, although the Football Association declined to confirm when asked by BBC Sport.
Top-flight professionals have been coming under increasing pressure to take a drop in pay, especially with five Premier League clubs - Liverpool, Newcastle, Tottenham, Bournemouth and Norwich - now placing some non-playing staff on furlough leave under the Government's coronavirus job retention scheme.
However, clubs themselves are understood to have financial concerns, with Burnley saying on Saturday they they faced a shortfall of £50m if the Premier League season was not completed.
Brighton chief executive Paul Barber, meanwhile, said the Premier League was not ignoring the plight of the general population during the coronavirus pandemic.
The PFA statement came hours after a conference call with the Premier League and the League Managers' Association (LMA), the managers' union, to discuss the wage cut plans.
Saturday's call, which featured a Premier League presentation of the wage cut plans, was concluded in less than an hour with no agreement reached.
The Premier League is not mandated to make a decision on wage cuts, as it has to be agreed by the players and coaches. Clubs and players are now set to discuss the plan, with talks set to go into next week.
As part of the proposals, the Premier League would advance £125m to the English Football League (EFL) and National League, and give £20m towards the NHS.
The PFA says it is happy to continue talks with the Premier League, although it added: "£20m is welcome, but we believe it could be far bigger.
"The EFL money is an advance. Importantly, it will aid cashflow in the immediate, but football needs to find a way to increase funding to the EFL and non-league clubs in the long-term.
"Many clubs require an increase in funding just to survive. We believe in our football pyramid and again stress the need for solidarity between all clubs.
"Going forward, we are working together to find a solution which will be continually reviewed in order to assess the circumstance of the Covid-19 crisis.
"The players are mindful that as PAYE employees, the combined tax on their salaries is a significant contribution to funding essential public services - which are especially critical at this time."
During Saturday's conference call, the Premier League warned that it faces a £762m financial penalty if the season does not resume, and broadcasters demanded refunds on games they could not show.
It added that hundreds of millions of pounds could be lost in sponsorship and matchday revenue because the season has been suspended, and that the campaign will almost certainly be played behind closed doors if it resumes.
Oliver Dowden, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport expressed concern about the situation: "People do not want to see infighting in our national sport at a time of crisis.
"Football must play its part to show that the sport understands the pressures its lower paid staff, communities and fans face."
Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, England defender Danny Rose - on loan at Newcastle from Tottenham - said that Premier League players were keen to give up a portion of their wages to help good causes, but felt their "backs are against the wall" regarding the pressure they had faced to accept cuts.
Captains of Premier League clubs, led by Liverpool's Jordan Henderson, have been in talks over a plan to make charitable donations.
"We sort of feel that our backs are against the wall. Conversations were being had before people outside of football were commenting," Rose told the Friday Football Social.
"I've been on the phone to Jordan Henderson and he's working so hard to come up with something.
"It was just not needed for people who are not involved in football to tell footballers what they should do with their money. I found that so bizarre."
The Premier League declined to comment on the PFA statement.
'An unprecedented crisis' - analysis
Dan Roan, BBC sports editor
Rarely has the relationship between the Premier League's stars and their employers been so fragile. In an unprecedented crisis, the country's top footballers have found their voice like never before, exacerbating an unseemly row over money, and threatening to tear the sport apart in a way not seen since the threatened players' strike of 2001.
Tonight's remarkable statement represents an attempt by the players and the PFA to go on the offensive against not only their own clubs, but also their critics, including even the government.
They argue that the clubs' proposed 30% cut in wages would be counter-productive and detrimental to the NHS because of the loss in tax revenue it would result in.
They also suggest that the Premier League could be way more generous when it comes to their contributions to EFL clubs and to charity.
The Premier League had hoped today's conference call would convince the players of the need to accept the cut in pay that many politicians and members of the public have been calling for.
It seems that hope has proved naive however, and with clear tensions between the two sides, negotiations are now set to extend into next week.
Interesting debate
Ps. source BBC website this evening
i shall probably upset some people again but do you think
the royals civil list should be cut 30% ??
Seems like most people are getting fired, laid off or furloughed. Not sure why footballers should be any different. Including Danny Rose
Think their argument is cutting salaries would reduce tax contributions hence NHS funding!
"If he's calling out footballers, call out some other people. Billionaires, tax exiles, bankers. The country bailed out the banks."
@JonWalters19 tells us why footballers are an easy target for politicians, who'd rather single them out than urge tax exiles to "play their part". https://t.co/R1lJKEDOWk
Already commented on this on another thread. Absolutely disgusting, not just that they'd push back on a relatively modest pay cut when they're being paid millions for doing literally nothing, but moreso, that they'd stoop so low as to pretend the reason is that they care about "our" NHS. There would be plenty of ways of avoiding the tax implications if tgst was really their concern. It's a shameless, disgusting lie to cling on to an extra million quid. It's important to acknowledge not every footballer would have been supportive of this statement, but nonetheless, it shows that many of them are just so out of touch with the real world.
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:27:58 AM
"If he's calling out footballers, call out some other people. Billionaires, tax exiles, bankers. The country bailed out the banks."
@JonWalters19 tells us why footballers are an easy target for politicians, who'd rather single them out than urge tax exiles to "play their part". https://t.co/R1lJKEDOWk
Stupid comment from Walters (and his fellow moron Lineker said the same thing) that will resonate with a few scouse lefties but doesn't stand up to any intelligent analysis. Banks and most of the businesses that make people billionaires are far more useful to society than footballers. Most of them will have worked much longer and harder than footballers for their money. There are very few of them - only around 50 billionaires in this country. They're self-employed, and the loss of business in this period will almost certainly cost them much more than the 30% income cut proposed for footballers. And the government is already going after them, for example by stopping banks paying bonuses and shareholder dividends.
