| Furloughed Staff 17:50 - Apr 4 with 9107 views | Barrowdale |
Is it just me or is it abhorrent to see Liverpool taking government (our) money to pay non playing staff wages? |  | | |  |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:17 - Apr 5 with 2516 views | judd |
Furloughing has to be agreed by employer and employee and the selection procedure has to be similar to that followed in a redundancy situation.
It means a change in the employment contract.
The written agreement has to be kept on file for 5 years.
As well as economic reasons, some businesses are taking the opportunity to offer staff furloughing because some staff are simply terrified, or at least scared, of actually going into work.
I am not condoning nor condemning Liverpool, but would be interested to know their reasoning for their action, and if they are paying the 20% salary differential to those furloughed. |  |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:34 - Apr 5 with 2493 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:17 - Apr 5 by judd |
Furloughing has to be agreed by employer and employee and the selection procedure has to be similar to that followed in a redundancy situation.
It means a change in the employment contract.
The written agreement has to be kept on file for 5 years.
As well as economic reasons, some businesses are taking the opportunity to offer staff furloughing because some staff are simply terrified, or at least scared, of actually going into work.
I am not condoning nor condemning Liverpool, but would be interested to know their reasoning for their action, and if they are paying the 20% salary differential to those furloughed. |
Did they not say they were |  |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:58 - Apr 5 with 2464 views | judd |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:34 - Apr 5 by rochdaleriddler |
Did they not say they were |
I've no idea. | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 23:05 - Apr 5 with 2425 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Furloughed Staff on 15:53 - Apr 5 by Dalenet |
I think you need to have the facts before you make these statements RAFC. There are some businesses that will make an immediate loss and cannot cover their costs and will need to use the scheme. There are many businesses that are profitable that could choose to use the scheme but have chosen not do so because it isn't morally right to do so. Many of our biggest businesses are continuing to pay their staff in full and have elected to stop paying wage increases, bonuses or paying dividends in order to pay their staff in full. The Treasury thinks that about 10% of employees will be furloughed so most are still being paid directly for now.
Dale are using the scheme for non playing staff as announced by DB in his interview last week. I don't know how many that covers. But we don't have the money to pay our people so I understand it. Liverpool don't have that excuse. They are profitable and can afford to pay their staff. Yes there is no match day income, but they have received huge TV money, sponsorship monies and their ticket sales were made a year ago. So you're not telling me it is right that they use a scheme just because technically they can. Interesting that Man City have said they won't leech of the public purse in the same way.
I have decided that I will patronise businesses that have done the right thing during this crisis. I won't patronise those that have take advantage. It staggers me that you try to defend it.
Finally I just heard Rooney talking shite. He needs to shut his gob and remember where he has come from. Most hard working people won't have any sympathy with him. I agree that it isn't the players fault, but the PFA should hang their head in shame. They clearly don't believe that we are all in this together. And if players earn a bit less (not all the 30% is lost as some of it is deferred) then how can they say that the reduced tax take will hit the NHS? Shockingly out of touch with the society that the rest of us live in. [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 15:54]
|
There’s nothing to defend Dalenet, it’s a lawfully announced scheme.
When the data comes out on this furlough round it will be a lot more than 10% of employees.
The Treasury has estimated that about 3m people, or 10 per cent of the private sector workforce, would be laid off temporarily and thus their employers would be able to take advantage of the government job retention scheme, which covers four-fifths of wages up to £2,500 a month.
However, in a survey by the British Chambers of Commerce, about 44 per cent of companies said that at least half their staff would be paid through the scheme, and one-third said that they were planning to furlough more than 75 per cent of their workforce over the next week. A fifth of businesses had closed operations temporarily, it found.
I’ll predict 50% which seems a high percentage but the time window of two month very short. It’s biggest impact will be in London and the South East with other notable impacts in the Midlands and the North West.
If you are not going to be patronising businesses that are using this scheme then it’s going to severely limit your choices.
Even RAFC have the money to not use it but are using the scheme to not have to take the payroll cost. They are in some amazing company!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8182915/Bailout-giants-Biggest-firms-th |  |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 08:59 - Apr 6 with 2302 views | Dalenet |
| Furloughed Staff on 23:05 - Apr 5 by RAFCBLUE |
There’s nothing to defend Dalenet, it’s a lawfully announced scheme.
When the data comes out on this furlough round it will be a lot more than 10% of employees.
The Treasury has estimated that about 3m people, or 10 per cent of the private sector workforce, would be laid off temporarily and thus their employers would be able to take advantage of the government job retention scheme, which covers four-fifths of wages up to £2,500 a month.
