Are Derby players deferring wages?

[Day]

15 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I can't say I'm surprised. The financial health of this football club is concerning. We haven't been able to secure additional investment which led to players being paid late. We've recently been in talks over a very high stakes loan to survive and now we're utilising a government scheme that was in place to help people keep jobs in order to avoid paying staff members. All of this while the governing body of our league wants to put us in the ground, along with Birmingham and Sheffield Wednesday. 

Football outside of the Premier League in this country is nearing the end IMO.n 

 

The financial health of the entire Football League is concerning, many clubs have and are gambling for one of those 3 promotion places where the big money is. 

Yes, you can blame the clubs themselves for paying the fees and wages for which we have played a part, but at the same time the Football League itself has undersold itself whilst the Premier League cashes in on TV deals which will give a prime time slot for Southampton v Burnley, whilst the Championship has Leeds v Sheffield Wednesday.

It’s not the time for finger pointing though, this disease has shone a light on finances in Football and everyone has to come together to find a way to fix this going forward and make clubs more sustainable where a month without games doesn’t threaten their existence.

And this needs the Premier League to be on board and share some of the wealth whilst wage budgets are slashed and look again at the parachute payments as they give an unfair advantage to relegated teams who have already cashed in their big pay day.

Wasn't the money intended to help clubs adapt to life in the Championship? It’s being used to fund big money signings to bounce back up. It’s just wrong and a big reason why Football is where it is now.

[Ambitious]

1 hour ago, David said:

The financial health of the entire Football League is concerning, many clubs have and are gambling for one of those 3 promotion places where the big money is. 

Yes, you can blame the clubs themselves for paying the fees and wages for which we have played a part, but at the same time the Football League itself has undersold itself whilst the Premier League cashes in on TV deals which will give a prime time slot for Southampton v Burnley, whilst the Championship has Leeds v Sheffield Wednesday.

It’s not the time for finger pointing though, this disease has shone a light on finances in Football and everyone has to come together to find a way to fix this going forward and make clubs more sustainable where a month without games doesn’t threaten their existence.

And this needs the Premier League to be on board and share some of the wealth whilst wage budgets are slashed and look again at the parachute payments as they give an unfair advantage to relegated teams who have already cashed in their big pay day.

Wasn't the money intended to help clubs adapt to life in the Championship? It’s being used to fund big money signings to bounce back up. It’s just wrong and a big reason why Football is where it is now.

You're right, it's the reason football in this country is unsustainable as it is. The Premier League should close its doors and then the Football League wouldn't have such huge issues. As the money in the Premier League goes up exponentially, with no sign that the football league can match it, I'd expect some sort of change in the future.

[Alph]

4 hours ago, 1967RAMS said:

They are not key staff. They are not working in hospitals or supermarkets or in the food supply chain etc.  If you earn 30K per week, you should be able to earn 2500 per month for a few months and survive. It’s a crass abuse of the system. 

They are key to their companies. Business will resume when all this over and there are more than just "key workers" that are working now keeping everything going. Our economy isn't built around lorry drivers and shelf stackers. I'm self employed and not a key worker. I can't work from home. But I have to work on a construction site. I am key to the next trade who is key to the next trade. We may not be key to you but we can't all put our lives on hold however much we would like to. There's a risk of getting this virus but there's a risk of having no money/job/roof over your head. 

If you earn 30k pw you should be able to earn 2.5k and survive?

What if you have businesses to support? Properties? 

I bet if you earn 30k per week your outgoings are more than 2.5k per month.

You're asking them to take a 98% pay cut??

Maybe they should lower the maximum you can claim to 1,300 (or whatever minimum wage is pm) If one person can live off it then surely we all can? 

I've still not heard of a single player complain. But all this "it's not fair" attitude I find frustrating. Why is it fair for a Youtuber to earn more than a Brain surgeon? Because your average Joe doesn't give a toss about a Brain surgeon or NHS nurse or a shelf stacker in ASDA. He cares about the Chelsea score last night and watching KSI play FIFA 15.

We put that money into football and now we are crying that it's too much. 

I'm sure Wayne Rooney will take a cut if he is asked to. But who has the right to tell him how much he needs to live on? He is key to Derby. And Derby need a happy, fit and firing Wayne Rooney more than they need a tea lady. 

It's ok saying it's not fair. But that's how life worked before coronavirus and it's how we will carry on afterwards. 

All so insistent on doing the right thing that we were bulk buying hand soap and driving to go for a walk yesterday. Turn the clock back a bit further and we were outsourcing work to India to save a few quid. Running zero hour contracts and looking for cheaper parts and labour

I find it ironic people want to talk about fairness when they feel vulnerable. 