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:27:58 AM
"If he's calling out footballers, call out some other people. Billionaires, tax exiles, bankers. The country bailed out the banks."
@JonWalters19 tells us why footballers are an easy target for politicians, who'd rather single them out than urge tax exiles to "play their part". https://t.co/R1lJKEDOWk
Stupid comment from Walters (and his fellow moron Lineker said the same thing) that will resonate with a few scouse lefties but doesn't stand up to any intelligent analysis. Banks and most of the businesses that make people billionaires are far more useful to society than footballers. Most of them will have worked much longer and harder than footballers for their money. There are very few of them - only around 50 billionaires in this country. They're self-employed, and the loss of business in this period will almost certainly cost them much more than the 30% income cut proposed for footballers. And the government is already going after them, for example by stopping banks paying bonuses and shareholder dividends.
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:27:58 AM
"If he's calling out footballers, call out some other people. Billionaires, tax exiles, bankers. The country bailed out the banks."
@JonWalters19 tells us why footballers are an easy target for politicians, who'd rather single them out than urge tax exiles to "play their part". https://t.co/R1lJKEDOWk
Stupid comment from Walters (and his fellow moron Lineker said the same thing) that will resonate with a few scouse lefties but doesn't stand up to any intelligent analysis. Banks and most of the businesses that make people billionaires are far more useful to society than footballers. Most of them will have worked much longer and harder than footballers for their money. There are very few of them - only around 50 billionaires in this country. They're self-employed, and the loss of business in this period will almost certainly cost them much more than the 30% income cut proposed for footballers. And the government is already going after them, for example by stopping banks paying bonuses and shareholder dividends.
LOL where would we be without billionaire tax dodgers living in exile and or course banks who produce nothing
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:59:14 AMwhere would we be without billionaire tax dodgers living in exile
The nature of "tax dodgers living in exile" is that they are, believe it or not, in exile. So essentially out of reach. HMRC not being able to go after them is an unfortunate consequence of them being in exile, not a policy choice.
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:59:14 AM
and or course banks who produce nothing
I presume you bought your home without a mortgage, store all your savings in cash under the floorboards, never had an overdraft or bought anything on finance, don't have a pension, never insured anything, never had to change your money into a foreign currency, never made an electronic payment (so never bought anything online) and never depended on or benefitted from anyone doing any of the foregoing (which is basically everything and everyone, except you). Well done!
I can see both sides of the debate and have empathy with all opinions, but I have to confess that Statto in his own unique eccentric way has made some important salient points that if you think about it has hit the nail firmly on the head.
I thought the idea of cutting players wages was to fund the salaries of non playing staff members.
Surely millionaire footballers wouldn't refuse that.
Quote from: f321ffc on April 05, 2020, 04:31:15 AM
I thought the idea of cutting players wages was to fund the salaries of non playing staff members.
Surely millionaire footballers wouldn't refuse that.
Exactly
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on April 05, 2020, 04:46:23 AM
Quote from: f321ffc on April 05, 2020, 04:31:15 AM
I thought the idea of cutting players wages was to fund the salaries of non playing staff members.
Surely millionaire footballers wouldn't refuse that.
Exactly
Then the best way might be for those players, paid above say £20k per week, to volunteer to pay a contribution out of their net salary. That way their tax contribution remains unaffected (although I tend to agree with Statto that this was a rather weak argument from the PFA).
There are many more bankers , hedge funders, CEO´s etc than PL footballers. Let them have a cut & cancel their bonuses first.
Thoughtful piece by Wayne Rooney in today's Sunday Times on the issue of footballers' pay. Far from the usual virtue signalling by football celebrities. Probably ghost written but hopefully reflecting Rooney's views
Indeed, today's Sunday Times is particularly good, with interesting pieces by Matthew Syed and Dominic Lawson, and especially Jonathan Sumption.
Well the PFA would say that wouldn't they.
I think Footballers are obvious targets. However there's plenty more people out there earning huge amounts (and not just till they're in their mid thirties)
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut? Directors of Banks, Entertainers etc. The silence there is deafening.
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut?
I'm certainly no fan of Mike Ashley but to take him as an example, his firm's share price has lost more than 60% of its value in recent weeks. So yes.
The Premier League's donation to the NHS of £20m seems a bit small considering how many millions it generates every season. They should double the amount at the very least.
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
I think Footballers are obvious targets. However there's plenty more people out there earning huge amounts (and not just till they're in their mid thirties)
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut? Directors of Banks, Entertainers etc. The silence there is deafening.
Suppose you could argue TV entertainers etc are contributing to the effort by providing incentive to stay home?
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 01:05:33 AM
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:59:14 AMwhere would we be without billionaire tax dodgers living in exile
The nature of "tax dodgers living in exile" is that they are, believe it or not, in exile. So essentially out of reach. HMRC not being able to go after them is an unfortunate consequence of them being in exile, not a policy choice.
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:59:14 AM
and or course banks who produce nothing
I presume you bought your home without a mortgage, store all your savings in cash under the floorboards, never had an overdraft or bought anything on finance, don't have a pension, never insured anything, never had to change your money into a foreign currency, never made an electronic payment (so never bought anything online) and never depended on or benefitted from anyone doing any of the foregoing (which is basically everything and everyone, except you). Well done!
