Are Derby players deferring wages?

[Millenniumram]

I’m definitely of the opinion that players should be taking some sort of a wage cut while this is all ongoing, in order to help prevent clubs from going under, and ensure non playing staff can continue to be paid. But equally, there’s no reason why players at one club should be taking more of a wage cut than players elsewhere. It should all be fair across the board. The 50% proposed by the club seems quite high (maybe a sign of our longer term financial mess), so if the PFA are advising 25% then Rooney and the rest of the players are well within their rights to demand a deferral at that level max. 

That said, the article from the daily mail again seems sensationalist. From what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to be much of a “wage war” going on. As far as I can tell, the club initially demanded a wage deferral which was unfairly large, and now appear to have reasonably backed down to an acceptable level after talks with the players. All seems perfectly fine and under control to me. I’m unsure what we’ve done to the Daily Mail to make them hate us as much as they seem to, but it strikes me that they’ve been trying to put a negative spin on every story about us recently.

[BondJovi]

11 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I’m definitely of the opinion that players should be taking some sort of a wage cut while this is all ongoing, in order to help prevent clubs from going under, and ensure non playing staff can continue to be paid. But equally, there’s no reason why players at one club should be taking more of a wage cut than players elsewhere. It should all be fair across the board. The 50% proposed by the club seems quite high (maybe a sign of our longer term financial mess), so if the PFA are advising 25% then Rooney and the rest of the players are well within their rights to demand a deferral at that level max. 

That said, the article from the daily mail again seems sensationalist. From what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to be much of a “wage war” going on. As far as I can tell, the club initially demanded a wage deferral which was unfairly large, and now appear to have reasonably backed down to an acceptable level after talks with the players. All seems perfectly fine and under control to me. I’m unsure what we’ve done to the Daily Mail to make them hate us as much as they seem to, but it strikes me that they’ve been trying to put a negative spin on every story about us recently.

As far as I am aware does recently cover the last 20 years?

[RadioactiveWaste]

19 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I’m definitely of the opinion that players should be taking some sort of a wage cut while this is all ongoing, in order to help prevent clubs from going under, and ensure non playing staff can continue to be paid. But equally, there’s no reason why players at one club should be taking more of a wage cut than players elsewhere. It should all be fair across the board. The 50% proposed by the club seems quite high (maybe a sign of our longer term financial mess), so if the PFA are advising 25% then Rooney and the rest of the players are well within their rights to demand a deferral at that level max. 

That said, the article from the daily mail again seems sensationalist. From what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to be much of a “wage war” going on. As far as I can tell, the club initially demanded a wage deferral which was unfairly large, and now appear to have reasonably backed down to an acceptable level after talks with the players. All seems perfectly fine and under control to me. I’m unsure what we’ve done to the Daily Mail to make them hate us as much as they seem to, but it strikes me that they’ve been trying to put a negative spin on every story about us recently.

The players would probably have been not too enthusiastic about 25%, but by opening with 50% then going to 25% makes it seem more palatable. I doubt the club really expected them all to go "ok boss, half pay is fine with me". But a story is a story and for some reason the Mail hates us.

[Big Bad Bob]

I'm struggling with seeing the players side in all of this. I'm sure in their contract, legally they are entitled to be paid. Players insisting on their full pay is likely to put many clubs at risk of collapse given that they are the largest cost to a club (and arguably their biggest asset). Morally I think they should do what they can to help the club. For the vast majority of people who work for a business and have a 'normal' contract, they have no say in the matter whether they are furloughed or not. The players at this club I would imagine are well paid and could better afford to take a wage cut (not even a deferral). 

Lets look at it slightly differently. Derby have attendances of 25 - 30k at home. Most of those people will have been furloughed and have had to take a pay cut and may be struggling to make ends meet. Yet it's these people who have paid their season ticket and on the day tickets that will be contributing to the players who could better afford to take a pay cut at this time. I have a mental image of Victorian times with a wealthy household in a warm and toasty room gathered round a feast fit for a king, whilst some poor people outside looking in have just paid for that food. 