I'm not having a go at you by the way. 

 

[MuespachRam]

On 29/03/2020 at 07:52, Ambitious said:

Players shouldn't have to defer wages. I wouldn't like to be asked if I was in that position; if they want to put some money towards charities then they can, but it shouldn't be a guilt trip. At the end of the day, players signed a fixed term contract with a value of wages that would be paid to them in any event - even death (I'm led to believe) so I have absolutely no problem taking their full wage. It's not their fault there is a pandemic. 

I am pretty sure all those people with “normal” jobs that have had their hours cut and consequently their wages cut would all agree too.... 

[MuespachRam]

1 hour ago, Ambitious said:

You're right, it's the reason football in this country is unsustainable as it is. The Premier League should close its doors and then the Football League wouldn't have such huge issues. As the money in the Premier League goes up exponentially, with no sign that the football league can match it, I'd expect some sort of change in the future.

You are totally correct they should close the door. That would save the football league. football won’t be the same again, the transfer market and players salaries are going to bottom out totally now too. I genuinely think Football will be all the better for It too. 

[Ambitious]

24 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

I am pretty sure all those people with “normal” jobs that have had their hours cut and consequently their wages cut would all agree too.... 

I'm not entirely sure how football contracts work, but if player X signs a £10,000 a week salary on a three year fixed-term contract. He can expect to earn £1.56m by the end of that contract. The value of that contract is guaranteed. From what I've heard on TalkSport, mainly on the topic of Emilliano Sala, the contract is absolutely guaranteed - even in death. 

As per the below article which all but confirms it: 

Quote

Premier League side Cardiff already find themselves involved in a legal dispute with French side Nantes over whether they are contractually obliged to pay a transfer fee for the Argentinian striker, who died without playing a game for the Welsh side. 

Nantes reportedly demanded the first instalment of the fee last week but Cardiff's insurance is believed to only cover around half of the total costs, which would also include agent's fees and the player's salary over the course of his three-year contract.

This isn't a similar issue, admittedly, but the point still stands: the base salary of any football contract is signed guaranteed payment. Footballers are simply paid in a different way to most of us. In some aspects it's to protect themselves, sometimes to protect the club. A footballer's contract has to be bought out, if I want to leave my job then I have to hand in my notice. 

In the future, you may see people opting to sign fixed term contracts in every walk of life. It helps guarantee their income for a set amount of time, as with footballers it has its pros and cons - the company can't just sack you after X amount of time and the person can't just up and leave for a new job. 

In this instance, I understand why there is pressure on the players, but ultimately I wouldn't blame them for not getting the full amount owed to them. Ultimately, they have no guarantees in the future and every single one of them are one bad injury away from retirement. It's also worth some remembering that 'Footballer' isn't a closed occupation and everyone can do it, hence why the wages are so high because Derby fans would rather see Tom Lawrence in midfield than Dave from Grimsby to save a couple of million a year. It's supply and demand. 

[Day]

3 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

hence why the wages are so high because Derby fans would rather see Tom Lawrence in midfield than Dave from Grimsby to save a couple of million a year. It's supply and demand. 

??

[JfR]

5 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Derby fans would rather see Tom Lawrence in midfield than Dave from Grimsby to save a couple of million a year.

I wouldn't say this is universally true, unfortunately

[Alph]

1 hour ago, MuespachRam said:

I am pretty sure all those people with “normal” jobs that have had their hours cut and consequently their wages cut would all agree too.... 

But before anything happened to their jobs and their wages did they give a toss? Did they do anything to decrease the cost or money in football? Did they take pay cuts during the recession? Did they cry unfair life is when their company made redundancies? 

 

[nogbad van 50]

23 hours ago, Mick Brolly said:

£13 seems cheap in today's market. 

Type in haste, repent at leisure!?

[ilkleyram]

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that players - Premier League rather than others - are being unfairly picked out and a lot of sympathy with the questioning of how billionaire owners continue to write pay cheques for some of their staff on £100,000 per week and furloughing others on the minimum wage.

But, as so often in life in the social media age, perception counts for an awful lot. The odious oik that represents them all that is Gordon Taylor continues to draw his excessive salary (so excessive that he can reportedly lay his hands on £500k to give to charity at not very much notice) and says that the PL players are "prepared to step up". Well bully for them, and him, two weeks into lockdown and several months into this whole thing.  