1 well who new that thanks for letting us know. But thats ok then glad to see you got your priorities right
2 they dont produce anything they provide a service which they charge for like a window cleaner. They take one persons money and lend to to somebody else and charge you for the pleasure
My memory is probably full of falsehoods but I seem to remember that as a young person we had a burgeoning sector of essential public services e.g. health, welfare, housing, education, law&order, military services, utilities and transportation, etc., alongside industries including entertainers on fairly modest incomes. Taxes were spread across a whole raft of necessary providers.
If entertainers want ever higher incomes then what will they do when their audiences don't show up because they're all dead?
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 11:53:52 AM
they dont produce anything they provide a service which they charge for like a window cleaner. They take one persons money and lend to to somebody else and charge you for the pleasure
LOL, so it's a bad thing that "they don't produce anything"? So the construction, farming and manufacturing sectors get your approval but not the banks, window cleaners, doctors and nurses et al? Seems a bit of an odd distinction to me.
I'd also add that banks are still continuing to provide their products/services through this crisis. They're still needed, and still working. Unlike footballers, who are sitting on their arses this weekend.
Quote from: john dempsey on April 04, 2020, 11:47:48 PM
i shall probably upset some people again but do you think
the royals civil list should be cut 30% ??
On the contrary - I think a 100% cut in the sovereign grant would set a great example before Her Maj speaks to the nation this evening. It must be a terrible dilemma deciding which of her 400 servants to send to Tesco to do the weekly shop.
well said Neil. When I read the royals should be cut by 30%.....outrage. Should be 100% cut, the biggest welfare recipients in the land.!!
Quote from: Neil D on April 05, 2020, 12:01:41 PM
Quote from: john dempsey on April 04, 2020, 11:47:48 PM
i shall probably upset some people again but do you think
the royals civil list should be cut 30% ??
On the contrary - I think a 100% cut in the sovereign grant would set a great example before Her Maj speaks to the nation this evening. It must be a terrible dilemma deciding which of her 400 servants to send to Tesco to do the weekly shop.
At least the Queen will be on tele this afternoon. Whereas Man City v Liverpool is off.
Unfortunately life is not and never has been fair. The current statement is from the PFA not the players. Who is in charge of the PFA, why Gordon Taylor one of if not the highest paid union official. The statement is a disgrace and makes all professionals look bad. In terms of what Covid 19 is costing this country the figures are in hundreds of billions, £200 mil is but a drop in the ocean. The proposed reduction may not be necessary for the top few clubs but may make the difference between survival and bankruptcy to other clubs. The loss of tax revenues by furloughing non playing staff will probably cost the revenue (us the taxpayer) well in excess of £200mill. How many at Spurs 550 I believe. I apologise for this rant but just wish everyone would work together as we are all in it together
In these extraordinary times there will be casualties in all business and while I expect even PL clubs to suffer financially I am yet to be convinced they will not get through it in better shape than many.
So when we talk about PL players taking a pay cut it should firstly be about ensuring everyone working in their club keeps getting paid.
I believe each club should manage their own situation so the highest earners contribute towards a redistribution within their club and keep everyone paid.
In addition, pay cuts within each club should also be appropriate to the needs of that club in helping it come through in a reasonable condition.
If PL players and clubs then want to donate facilities, goods and money etc to the fight against the virus as individuals or as a group that's for them to decide and obviously they will be judged by the moral stance.
The football authorities i.e. PL & FA should dig deep to donate to the EFL and lower base of the football pyramid to ensure they can continue as best as possible, not only an advance on future payments but an extra allowance to help them get through this.
In a nutshell I believe its a priority the PL & Championship clubs should be looking after themselves and its also time the money we have been lead to believe is held by the PFA is used to help their members at the lower levels.
Quote from: Twig on April 05, 2020, 08:53:57 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on April 05, 2020, 04:46:23 AM
Quote from: f321ffc on April 05, 2020, 04:31:15 AM
I thought the idea of cutting players wages was to fund the salaries of non playing staff members.
Surely millionaire footballers wouldn't refuse that.
That's my thought, too. Plus the day the PFA says something sensible is never going to happen. They can't say that there are times it is indefensible to stick up for their members.
One thought - lots of football clubs are owned by billionaires. Couldn't they sub the non-playing staff rather than expect a government handout?
Exactly
Then the best way might be for those players, paid above say £20k per week, to volunteer to pay a contribution out of their net salary. That way their tax contribution remains unaffected (although I tend to agree with Statto that this was a rather weak argument from the PFA).
Interesting to see yesterday that Liverpool's profit last year (CL winners, of course) was £43m. The amount they paid to parasites known as agents? £42m.
That would have paid for a lot of their staff.
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: Neil D on April 05, 2020, 12:01:41 PM
Quote from: john dempsey on April 04, 2020, 11:47:48 PM
i shall probably upset some people again but do you think
the royals civil list should be cut 30% ??
On the contrary - I think a 100% cut in the sovereign grant would set a great example before Her Maj speaks to the nation this evening. It must be a terrible dilemma deciding which of her 400 servants to send to Tesco to do the weekly shop.
At least the Queen will be on tele this afternoon. Whereas Man City v Liverpool is off.
will she be starting or coming off the bench and if she starts
will she last the full 90mins.
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut?
I'm certainly no fan of Mike Ashley but to take him as an example, his firm's share price has lost more than 60% of its value in recent weeks. So yes.
A big chunk of that is down to some really awful recent acquisitions but that's going off the topic.
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:27:58 AM
"If he's calling out footballers, call out some other people. Billionaires, tax exiles, bankers. The country bailed out the banks."