[Tamworthram]

31 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said:

I'm struggling with seeing the players side in all of this. I'm sure in their contract, legally they are entitled to be paid. Players insisting on their full pay is likely to put many clubs at risk of collapse given that they are the largest cost to a club (and arguably their biggest asset). Morally I think they should do what they can to help the club. For the vast majority of people who work for a business and have a 'normal' contract, they have no say in the matter whether they are furloughed or not. The players at this club I would imagine are well paid and could better afford to take a wage cut (not even a deferral). 

Lets look at it slightly differently. Derby have attendances of 25 - 30k at home. Most of those people will have been furloughed and have had to take a pay cut and may be struggling to make ends meet. Yet it's these people who have paid their season ticket and on the day tickets that will be contributing to the players who could better afford to take a pay cut at this time. I have a mental image of Victorian times with a wealthy household in a warm and toasty room gathered round a feast fit for a king, whilst some poor people outside looking in have just paid for that food. 

I don’t think it’s quite that clear cut and, what we’re hearing is largely coming from the papers and we all know how dubious some of their stories are.

But, let’s just take the reports at face value for now.

1) By all accounts, the players are asking for evidence that the clubs are actually in financial difficulties especially in terms of immediate cash flow. I would have thought this is relatively easy for a club like Derby so, what has the club got to hide? Maybe there are other high paid individuals and the players would expect them to defer as well. Seems reasonable.

2) Have the players said they won’t accept such a deferment once the accounts have been seen? 
 

3) Whilst there will undoubtedly be some unlucky people, I’m not sure you can really assume most supporters have been furloughed. Some won’t have, some may have but their employers are making up the difference and some are retired anyway (there seems to be a good number near where I sit)

4) Players do of course earn mega bucks but, we all know that generally the more you earn the more you are committed to spend so, 50% may actually be a bit difficult for some especially the younger ones who have not had years of earning big money yet and may well have young families.

So, in summary, I think it’s reasonable for the players to see evidence of the need as well as evidence that any other high earners are making the same sacrifice. Assuming this is forthcoming then a deferment (not necessarily a reduction) sounds like a very fair thing for the players to do subject to their own personal circumstances.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

I don't agree with it being reasonable for the players to see evidence. By and large I have not read articles in newspapers, so I am not getting swayed by the Daily Mail. What I am doing is looking at it from an employer perspective and the very survival of a business. I have been furloughed without the difference being made up. And the expectation is 9 million applications for furlough so that would suggest a significant proportion of the country being furloughed. There is a difficult balance between people's finances, the requirements of a customer (who also may depend on the company you work for), the survival of a business and the health and well being of people. 

You are right that we don't have the facts. For all we know is they may have agreed something with the club. What I am saying in the absence of any facts, morally I think the players should be doing what they can to help with the survival of the club and not just maintaining the stance of being entitled to full pay because their contracts say they should. From a fan point of view who may be struggling financially on furlough, and who had no choice to be furloughed, it's not nice to see players at the club they support who in comparison are wealthy and in a position to help the club but are not willing to. Again this last point is in the absence of any facts, but this is potentially what a fan perspective is. 

[Mick Brolly]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52398549

He's not leading a roobellion. 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Low(ish) paid staff are being furloughed, they are losing 20% of their wage, as well as any bonus they were used to receiving, when this goes back to normal they will NOT get that money back.

IF Derby are asking our players to LOSE 50% of their wage and not get it in the future then this is wrong. 

IF Derby are asking the players to temporarily lose 50% of their wage which they will receive at a later date, protecting the club and they refuse, every player refusing wants binning. 

My mate as been furloughed for 3 months, he loses 20% of his wage and the 400 quid a month he earns for travelling the country, what is he doing? Putting up with it and dealing with it.

ASSUMING this is true (hope to God it isnt), it would be more proof that footballers literally live on a different planet.

 

[rynny]

 

 

[Day]

Shock.

[europia]

The worst thing for Derby County players and club officials is to be in a dispute that ends up in the media. Now that has happened any goodwill to come out of it will be lost.