Had, for example, the PFA said two weeks ago that they were discussing how they might help, had the players at those clubs in the PL voluntarily clubbed together to keep non playing staff out of furlough led by they PFA or had the PFA led their members towards financially helping health/social related charities under pressure, then maybe just maybe they could claim the moral high ground.  Instead the perception is that they're being dragged kicking and screaming to a position in which they might contribute something at a time when, whatever their outgoings may be, their income is known to be generally exceptional (by any pay standard across the world) and they are not doing the job for which they continue to be handsomely paid.  Deserved, or not.

Gordon Taylor is meant to be leaving the PFA.  He shows little sign of giving up his salary nor of leading his membership to a place where the moral high ground is under any threat whatsoever

[Rev]

2 hours ago, Ambitious said:

I'm not entirely sure how football contracts work, but if player X signs a £10,000 a week salary on a three year fixed-term contract. He can expect to earn £1.56m by the end of that contract. The value of that contract is guaranteed

It's not just the wages.

Sign player X for £5m, his transfer fee is recorded as an asset on the balance sheet, as the cost of his registration.

Fail to pay them the agreed amount for 2 weeks, then the player/asset can give notice to terminate his contract.

They'd also be entitled to have their contract paid up in full.

Double hit of wages going out, and the loss of an asset off the balance sheet.

Footballers simply aren't employees, they are financial assets to the club for the remainder of their contract, and the club pay them for the contractual right to use that asset.

It's a minefield, and while I'm sure most players would be more than willing to dip their hands in their pockets, it needs careful negotiation to ensure everyone, both clubs and players remain protected.

To me, it would be far easier to leave the players to their own devices regarding how they help out, than impose a ruling which could be legally dubious.

 

 

[Mucker1884]

There appears to be a fair amount of "demand" for "voluntary contributions" in this thread.

Strikes me as a tad ironic!  

[Derbados]

Absolutely disgraceful decision not to pay the extra 20% for the staff. Will be the difference between paying the mortgage and feeding the family for some. 

The biggest issue here however will be culturally, don’t underestimate the impact this will have on the club when this is over.  

You are getting back an unappreciated, unmotivated and pretty ****** off workforce that are crucial to the day to day running of the club. Good people, some probably with years and years of loyal service  will resign and go somewhere that they feel they will be  appreciated, Mark my words. 

A little perspective, I work for a retail landlord who is, literally multiple billions of pounds in debt. They have still paid the 20% to the furloughed staff because

1. it’s the right thing to do 
2. They understand the need for a motivated and appreciated workforce when this is all over to help drive the business forward

I’m appalled by the clubs decision, I see that Forest have decided to pay the extra 20%, bravo to them.

The last 18 months, the running of this club has been absolute toilet. 

[G STAR RAM]

16 minutes ago, Derbados said:

Absolutely disgraceful decision not to pay the extra 20% for the staff. Will be the difference between paying the mortgage and feeding the family for some. 

The biggest issue here however will be culturally, don’t underestimate the impact this will have on the club when this is over.  

You are getting back an unappreciated, unmotivated and pretty ****** off workforce that are crucial to the day to day running of the club. Good people, some probably with years and years of loyal service  will resign and go somewhere that they feel they will be  appreciated, Mark my words. 

A little perspective, I work for a retail landlord who is, literally multiple billions of pounds in debt. They have still paid the 20% to the furloughed staff because

1. it’s the right thing to do 
2. They understand the need for a motivated and appreciated workforce when this is all over to help drive the business forward

I’m appalled by the clubs decision, I see that Forest have decided to pay the extra 20%, bravo to them.

The last 18 months, the running of this club has been absolute toilet. 

Multiple billions of pounds in debt and paying people for doing nothing could be considered the wrong thing to do.

Will you still consider it the right thing to do it it means the company goes bust and you lose your job?

[DCFC27]

12 hours ago, EulogyForEvolution said:

Where did we get the notion that footballers should be able to earn a lifetimes worth of money by the time they are 35? 

Why can't they get another career after they finish playing? Just because they'll no longer be on 30k a week, doesn't mean that they can't still earn a living. 

I know I’ll get called out for this but... 

do you Realise what they have to give up? Not during there career but during the early years of their lives? Footballers don’t just become footballers by being born with talent, they have to give up all of their free time, take time out of school to train week in week out. Leading to most just getting by at gcse but gaining no alevels/degree or getting an apprenticeship. 
 

so your point is they should leave football without money to set them self up for life and have no qualifications or trade to step into?for the majority it will be only football they know. 
 

To give you a different perspective America treat their athletes differently, in order to get to the top of their game, they give them sports scholarships to universities and after they finish they get picked up by teams. its not a perfect system but the players that don’t make it can fall back on a career. 
 