@JonWalters19 tells us why footballers are an easy target for politicians, who'd rather single them out than urge tax exiles to "play their part". https://t.co/R1lJKEDOWk
So he believes that footballers and F1 drivers work under the same principle of a single place of work and generally only travelling within a single nation? Jon, you need to take notice of WHERE the races are televised from mate (if you have even ever watched a race outside of the UK). He really does not do the rest of the footballing community any favours when displaying such ignorance.
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut?
I'm certainly no fan of Mike Ashley but to take him as an example, his firm's share price has lost more than 60% of its value in recent weeks. So yes.
A big chunk of that is down to some really awful recent acquisitions but that's going off the topic.
I'm not sure why people are looking at Business owners to take cuts. Do they also therefore feel that all those owners of businesses that are going under should be bailed out?
Quote from: domprague on April 05, 2020, 02:40:00 PM
Interesting to see yesterday that Liverpool's profit last year (CL winners, of course) was £43m. The amount they paid to parasites known as agents? £42m.
That would have paid for a lot of their staff.
Agreed. And on that point, why are some of the Prem teams taking advantage of the JRS scheme? If they would get the monies that they are 'saving' (and charging the taxpayer for) from their overpaid players, perhaps there would be less calls for players to take pay cuts generally.
Liverpool put out a statement that perhaps needs further inspection?
"Liverpool FC has placed some staff who are impacted by the Premier League suspension on furlough. The club has confirmed those staff will be paid 100 per cent of their salaries to ensure no member of staff is financially disadvantaged. "Does this mean THEY are paying 100% of wages or just the 20% that the JRS scheme doesn't cover (for those less than 30K a year)?
I think not, they are parasites, just as Newcastle, Tottenham, Norwich and Bournemouth are similarly forcing the taxpayer to foot their bill, when their owners and players could cover this with very little effort. I do hope our very own chairman does not follow this path that those greedy and selfish clubs above them are adopting. They all need calling out on this.
When the dust has settled there will be an opportunity to examine how we do things differently in future and among this should be a windfall tax on the so called wealthy clubs.
In the grand scheme of things the amount of tax paid by footballers is a pittance compared to the amount of revenue being lost at the moment, talk about clutching at straws, as posted earlier top earning players taking a pay cut which filters down the football ladder could be the difference between a small clubs survival or going to the wall.
Now Rooney has come out and called all this pressure on footballers a "disgrace". Honestly you couldn't make it up. This is giving me a personal conflict because I love our players, but this whole affair is just giving the impression most footballers are absolute tw@ts.
Tony Khan should just get on FFCTV now with Tom Cairney publicly distance our club from the PFA, Rooney, Lineker and these other greedy bastards. Take the initiatuve and announce something positive, eg that any cost cutting at FFC will be borne by the players first.
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 05:46:50 PM
Now Rooney has come out and called all this pressure on footballers a "disgrace". Honestly you couldn't make it up. This is giving me a personal conflict because I love our players, but this whole affair is just giving the impression most footballers are absolute tw@ts.
Tony Khan should just get on FFCTV now with Tom Cairney publicly distance our club from the PFA, Rooney, Lineker and these other greedy bastards. Take the initiatuve and announce something positive, eg that any cost cutting at FFC will be borne by the players first.
I absolutely agree that some of players' wage cuts should go towards ensuring that our much less well paid backroom staff are not not furloughed. But do you think there would be merit in a proportion of these player wage cuts going into a fund to support lower league clubs and their players and staff? I fear for the future of lower league football after this is all finally over and without a robust structure below the top two leagues the whole edifice is in jeopardy.
In the NBA, Cleveland Cavaliers star player Kevin Love donated $100,000 to help arena support staff meet living expenses while the moratorium continues. Others are now slowly stepping up as well. I'd like to see footballers, especially the highest paid ones, follow suit.
Quote from: Twig on April 05, 2020, 07:44:07 PM
But do you think there would be merit in a proportion of these player wage cuts going into a fund to support lower league clubs and their players and staff? I fear for the future of lower league football after this is all finally over and without a robust structure below the top two leagues the whole edifice is in jeopardy.
Yes seems very reasonable to me
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 07:58:44 PM
Quote from: Twig on April 05, 2020, 07:44:07 PM
But do you think there would be merit in a proportion of these player wage cuts going into a fund to support lower league clubs and their players and staff? I fear for the future of lower league football after this is all finally over and without a robust structure below the top two leagues the whole edifice is in jeopardy.
Yes seems very reasonable to me
And therein lies the nub of it for our beloved game. I fear that many smaller clubs are likely to go under that the leagues and divisions that we have become so used to could start to fold like a pack of cards. I don't see any strategic leadership from the top of football, or any other sports that I can think of. Certainly there is a need to address the short term financial issues but the long term may look very different to what we have been used to and some planning wouldn't go amiss.
Quote from: Logicalman on April 05, 2020, 04:34:40 PM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut?
I'm certainly no fan of Mike Ashley but to take him as an example, his firm's share price has lost more than 60% of its value in recent weeks. So yes.
A big chunk of that is down to some really awful recent acquisitions but that's going off the topic.
I'm not sure why people are looking at Business owners to take cuts. Do they also therefore feel that all those owners of businesses that are going under should be bailed out?
I do. We bailed out the Banks when they screwed up. I think the Government should make every effort to refloat business that have or are likely to go under through no fault of their own. If the businesses fail then the employees are out of a job and many may face losing their homes. The knock on effects will be with us long after the virus.
The only reason they should take any pay reductions is so the lower income staff don't have to be laid off. Rather than asking the government to foot the bill for thier wages. If I didnt have to do my job (A&E Nurse) I would not be too angry about my wages going elsewhere but maybe that's just me
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 05:46:50 PM
Now Rooney has come out and called all this pressure on footballers a "disgrace". Honestly you couldn't make it up. This is giving me a personal conflict because I love our players, but this whole affair is just giving the impression most footballers are absolute tw@ts.