Considering the seriousness of the situation, the employment law and contractual position is rather irrelevant. The players should have got together, taken the initiative and offered to take a pay cut of 15 percent minimum. 

[G STAR RAM]

On 22/04/2020 at 19:06, Millenniumram said:

To be fair, it was an article by John Percy I believe which said they’d been furloughed without the wages topped up. I appreciate we haven’t had official confirmation, but that’s as reliable a source as you’ll get. It does seem very strange that we haven’t made any sort of statement about what’s going on, for me that makes the whole situation worse. As I’ve said before, I don’t have any problem the club using the furloughing scheme - it’s what it’s there for. But In my view, unless a business genuinely doesn’t have the funds to top up that extra 20%, then staff should still receive their full wages somehow. Surely we can find that 20% somewhere, and if we can’t, them we’re in much more financial trouble than we initially thought.

We are losing God knows how much a year and this has to be covered by MM so no, of course, the club as a business does not have the funds the pay the extra 20%, this would be coming straight from MMs pockets.

Another point is that people are spending much less money due to lockdown so do they desperately need 100% of their wages? I'm guessing this was considered when the Government decided on 80% rather than it just being a figure plucked out of thin air.

[Big Bad Bob]

11 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

IF Derby are asking our players to LOSE 50% of their wage and not get it in the future then this is wrong. 

Why? The furlough scheme pays 80% of salary up to a cap of £2500 per month. £2500 per month equates to an annual salary of £30k. If you earn £60k and are furloughed, then you will lose 50% of your salary without any say in the matter. Is that wrong too?

[Wolfie]

I'd just like to point out that it looks like it's the players who are resisting the pay cut/derferral but on the advice of the PFA.

Them pesky Unions at it again.

How many people berating the players would be happy to go against what their union wanted them to do?. What are the repercussions if they do?.

Just a thought.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

4 hours ago, Big Bad Bob said:

Why? The furlough scheme pays 80% of salary up to a cap of £2500 per month. £2500 per month equates to an annual salary of £30k. If you earn £60k and are furloughed, then you will lose 50% of your salary without any say in the matter. Is that wrong too?

What I'm trying to get at is, the club arent asking to give up 50% of their wage (which would be a little unfair imo), they are asking the players to give up 50% of their wage which they get back at a later date.  If the players are refusing that then they are an absolute bunch if bankers!

The PFA are only asking the players to refuse so it doesnt set a precedent.

 

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

What I'm trying to get at is, the club arent asking to give up 50% of their wage (which would be a little unfair imo), they are asking the players to give up 50% of their wage which they get back at a later date.  If the players are refusing that then they are an absolute bunch if bankers!

The PFA are only asking the players to refuse so it doesnt set a precedent.

 

Perhaps included in the ongoing discussions is "What happens to my 50% if DCFC go bust before it gets repaid"?

Just one possibility as to why talks seem to be continuing?  

[nottingram]

2 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

What I'm trying to get at is, the club arent asking to give up 50% of their wage (which would be a little unfair imo), they are asking the players to give up 50% of their wage which they get back at a later date.  If the players are refusing that then they are an absolute bunch if bankers!

The PFA are only asking the players to refuse so it doesnt set a precedent.

 

I believe in Rooney’s article he said that there is a Derby player who is not on a particularly high wage who is the sole earner in a household of him, his siblings and his mother. Rooney’s point was that a blanket cut or deferral wouldn’t work. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect someone in that situation to take the same cut as Rooney. 

As captain it is down to Rooney to protect the interests of the team - perhaps that is what he is doing here, by saying it isn’t fair for the deferral to be a one size fits all. All of a sudden some two bob ‘journalist’ from the Mail gets hold of that and there’s their story with loads of clicks.

We don’t know at all. I would suggest that the furloughed workers who have volunteered their time to assist with the contributions being made by the players and staff can’t be too peeved at their situation, which probably means there is plenty going on in the background we aren’t aware of.

[i-Ram]

Anybody else find it very odd that no one has come forward with any local information as to whether furloughed staff are getting their 20% topped up.

