Are Derby players deferring wages?

[GboroRam]

16 minutes ago, nottingram said:

I do hope one day you become less angry at the world. 

Stopping funding a sport you clearly despise may be a start. You could then donate the money to the NHS instead and use the time saved on learning how to not miss people’s points so spectacularly. Do hope it doesn’t offend you when someone tells you what to do with the money you’ve earned.

I think that's unfair.

If you can't look at football and conclude that something's not right, well, I guess we just don't see the same at all.

Money has ruined football. If it wasn't for the bit on the oblong grass bit in the middle, I would wash my hands of it.

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, goldstar said:

Not angry at all, just dismayed. I have been thinking that for a while, it is very hypocritical of me, i freely admit it. 

Not at all, i don't earn enough to make a sizeable donation but do help out with Go Fund Me's for individual's cancer treatments when i can so that my money doesn't go into some greedy CEO's pocket first. 

Perhaps you could think about finding something more worthwhile and honourable to defend, you seem to be very riled up about very very rich men perhaps being only very rich for a short while. Get a hobby, learn a new trade, learn a new language perhaps? 

And fair play to you for that

I’m not riled up, just don’t understand why footballers are expected to foot the bill for this. A lot of them are of course very rich and largely they deserve it, the elite are probably in the top 0.1% of what they do which just happens to be very popular with the masses. Through their tax contributions they already fund the salaries of many, many public workers and I wouldn’t expect them to turn down the money that is offered to them. 

A probable gross assumption on my part but I would expect Matt Hancock is well aware of many similarly rich people who’s affairs are organised in a way to pay little to no tax. Why has he singled out footballers? I have some guesses but I would suspect the answer to that one would not belong in this thread but instead in the Politics thread. 

[goldstar]

9 minutes ago, nottingram said:

And fair play to you for that

I’m not riled up, just don’t understand why footballers are expected to foot the bill for this. A lot of them are of course very rich and largely they deserve it, the elite are probably in the top 0.1% of what they do which just happens to be very popular with the masses. Through their tax contributions they already fund the salaries of many, many public workers and I wouldn’t expect them to turn down the money that is offered to them. 

A probable gross assumption on my part but I would expect Matt Hancock is well aware of many similarly rich people who’s affairs are organised in a way to pay little to no tax. Why has he singled out footballers? I have some guesses but I would suspect the answer to that one would not belong in this thread but instead in the Politics thread. 

You're bang on he's singled them out to get the heat off politicians and the elite but i feel like this is all like rats escaping a sinking ship.

No one is telling these politicians and athletes etc. to sell their house, give their kids university money away, but if they are going to sit on massive wages and not help out non playing staff/key workers (I'd like to think many will), then stay the hell off social media if they don't want backlash. Keep buying Range Rovers and Cartier but don't expect people to take kindly to it. Would it hurt them to give the club chef or teacher a few grand to ease their worry? Is it mandatory? No, but it would show a kind heart and good moral compass. 

Apologies for going off on one. 

[i-Ram]

34 minutes ago, nottingram said:

And fair play to you for that

I’m not riled up, just don’t understand why footballers are expected to foot the bill for this. A lot of them are of course very rich and largely they deserve it, the elite are probably in the top 0.1% of what they do which just happens to be very popular with the masses. Through their tax contributions they already fund the salaries of many, many public workers and I wouldn’t expect them to turn down the money that is offered to them. 

A probable gross assumption on my part but I would expect Matt Hancock is well aware of many similarly rich people who’s affairs are organised in a way to pay little to no tax. Why has he singled out footballers? I have some guesses but I would suspect the answer to that one would not belong in this thread but instead in the Politics thread. 

I think that Footballers are being singled out because they are still taking a huge wage when they are not playing. Now the argument from a good few is that they have a contract. Well, I know lots of people currently not working who have got a contract, who are now being paid significantly below their contractual terms (it’s called furloughing).

There are fingers being pointed at Politicians but they are still working.