In our game there turned it superstars at 16 and their trade is football. Also listen to some physiotherapists that look after footballers, they put their body through so much now that when they’re 30+ thier body is in bits and needs injections physio and pain relief on a daily basis to help them through. 
 

Players do earn their salaries to be honest and they deserve to be comfortable enough to have choices after football. 
 

 

[i-Ram]

When players get to 36 we should either let them graze in a field, or shoot them.  None of them, and I mean none of them, should be allowed in a TV studio. If I want valueless opinion I can always ask my wife.

[rammieib]

The extra 20% can be quite a lot for a business to pay whilst getting no return from that employee. Morally and ethically it is still probably the right thing to do and some companies who will pay the shortfall get rewarded in the long term by their employees.

My issue on this is that someone earning £40k a year, probably receives around £2200/£2300 a month AFTER tax as a guess. If they get Furloughed, they will still be paying I believe the 40% tax bracket, plus the 8% NI. So their pay will drop to around £1300 for that month.

If you have mortgages and bills, that is still quite a lot of money to drop down to. For 1, maybe 2 months you could just about survive but beyond 2 months, it would be very difficult, especially for a person living alone or a person where they are the breadwinner in the family.

Anyway, on a separate note - what was the big announcement from Derby players due yesterday? Did I miss it?

[Rev]

18 minutes ago, rammieib said:

The extra 20% can be quite a lot for a business to pay whilst getting no return from that employee. Morally and ethically it is still probably the right thing to do and some companies who will pay the shortfall get rewarded in the long term by their employees.

My issue on this is that someone earning £40k a year, probably receives around £2200/£2300 a month AFTER tax as a guess. If they get Furloughed, they will still be paying I believe the 40% tax bracket, plus the 8% NI. So their pay will drop to around £1300 for that month.

If you have mortgages and bills, that is still quite a lot of money to drop down to. For 1, maybe 2 months you could just about survive but beyond 2 months, it would be very difficult, especially for a person living alone or a person where they are the breadwinner in the family.

Anyway, on a separate note - what was the big announcement from Derby players due yesterday? Did I miss it?

£50k is the 40% tax level now.

[EulogyForEvolution]

11 hours ago, DCFC27 said:

I know I’ll get called out for this but... 

do you Realise what they have to give up? Not during there career but during the early years of their lives? Footballers don’t just become footballers by being born with talent, they have to give up all of their free time, take time out of school to train week in week out. Leading to most just getting by at gcse but gaining no alevels/degree or getting an apprenticeship. 
 

so your point is they should leave football without money to set them self up for life and have no qualifications or trade to step into?for the majority it will be only football they know. 
 

To give you a different perspective America treat their athletes differently, in order to get to the top of their game, they give them sports scholarships to universities and after they finish they get picked up by teams. its not a perfect system but the players that don’t make it can fall back on a career. 
 

In our game there turned it superstars at 16 and their trade is football. Also listen to some physiotherapists that look after footballers, they put their body through so much now that when they’re 30+ thier body is in bits and needs injections physio and pain relief on a daily basis to help them through. 
 

Players do earn their salaries to be honest and they deserve to be comfortable enough to have choices after football. 
 

 

There is a huge difference between players 'earning their salaries' and 'deserving to be comfortable enough to have choices' and the ridiculous system we find ourselves in. 

Tom Huddlestone and Curtis Davies, as an example, will earn the equivalent of the average yearly salary in a single week. Every week.  

The footballers that make it are the best of the best and deserve to have salaries that reflect that, but anyone thinking they deserve to be paid in the region of £20,000 - £400,000 a week need to give their head a wobble.

The level of wages they are paid are not covered by revenues coming into the clubs, which is one big reason why so many clubs find themselves in perilous financial positions. I appreciate that is different in different levels of football, and the lads earning £1000 a week in League One and Two don't worry me.

Many people in the country right now are being asked to live on 80% of their current wage, or they've been let go or work on a zero hours contract and are being asked to survive on £94 a week. We all set our budgets as best we can to correlate with the wages we have coming in - a footballer losing 20% of their salary is relatively no worse off than the rest of us. Arguably, most of them will be financially insulated from this completely. If that means giving up the lease on their sports car then I won't be losing any sleep over it. 

Do I agree with the way Matt Hancock went after footballers specifically? Absolutely not! If footballers are being asked to dig deep and help then so should bankers, CEOs and all other people sitting on vast fortunes. Including people in the government, like Jacob Rees Mogg, who is actively using this as an excuse to mop up struggling small and medium sized businesses and make a packet.

I just want to make sure the club staff are looked after and that the club still exists at the end of this.