However, in a survey by the British Chambers of Commerce, about 44 per cent of companies said that at least half their staff would be paid through the scheme, and one-third said that they were planning to furlough more than 75 per cent of their workforce over the next week. A fifth of businesses had closed operations temporarily, it found.
I’ll predict 50% which seems a high percentage but the time window of two month very short. It’s biggest impact will be in London and the South East with other notable impacts in the Midlands and the North West.
If you are not going to be patronising businesses that are using this scheme then it’s going to severely limit your choices.
Even RAFC have the money to not use it but are using the scheme to not have to take the payroll cost. They are in some amazing company!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8182915/Bailout-giants-Biggest-firms-th |
Okay I accept it is a lawful scheme. But it was set up to help the businesses who didn't have the cash flow to pay people because the Government had chosen to tell them to close down. The Govt is well aware of the risks and they are considering how they can post event review whether the businesses can defend their actions. Some sectors have been asked to stop paying their dividends to shareholders to ensure that they have enough liquidity and capital to support their businesses in a long down turn. For some reasons others are not.
Liverpool FC annoys me because they made £42m profit last year. They could so easily pay their staff. The argument that they would otherwise need to make them redundant is rubbish. They will need those people as soon as the season restarts and so the jobs aren't really at risk. It is opportunistic to advantage of the scheme. Whitbread (who by the way don't own Costa nowadays) paid all their staff without the furlough scheme for March even though it was backdated to 1st March. They also gave some of their hotels to the Govt to support the NHS staff. That type of action should be applauded. I sit on a board of a business that employs 200 people. Some of our people are being asked to stay at work to serve the public as we are on the list of critical workers. But others in the team are working from home or cannot be usefully employed right now. We have taken the decision not to furlough those people because it would be morally wrong to do so. So Yes, when all this is over, I will choose carefully who I buy from. Including the local businesses that have served me well in recent weeks. |  | | |
| Furloughed Staff on 11:51 - Apr 6 with 2227 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Furloughed Staff on 08:59 - Apr 6 by Dalenet |
Okay I accept it is a lawful scheme. But it was set up to help the businesses who didn't have the cash flow to pay people because the Government had chosen to tell them to close down. The Govt is well aware of the risks and they are considering how they can post event review whether the businesses can defend their actions. Some sectors have been asked to stop paying their dividends to shareholders to ensure that they have enough liquidity and capital to support their businesses in a long down turn. For some reasons others are not.
Liverpool FC annoys me because they made £42m profit last year. They could so easily pay their staff. The argument that they would otherwise need to make them redundant is rubbish. They will need those people as soon as the season restarts and so the jobs aren't really at risk. It is opportunistic to advantage of the scheme. Whitbread (who by the way don't own Costa nowadays) paid all their staff without the furlough scheme for March even though it was backdated to 1st March. They also gave some of their hotels to the Govt to support the NHS staff. That type of action should be applauded. I sit on a board of a business that employs 200 people. Some of our people are being asked to stay at work to serve the public as we are on the list of critical workers. But others in the team are working from home or cannot be usefully employed right now. We have taken the decision not to furlough those people because it would be morally wrong to do so. So Yes, when all this is over, I will choose carefully who I buy from. Including the local businesses that have served me well in recent weeks. |
Borrowed from Phil Pellow
It is her sense of social responsibility that also sets [Everton CEO] Barrett-Baxendale apart. She was instrumental in signing Everton to the Covid-19 Business Pledge, a commitment by some of the biggest companies in the UK to help employees, customers and communities get through the crisis.
Everton are the only football club signed up to the pledge, launched by former cabinet minister Justine Greening, and Barrett-Baxendale was swiftly invited onto its steering group to provide guidance to co-signatures such as BP, Experian plc, National Grid and DLA Piper.
At Everton, she brought forward pay-day and ensured that all casual match-day and non match-day staff will still be paid throughout the lockdown.
It means stewards will still be paid until the end of the season regardless of whether football returns. If it does, they will also be paid again for working the extra nine games.
Liverpool have furloughed their staff and applied for Government assistance. | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:18 - Apr 6 with 2160 views | TalkingSutty |
Why are Premiership/EFL Clubs not furloughing the players? The 80% payment is up to a maximum of £2,500/week I believe. The club's are under no obligation to pay the extra 20%. If office staff and supporters are being furloughed then why not the footballers?...or maybe keep the office staff etc on full pay and just furlough the footballers. [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 14:19]
|  | | |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:25 - Apr 6 with 2136 views | judd |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:18 - Apr 6 by TalkingSutty |
Why are Premiership/EFL Clubs not furloughing the players? The 80% payment is up to a maximum of £2,500/week I believe. The club's are under no obligation to pay the extra 20%. If office staff and supporters are being furloughed then why not the footballers?...or maybe keep the office staff etc on full pay and just furlough the footballers. [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 14:19]
|
£2,500 per month, TS. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Furloughed Staff on 14:57 - Apr 6 with 2090 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:58 - Apr 5 by judd |
I've no idea. |
They have | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:59 - Apr 6 with 2087 views | TalkingSutty |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:25 - Apr 6 by judd |
£2,500 per month, TS. |
Even better cheers. If football clubs are closed down and office staff are furloughed etc I don't understand why the playing staff, management etc aren't, especially as they will be the highest paid?