SDSR and MackworthRam used to come on here and tell us all the ins and outs of players, but not one person on this forum knows someone who might be affected by this?  Really?  

Proper lockdown going on up your way.

[Day]

2 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

What I'm trying to get at is, the club arent asking to give up 50% of their wage (which would be a little unfair imo), they are asking the players to give up 50% of their wage which they get back at a later date.  If the players are refusing that then they are an absolute bunch if bankers!

The PFA are only asking the players to refuse so it doesnt set a precedent.

 

If I earned £1000pm, I would live a lifestyle within that.

If I earned £5000pm, I would live a more expensive lifestyle.

If I earned £30k pw I would most likely be dead, but before I died I would be living a lifestyle that would see my Dog wearing Gucci collars. 

If at any point regardless of what I earned you cut my wages by 50% it would have a huge impact on my life. 

I may have money tied up in property, cars, Legally binding contracts that I can’t just stop paying.

Yes it might be only a deferral, they may get the money at a later date, but 50% IF true is an awful lot of money to suddenly lose.

I realise this could be happening to people in normal high paid jobs say 100k a year, but footballers have contracts.

Lets also not forget some will already be taking a hit, appearance fees, goal, assist bonuses which they can’t earn with no football on. 

The younger players, Bird, Knight, Sibley, 50% could hit these much harder as they haven’t been playing long enough to have built up savings and will be on much smaller contracts.

I do like that IF true it’s a deferral if wages and not just a cut, I’m not one of these that dislike those that earn ridiculous amounts of money, I applaud anyone that can walk into a room, say I’m worth £30k pw and be given it, if I could, I would.

Same goes for these multi millionaires, I hate all this well they can afford it, who am I to say you’ve got too much money, give some of that away now you greedy so and so.

If I ever stumble into becoming a multi millionaire which would require a hell of a lot more ad views, no anonymous person behind a keyboard on the internet will tell me what I should and shouldn’t be doing with my money. I mean they can, but I will sit behind my keyboard, stick my middle finger up at the screen as I bathe in an over spilling bath of £50 notes smoking 2 of Cuba’s finest cigars at the same time.

I hold nothing but pure jealousy and respect for these rich buggers. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

45 minutes ago, David said:

If I earned £1000pm, I would live a lifestyle within that.

If I earned £5000pm, I would live a more expensive lifestyle.

If I earned £30k pw I would most likely be dead, but before I died I would be living a lifestyle that would see my Dog wearing Gucci collars. 

If at any point regardless of what I earned you cut my wages by 50% it would have a huge impact on my life. 

I may have money tied up in property, cars, Legally binding contracts that I can’t just stop paying.

Yes it might be only a deferral, they may get the money at a later date, but 50% IF true is an awful lot of money to suddenly lose.

I realise this could be happening to people in normal high paid jobs say 100k a year, but footballers have contracts.

Lets also not forget some will already be taking a hit, appearance fees, goal, assist bonuses which they can’t earn with no football on. 

The younger players, Bird, Knight, Sibley, 50% could hit these much harder as they haven’t been playing long enough to have built up savings and will be on much smaller contracts.

I do like that IF true it’s a deferral if wages and not just a cut, I’m not one of these that dislike those that earn ridiculous amounts of money, I applaud anyone that can walk into a room, say I’m worth £30k pw and be given it, if I could, I would.

Same goes for these multi millionaires, I hate all this well they can afford it, who am I to say you’ve got too much money, give some of that away now you greedy so and so.

If I ever stumble into becoming a multi millionaire which would require a hell of a lot more ad views, no anonymous person behind a keyboard on the internet will tell me what I should and shouldn’t be doing with my money. I mean they can, but I will sit behind my keyboard, stick my middle finger up at the screen as I bathe in an over spilling bath of £50 notes smoking 2 of Cuba’s finest cigars at the same time.

I hold nothing but pure jealousy and respect for these rich buggers. 

If the club was to go the wall though, I guarantee that won't be getting an offer of 50 % of pay backdated from any official receiver . They'll chuck them a tenner and laugh in there face.