Tony Khan should just get on FFCTV now with Tom Cairney publicly distance our club from the PFA, Rooney, Lineker and these other greedy bastards. Take the initiatuve and announce something positive, eg that any cost cutting at FFC will be borne by the players first.
Well said. Maybe Rooney and Rose should have offered to help before it was suggested. I suppose you would actually have to think to do that
Fair point but 60% of more money than the rest of us can imagine is still masses. I don't know how the super rich live but he's not worrying how to pay for the food bill right now.
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut?
I'm certainly no fan of Mike Ashley but to take him as an example, his firm's share price has lost more than 60% of its value in recent weeks. So yes.
Are elite footballers really paying 40% tax? I doubt it very much, not entirely sure them taking a pay cut really affects tax being paid, same if all high earners I guess. Good chance to reduce the tax rate to all to something like 15% and we would probably actually get more income this way. Think Singapore or someone does this. Apparently works
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
Quote from: domprague on April 06, 2020, 11:23:58 AM
Fair point but 60% of more money than the rest of us can imagine is still masses. I don't know how the super rich live but he's not worrying how to pay for the food bill right now.
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut?
I'm certainly no fan of Mike Ashley but to take him as an example, his firm's share price has lost more than 60% of its value in recent weeks. So yes.
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make a point about the levels or fairness of economic inequality between Ashley, bankers et al and the rest of us (although FWIW I'm generally a neoliberalist so I don't personally have an issue with that sort of thing). The point I was making just evolved from the Jon Walters comment up the thread, which was essentially, "why should we ask footballers to take a pay cut when other wealthy people haven't had to?" The answer is that most wealthy people *have* had to.
It would only be a temporary pay cut, suggestions it could even be deferred, but footballers have let the message be "na". If they agreed to it expect them all to rush to their agents once this is over asking for a new contract or a move to compensate their lost earnings, citing all the good causes they have done for society
I'm probably repeating what others have said but I think the reaction of some - Lineker etc - that footballers are easy targets just shows how out of touch they are. The main point about highly paid people running businesses is surely that their large salaries are still a small proportion of turnover of their companies which may employ large numbers of staff, whereas Premier League, and probably Championship, clubs spend at least 80% of their running costs on players pay, probably more. It is outrageous for clubs to try to take advantage of a Government scheme to protect workers when only a small proportion of what they spend on players would be needed to pay other staff. Maybe the mistake was to try to agree a blanket reduction across all clubs rather than deal with this within each club. I'm sure most players themselves would be happy to support staff at their own club and it probably wouldn't require that much of a reduction in what they get.
As things stand, will all the players get booed when football eventually starts again? Interesting thought
Quote from: john dempsey on April 04, 2020, 11:47:48 PM
i shall probably upset some people again but do you think
the royals civil list should be cut 30% ??
At least by 30%
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on April 05, 2020, 04:34:40 PM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: I Ronic on April 05, 2020, 11:08:48 AM
Is Mike Ashley taking a pay cut?
I'm certainly no fan of Mike Ashley but to take him as an example, his firm's share price has lost more than 60% of its value in recent weeks. So yes.
A big chunk of that is down to some really awful recent acquisitions but that's going off the topic.
I'm not sure why people are looking at Business owners to take cuts. Do they also therefore feel that all those owners of businesses that are going under should be bailed out?
I do. We bailed out the Banks when they screwed up. I think the Government should make every effort to refloat business that have or are likely to go under through no fault of their own. If the businesses fail then the employees are out of a job and many may face losing their homes. The knock on effects will be with us long after the virus.
I don't disagree with you, so the logic flows that if we are willing to guarantee such businesses the appropriate bail-out, then we should expect them to take cuts. The rub, unfortunately, is that our pov on this may well not gel with those people who believe in the Capitalist mantra that freedom from Politics is at the center of it all and therefore the Government (of any flavour) should remain outside of it all to avoid any influence in the future. In the real world we all know such things are linked together presently, but it's nice to think there is some separation.
I hope we all respect that not all footballers are the same. The story of Sadio Mane does go a long way to show other footballers what it means to give back. Perhaps Henderson et al, will look to his team mate for some inspiration in their 'negotiations', but being the cynic I am, not hopeful
https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/six-times-sadio-mane-was-the-nicest-man-in-the-world/ (https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/six-times-sadio-mane-was-the-nicest-man-in-the-world/)
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:27:58 AM
"If he's calling out footballers, call out some other people. Billionaires, tax exiles, bankers. The country bailed out the banks."
@JonWalters19 tells us why footballers are an easy target for politicians, who'd rather single them out than urge tax exiles to "play their part". https://t.co/R1lJKEDOWk
Banks and most of the businesses that make people billionaires are far more useful to society than footballers. Most of them will have worked much longer and harder than footballers for their money.
I don't know of any businessmen or bankers who have 'worked' at their profession since they were 8 or 9 years old, given up most of their 'normal' teenage life, had to have the full support of their parents and families to help them achieve any sort of success (with the impact to 'normal' family life) and in the meantime been threatened with the 'sack' every six or twelve weeks if they don't perform or meet standards of achievement / commitment.
Not saying what the PFA are doing at this time is correct but think we need to understand that the 90mins we see on a Saturday are just the very tip of the iceberg in a footballers life.
Quote from: Logicalman on April 06, 2020, 01:38:04 PM
I hope we all respect that not all footballers are the same.