[Post edited 6 Apr 2020 15:09]
| | | |
| Furloughed Staff on 15:17 - Apr 6 with 2055 views | judd |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:59 - Apr 6 by TalkingSutty |
Even better cheers. If football clubs are closed down and office staff are furloughed etc I don't understand why the playing staff, management etc aren't, especially as they will be the highest paid?
[Post edited 6 Apr 2020 15:09]
|
As I understand it, being a change in the terms of the employment contract, footballers appear to have some form of protection in their contracts for income that differs from a regular Joe's terms. | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 15:32 - Apr 6 with 2031 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:18 - Apr 6 by TalkingSutty |
Why are Premiership/EFL Clubs not furloughing the players? The 80% payment is up to a maximum of £2,500/week I believe. The club's are under no obligation to pay the extra 20%. If office staff and supporters are being furloughed then why not the footballers?...or maybe keep the office staff etc on full pay and just furlough the footballers. [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 14:19]
|
You can only be furloughed if you also agree to it. What player in their right mind would agree to it? | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 19:06 - Apr 6 with 1895 views | nordenblue |
Liverpool in U turn over their decision, some folk aren't that daft and can see how morally shite it makes them look | | | |
| Furloughed Staff on 19:19 - Apr 6 with 1880 views | TalkingSutty |
| Furloughed Staff on 15:32 - Apr 6 by BigDaveMyCock |
You can only be furloughed if you also agree to it. What player in their right mind would agree to it? |
Maybe a very wealthy one, or one who feels a pang of guilt when he sees Club staff suffering financial hardship,.He might even think of setting an example or perhaps not want to see his Club struggling to make ends meet. I’m not just talking Premiership players neither, i’m talking EFL players, managers and other highly paid members of staff. If clubs are locked down for months then what are theses people doing to justify their salary? [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 19:24]
| | | |
| Furloughed Staff on 20:05 - Apr 6 with 1829 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Furloughed Staff on 19:19 - Apr 6 by TalkingSutty |
Maybe a very wealthy one, or one who feels a pang of guilt when he sees Club staff suffering financial hardship,.He might even think of setting an example or perhaps not want to see his Club struggling to make ends meet. I’m not just talking Premiership players neither, i’m talking EFL players, managers and other highly paid members of staff. If clubs are locked down for months then what are theses people doing to justify their salary? [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 19:24]
|
Maybe but highly unlikely.
A Premiership player on £50k a week is not going to agree to being furloughed and collect £10k a week. He is likely to sit tight until either his employer simply cannot pay him anymore or negotiate temporary salary reductions or deferments. Same for an EFL player on £1k a week and upwards.
An average worker on £3,000 a month or less is lIkely to accept furloughing because their employer will pay 20% and the government will top that up to a maximum of £2,500. It’s better than redundancy. The average joe worker will not be that much out of pocket (relative to what they were earning prior to being furloughed).
We may not like it but that’s the situation. At the heart of this is the question of capping or standardising wages across the workforce, whether butcher, baker or footballer. I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth but you don’t strike me as a socialist? I could be wrong though. [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 20:05]
| |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 20:14 - Apr 6 with 1814 views | TalkingSutty |
| Furloughed Staff on 20:05 - Apr 6 by BigDaveMyCock |
Maybe but highly unlikely.
A Premiership player on £50k a week is not going to agree to being furloughed and collect £10k a week. He is likely to sit tight until either his employer simply cannot pay him anymore or negotiate temporary salary reductions or deferments. Same for an EFL player on £1k a week and upwards.
An average worker on £3,000 a month or less is lIkely to accept furloughing because their employer will pay 20% and the government will top that up to a maximum of £2,500. It’s better than redundancy. The average joe worker will not be that much out of pocket (relative to what they were earning prior to being furloughed).