Good point. Can you imagine Cairney, Christie, McDonald, Mitrovic or Sessegnon crashing their 4x4 in the early hours of tomorrow morning? Having a hooker orgy round a mate's house? Having their ghost writer put out a newspaper article saying it's a "disgrace" that they have to take a 30% pay cut?
No.
Quote from: Montague on April 06, 2020, 01:44:58 PM
I don't know of any businessmen or bankers who have 'worked' at their profession since they were 8 or 9 years old, given up most of their 'normal' teenage life, had to have the full support of their parents and families to help them achieve any sort of success (with the impact to 'normal' family life) and in the meantime been threatened with the 'sack' every six or twelve weeks if they don't perform or meet standards of achievement / commitment.
Not saying what the PFA are doing at this time is correct but think we need to understand that the 90mins we see on a Saturday are just the very tip of the iceberg in a footballers life.
Ok just taking those points in turn -
"I don't know of any businessmen or bankers who have 'worked' at their profession since they were 8 or 9 years old..." - I admit I've met the odd CEO who left school with no qualifications, so you could argue their "careers" didn't start until their 20s, but given they're generally 50 or 60 years old, they've still been at it a lot longer than the average footballer even if you treat the latter as having started his career aged 8. And certainly, most bankers I've met (which is a lot) had impeccable academics from their GCSEs (ie early teens) through to their MBA, many years before they hit the big money.
"threatened with the 'sack' every six or twelve weeks" - They're on 3/4/5 year contracts. So if they get the 'sack' it comes with a £10m-£15m payoff (PL average). In contrast, the average banker is probably on 6 months' notice.
"the 90mins we see on a Saturday are just the very tip of the iceberg in a footballers life" - agreed. They also need to spend about 20 hours a week kicking a ball around the training ground with their mates and a few hours modelling some clothes they're being given for free. In contrast, successful businessmen and bankers will spend large parts of their lives at a desk for 16 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week.
Quote from: Montague on April 06, 2020, 01:44:58 PM
Quote from: Statto on April 05, 2020, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Ged on April 05, 2020, 12:27:58 AM
%u201CIf he%u2019s calling out footballers, call out some other people. Billionaires, tax exiles, bankers. The country bailed out the banks.%u201D
@JonWalters19 tells us why footballers are an easy target for politicians, who'd rather single them out than urge tax exiles to "play their part". https://t.co/R1lJKEDOWk
Banks and most of the businesses that make people billionaires are far more useful to society than footballers. Most of them will have worked much longer and harder than footballers for their money.
I don't know of any businessmen or bankers who have 'worked' at their profession since they were 8 or 9 years old, given up most of their 'normal' teenage life, had to have the full support of their parents and families to help them achieve any sort of success (with the impact to 'normal' family life) and in the meantime been threatened with the 'sack' every six or twelve weeks if they don't perform or meet standards of achievement / commitment.
Not saying what the PFA are doing at this time is correct but think we need to understand that the 90mins we see on a Saturday are just the very tip of the iceberg in a footballers life.
The poor life of a footballer .
This Thursday's clap is for footballers.
Most of them have already had it.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on April 06, 2020, 02:28:13 PM
Most of them have already had it.
:005: :Haynes The Maestro:
I think a problem is that two essentially separate issues are being brought together, understandably but in my view inappropriately.
The first is what is seen as misuse of the Government's furlough scheme, when wealthy businesses use the fact of a government enforced stoppage of business to offload 80% of staff wages (to an upper limit) from them to the public. The second is the issue of very high pay within a small element of the industry.
Both issues apply far beyond football. The first arises solely because of the Government's action and is designed to save jobs as without it many private sector companies would be making many more staff redundant than they are and, probably, be going out of business especially, as for understandable reasons, the Government could not, and still cannot, say when the enforced shutdown of business will end. Outside of football, some companies are responding differently to others, no doubt in part because of their differing financial positions and values, but ALL, even the most "ethical", whose businesses have been closed will have to go down the route of using the Government scheme sooner or later to survive. In the football context the likes of Liverpool and Spurs look to be on one end of a spectrum but they are only businesses doing what many another company is doing.
Then there is the issue of pay. In other businesses we see as in football, some high paid people voluntarily taking cuts for the sake of their businesses. But as Rooney has pointed out, there is very differential pay among top footballers. I've no idea who is the best paid player in the Premiership or what he earns, but it will surely be many, many times what say a young squad player in a team like Norwich or Watford will be earning. So the idea of a flat 30% reduction or whatever makes no sense, unless the Government had decided to apply that to every business for employees above a certain pay level before it could access the furlough scheme.
The bottom line is that we are where we are because of Government decisions which, whatever their merits or demerits, force the normal flow of business and revenue to stop. That is hardly the fault of any professional footballer and in my view they should be left to do what Rooney indicates they are doing, sorting out arrangements with their clubs in the light of specific circumstances.
ps
Just seen this on the BBC website:
"Britain's largest telecoms company, BT, has pledged not to fire or furlough any of its staff for the next three months.
Chief executive Philip Jansen, who tested positive for coronavirus in March, will also donate half his annual salary to charity and said the company will do "everything we can" to support its 84,000 UK employees.
"For the foreseeable future – at least the next three months – no BT, Openreach, EE or Plusnet colleague will lose their job as a result of the changing trading conditions. That's a promise," Mr Jansen wrote in a letter to staff.
While recruitment is on hold and managers' salaries have been frozen, BT has reaffirmed its commitment to provide shares worth £500 to employees and frontline staff will also be given a 1.5% salary increase.
Mr Jansen's donation to NHS charities and affected small businesses in his local community is reportedly worth over £500,000."
Obviously those decisions reflect BT's current expectations about its business (presumably not nearly as badly affected as some in other industries) and its financial position. Let's hope in three months things generally look a lot better but if not even a company like BT won't, presumably, be able to sustain a non furlough policy indefinitely.
Quote from: Oakeshott on April 06, 2020, 03:12:10 PM
I think a problem is that two essentially separate issues are being brought together, understandably but in my view inappropriately.
The first is what is seen as misuse of the Government's furlough scheme, when wealthy businesses use the fact of a government enforced stoppage of business to offload 80% of staff wages (to an upper limit) from them to the public. The second is the issue of very high pay within a small element of the industry.
Both issues apply far beyond football. The first arises solely because of the Government's action and is designed to save jobs as without it many private sector companies would be making many more staff redundant than they are and, probably, be going out of business especially, as for understandable reasons, the Government could not, and still cannot, say when the enforced shutdown of business will end. Outside of football, some companies are responding differently to others, no doubt in part because of their differing financial positions and values, but ALL, even the most "ethical", whose businesses have been closed will have to go down the route of using the Government scheme sooner or later to survive. In the football context the likes of Liverpool and Spurs look to be on one end of a spectrum but they are only businesses doing what many another company is doing.
Then there is the issue of pay. In other businesses we see as in football, some high paid people voluntarily taking cuts for the sake of their businesses. But as Rooney has pointed out, there is very differential pay among top footballers. I've no idea who is the best paid player in the Premiership or what he earns, but it will surely be many, many times what say a young squad player in a team like Norwich or Watford will be earning. So the idea of a flat 30% reduction or whatever makes no sense, unless the Government had decided to apply that to every business for employees above a certain pay level before it could access the furlough scheme.
The bottom line is that we are where we are because of Government decisions which, whatever their merits or demerits, force the normal flow of business and revenue to stop. That is hardly the fault of any professional footballer and in my view they should be left to do what Rooney indicates they are doing, sorting out arrangements with their clubs in the light of specific circumstances.
ps
Just seen this on the BBC website:
"Britain's largest telecoms company, BT, has pledged not to fire or furlough any of its staff for the next three months.
Chief executive Philip Jansen, who tested positive for coronavirus in March, will also donate half his annual salary to charity and said the company will do "everything we can" to support its 84,000 UK employees.
"For the foreseeable future – at least the next three months – no BT, Openreach, EE or Plusnet colleague will lose their job as a result of the changing trading conditions. That's a promise," Mr Jansen wrote in a letter to staff.
While recruitment is on hold and managers' salaries have been frozen, BT has reaffirmed its commitment to provide shares worth £500 to employees and frontline staff will also be given a 1.5% salary increase.
Mr Jansen's donation to NHS charities and affected small businesses in his local community is reportedly worth over £500,000."
Obviously those decisions reflect BT's current expectations about its business (presumably not nearly as badly affected as some in other industries) and its financial position. Let's hope in three months things generally look a lot better but if not even a company like BT won't, presumably, be able to sustain a non furlough policy indefinitely.
The footballers were not going to do anything .
Left to do do what Rooney indicates. :yay:
Lets put Rooney in total charge .
l
Quote from: MISERYMAN on April 06, 2020, 01:00:04 PM
I'm probably repeating what others have said but I think the reaction of some - Lineker etc - that footballers are easy targets just shows how out of touch they are. The main point about highly paid people running businesses is surely that their large salaries are still a small proportion of turnover of their companies which may employ large numbers of staff, whereas Premier League, and probably Championship, clubs spend at least 80% of their running costs on players pay, probably more. It is outrageous for clubs to try to take advantage of a Government scheme to protect workers when only a small proportion of what they spend on players would be needed to pay other staff. Maybe the mistake was to try to agree a blanket reduction across all clubs rather than deal with this within each club. I'm sure most players themselves would be happy to support staff at their own club and it probably wouldn't require that much of a reduction in what they get.
As things stand, will all the players get booed when football eventually starts again? Interesting thought
[/quote
Very good point.]
"The footballers were not going to do anything."
Your evidence for that?
How about getting agents to kick in? There are plenty making millions out of the game.
As for people running businesses and their salaries. From what I gather it is not about the salary it is the bonus and the shares.
Be nice if Andrex, Tesco, Amazon and so on kicked in a donation as they are having windfall after windfall right now.
There's a much more reasonable article on this from Alan Shearer on the BBC today for those that are interested. He defends the players to some extent by saying it's a complex situation, and most will want to help but want to take advice on the best way to do it. But he's also critical where appropriate, eg about the big clubs putting non-playing staff on furlough. Good article from a decent bloke IMO.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52209583
there are a number of issues and I hope I mam not repeating too many.
1. the players earn way too much and if the clubs cannot afford to pay 'ordinary people they employ' and have to furlough them then I think it totally reasonable that the players on their outrageous salaries should divert some of their earnings to keep the others working or at least being paid full wack!
2. the players earn way to much and excuse these obscene amounts by claiming HMG will lose tax is a ridiculous argument because at no poinmt have I seen a concerted effort by the players or the PFA to divert a a significant percentage that they will hardly notice from them to worthy causes.
3. it is up to the clubs and the players not us how the money and salaries are spent...we just need to be aware of the obscenity of it and hold it to account.
4. Amazon, google, fat cat banks/hedge funds and the such like that pay next to no tax in the UK but earn fortunes should be held to account and shown up for the greedy people they are.
I do think the players do them selves no favours in the beauty contest stakes by not doing more, and the PFA are not helping.
So the PFA have managed to drag these negotiations out for another month then... That'll be another £100m+ the players collectively "earn" this month for all that time spent on their Playstations, Instagram etc. Keeerching
Rooney at it again.