We may not like it but that’s the situation. At the heart of this is the question of capping or standardising wages across the workforce, whether butcher, baker or footballer. I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth but you don’t strike me as a socialist? I could be wrong though. [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 20:05]
|
Plenty of rich socialists, look at Scargill. | | | |
| Furloughed Staff on 20:20 - Apr 6 with 1797 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Furloughed Staff on 20:14 - Apr 6 by TalkingSutty |
Plenty of rich socialists, look at Scargill. |
I’m sure there are. So, Arthur aside, I take it that you’re not in favour of capping or standardising wages then? | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 20:25 - Apr 6 with 1787 views | D_Alien |
Liverpool's u-turn suggests they've accepted there's wider issues at stake than purely financial considerations. If those players with anything like an antenna for how this might pan out were "sitting tight" up till now, they might've just started squirming
[Post edited 6 Apr 2020 20:27]
|  |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:44 - Apr 6 with 1706 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Furloughed Staff on 20:25 - Apr 6 by D_Alien |
Liverpool's u-turn suggests they've accepted there's wider issues at stake than purely financial considerations. If those players with anything like an antenna for how this might pan out were "sitting tight" up till now, they might've just started squirming
[Post edited 6 Apr 2020 20:27]
|
I think it had more to do with the public outrage caused by a very profitable organisation using tax payers money to fund the furloughing of non-playing staff. McDonald’s are doing it, rather than dipping into their vast profits.
Whether this prompts Liverpool players to accept a wage cut or deferral remains to be seen. | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 21:50 - Apr 6 with 1700 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Furloughed Staff on 08:59 - Apr 6 by Dalenet |
Okay I accept it is a lawful scheme. But it was set up to help the businesses who didn't have the cash flow to pay people because the Government had chosen to tell them to close down. The Govt is well aware of the risks and they are considering how they can post event review whether the businesses can defend their actions. Some sectors have been asked to stop paying their dividends to shareholders to ensure that they have enough liquidity and capital to support their businesses in a long down turn. For some reasons others are not.
Liverpool FC annoys me because they made £42m profit last year. They could so easily pay their staff. The argument that they would otherwise need to make them redundant is rubbish. They will need those people as soon as the season restarts and so the jobs aren't really at risk. It is opportunistic to advantage of the scheme. Whitbread (who by the way don't own Costa nowadays) paid all their staff without the furlough scheme for March even though it was backdated to 1st March. They also gave some of their hotels to the Govt to support the NHS staff. That type of action should be applauded. I sit on a board of a business that employs 200 people. Some of our people are being asked to stay at work to serve the public as we are on the list of critical workers. But others in the team are working from home or cannot be usefully employed right now. We have taken the decision not to furlough those people because it would be morally wrong to do so. So Yes, when all this is over, I will choose carefully who I buy from. Including the local businesses that have served me well in recent weeks. |
I admire your principles Dalenet.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the furlough safety net is removed in 8 weeks (possibly longer) and firms are left to market economics.
Those employees generate a lot of tax for the government and add to making sure the welfare bill is manageable, in political terms.
Government made the mistake of making furlough a choice and some firms are now reliant on that choice.
A June economy resumption is going to lead to a lot of redundancies IMO, demand has slumped and the £ in the pocket to spend won't be there.
Bumpy times ahead. | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:09 - Apr 7 with 1495 views | rochdaleriddler |
Sunderland have our all their employees including players on furlough | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 16:01 - Apr 7 with 1431 views | judd |
| Furloughed Staff on 14:09 - Apr 7 by rochdaleriddler |
Sunderland have our all their employees including players on furlough |
But no one will be short paid nor payments deferred, therefore they appear to be topping up all wages, whilst taking advantage of the maximum £2,500 per month they can claim, say 25 pro footballers they are claiming £62,500 per month plus NI, pension etc. for the playing staff. | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 16:29 - Apr 7 with 1406 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Furloughed Staff on 16:01 - Apr 7 by judd |
But no one will be short paid nor payments deferred, therefore they appear to be topping up all wages, whilst taking advantage of the maximum £2,500 per month they can claim, say 25 pro footballers they are claiming £62,500 per month plus NI, pension etc. for the playing staff. |
And academy players | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 16:30 - Apr 7 with 1403 views | James1980 |
I wonder how it was decided to pronounce it Furlowed and not Furloffed | |
| |
| Furloughed Staff on 19:44 - Apr 7 with 1308 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| Furloughed Staff on 16:01 - Apr 7 by judd |
But no one will be short paid nor payments deferred, therefore they appear to be topping up all wages, whilst taking advantage of the maximum £2,500 per month they can claim, say 25 pro footballers they are claiming £62,500 per month plus NI, pension etc. for the playing staff. |
Does it include pension and NI Judd?
Taxation wise that’s a bloody nightmare if a player is being paid well in excess of this, I would assume the fur payment would be classed as initial earnings and as such is taxed at nil and basic rate, with usual deductions, and leave the club to deal with the more complicated taxation issues.
I can sort of understand Sunderland doing it tbh, loss of their gates must hurt cash flow in a club on the edge already! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.