I've completely lost patience with the bloody PFA and their negotiations. I recognise it's not one size fits all, a player on 5 or 10k a week (and I know it's still a lot) is not the same as one on 100k a week. All those on £20k or more can certainly afford to make a serious gesture.
As to highly paid CEOs, bankers etc; that's far too simplistic a generalisation. Where I am critical is with companies who manage to pay a tiny tax contribution in the UK whilst operating here. But then I've always been unhappy about that and critical of successive governments for failing to close the loopholes these greedy companies exploit.
Quote from: ALG01 on April 08, 2020, 02:46:41 PM
there are a number of issues and I hope I mam not repeating too many.
1. the players earn way too much and if the clubs cannot afford to pay 'ordinary people they employ' and have to furlough them then I think it totally reasonable that the players on their outrageous salaries should divert some of their earnings to keep the others working or at least being paid full wack!
2. the players earn way to much and excuse these obscene amounts by claiming HMG will lose tax is a ridiculous argument because at no poinmt have I seen a concerted effort by the players or the PFA to divert a a significant percentage that they will hardly notice from them to worthy causes.
3. it is up to the clubs and the players not us how the money and salaries are spent...we just need to be aware of the obscenity of it and hold it to account.
4. Amazon, google, fat cat banks/hedge funds and the such like that pay next to no tax in the UK but earn fortunes should be held to account and shown up for the greedy people they are.
I do think the players do them selves no favours in the beauty contest stakes by not doing more, and the PFA are not helping.
An average worker in Ethiopia is paid £500 per year, an average worker in UK is paid £25,000 per year and an average Championship Footballer is paid £20,000 per week. So the average UK worker is over-paid or underpaid depending on their comparison, but the average UK worker will generally conclude they are underpaid. I am sure the average Championship Footballer is the same, that is thinks they are underpaid.
Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'
Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.
I don't see why footballers are picked upon while other very wealthy groups aren't.
I also think that the situation is complex between clubs and players, and am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.
Quote from: RaySmith on April 24, 2020, 04:14:30 AM
Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'
Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.
I don't see why footballers are picked upon while other very wealthy groups aren't.
I also think that the situation is complex between clubs and players, and am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.
They've been singled out in the COVID 19 outbreak because they work for small organisations who are laying off (and claiming taxpayer handouts for) staff on low/average salaries whilst continuing to pay the players' astronomical salaries in their entirety, despite the players also doing nothing at this time.
FWIW I don't have a problem with footballers earning astronomical salaries generally. Although I do think they can be distinguished from many (albeit perhaps not all) other wealthy groups on the basis of, among other things, how little use they are to society, and how young they are. I also don't think the "short careers" argument is credible when their careers are perhaps one third of the average length, but their earnings are over one hundred times average.
Quote from: Statto on April 24, 2020, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on April 24, 2020, 04:14:30 AM
Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'
Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.
I don't see why footballers are picked upon while other very wealthy groups aren't.
I also think that the situation is complex between clubs and players, and am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.
They've been singled out in the COVID 19 outbreak because they work for small organisations who are laying off (and claiming taxpayer handouts for) staff on low/average salaries whilst continuing to pay the players' astronomical salaries in their entirety, despite the players also doing nothing at this time.
FWIW I don't have a problem with footballers earning astronomical salaries generally. Although I do think they can be distinguished from other wealthy groups on the basis of, among other things, how little use they are to society, and how young they are. I also don't think the "short careers" argument is credible when their careers are perhaps one third of the average length, but their earnings are over one hundred times average.
Completely agree and for me the key point is that, as you say, they work for relatively small businesses that are furloughing staff at our expense. The "negotiations" drag on and they continue to trouser absolutely huge salaries. I'm disgusted and can only praise the few clubs where players have got on and done something more constructive.
Haven't heard from FFC yet so regrettably have to assume our lit are still in these so called negotiations?
Quote from: Twig on April 24, 2020, 09:36:15 AM
Quote from: Statto on April 24, 2020, 09:06:24 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on April 24, 2020, 04:14:30 AM
Footballer are comparable to movie and pop stars, who make millions, but it's accepted that in these industries you 'have to make hay while the sun shines.'
Footballers are the same - it' a short career, which can be suddenly ended by injury, or just being deemed not good enough.
I don't see why footballers are picked upon while other very wealthy groups aren't.
I also think that the situation is complex between clubs and players, and am sure many players want to do the best they can for their communities- footballers having a history of charity work.
They've been singled out in the COVID 19 outbreak because they work for small organisations who are laying off (and claiming taxpayer handouts for) staff on low/average salaries whilst continuing to pay the players' astronomical salaries in their entirety, despite the players also doing nothing at this time.
FWIW I don't have a problem with footballers earning astronomical salaries generally. Although I do think they can be distinguished from other wealthy groups on the basis of, among other things, how little use they are to society, and how young they are. I also don't think the "short careers" argument is credible when their careers are perhaps one third of the average length, but their earnings are over one hundred times average.
Completely agree and for me the key point is that, as you say, they work for relatively small businesses that are furloughing staff at our expense. The "negotiations" drag on and they continue to trouser absolutely huge salaries. I'm disgusted and can only praise the few clubs where players have got on and done something more constructive.
Haven't heard from FFC yet so regrettably have to assume our lit are still in these so called negotiations?
I agree also, and although they are entitled to spend their money as they wish, although they have far more money than sense, which brings its own form of arrogance and entitlement, they are not in the real world and forget you can only wear one pair of trousers at a time.
Greed is the only snake that can never ever be charmed.