There are fingers being pointed at ‘rich people’ but I imagine that a large number are now relying on reserves rather than current income. Productive ‘rich people’, e.g. business owners, are in particular taking a huge hit.

There are fingers being pointed at other elite sports people, but a great deal of those high earners are not earning as they could - golfers, tennis players, boxers, etc., all unable to compete and earn prize money.

l am not attacking footballers, nor defending politicians, ‘rich people’ or elite sports people. However, I think I am less blinkered than many who want to support footballers, especially those in the Premier League. They, as a collective, appear to have been slow to react to this situation, and played right into the hands of those who want to stereotype them as greedy, overpaid prima donnas.

[richinspain]

11 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I think that Footballers are being singled out because they are still taking a huge wage when they are not playing. Now the argument from a good few is that they have a contract. Well, I know lots of people currently not working who have got a contract, who are now being paid significantly below their contractual terms (it’s called furloughing).

There are fingers being pointed at Politicians but they are still working.

There are fingers being pointed at ‘rich people’ but I imagine that a large number are now relying on reserves rather than current income. Productive ‘rich people’, e.g. business owners, are in particular taking a huge hit.

There are fingers being pointed at other elite sports people, but a great deal of those high earners are not earning as they could - golfers, tennis players, boxers, etc., all unable to compete and earn prize money.

l am not attacking footballers, nor defending politicians, ‘rich people’ or elite sports people. However, I think I am less blinkered than many who want to support footballers, especially those in the Premier League. They, as a collective, appear to have been slow to react to this situation, and played right into the hands of those who want to stereotype them as greedy, overpaid prima donnas.

An argument very well put. I was more on the other side, but it is difficult to disagree with you.

[rynny]

4 hours ago, goldstar said:

I'm angry about cancer patients being refused treatment. I'm worried about children trapped in homes with abusive parents. Yet here you are worried about how millionaires are being picked on. 

Are the 2 mutually exclusive? Can you not defend Footballers and worry about the children trapped with abusive parents? Not even sure how they even relate? 

[Mucker1884]

1/  I've still yet to see reference to a named player refusing to take a pay cut and/or refusing to make some sort of financial gesture to the cause.  Lots of accusations of it happening, so surely someone should have some sort of "evidence"?

2/  Only just been made aware of the Rooney/Walker rendezvous.  Anyone seen any pics?  Anyone know what sort of social distancing was being adhered to during said (apparently) unplanned rendezvous.  From what (little) I've seen so far, am I right in thinking this is no more than "a half story" at best?

3/  I sometimes get the feeling that certain people... maybe even posters on here... could go out walking in their locality for 12 hours a day, 14 days a fortnight, and still not bump into a friend, or even anyone who is just happy to stop and say Hi.  

[nottingram]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

I think that Footballers are being singled out because they are still taking a huge wage when they are not playing. Now the argument from a good few is that they have a contract. Well, I know lots of people currently not working who have got a contract, who are now being paid significantly below their contractual terms (it’s called furloughing).

There are fingers being pointed at Politicians but they are still working.

There are fingers being pointed at ‘rich people’ but I imagine that a large number are now relying on reserves rather than current income. Productive ‘rich people’, e.g. business owners, are in particular taking a huge hit.

There are fingers being pointed at other elite sports people, but a great deal of those high earners are not earning as they could - golfers, tennis players, boxers, etc., all unable to compete and earn prize money.

l am not attacking footballers, nor defending politicians, ‘rich people’ or elite sports people. However, I think I am less blinkered than many who want to support footballers, especially those in the Premier League. They, as a collective, appear to have been slow to react to this situation, and played right into the hands of those who want to stereotype them as greedy, overpaid prima donnas.

Similarly to @richinspain I cannot find much to disagree with despite it not being my initial view, other than that I would suspect much of the ‘blame’ (for want of a better term) lies with the PFA who as far as I am aware are the ones wishing to negotiate a ‘one size fits all’ policy of wage reduction - my suspicion would be that many players, particularly from those clubs who have furloughed staff, would not be entirely comfortable with the position the PFA have taken and the delays this has caused.

I imagine any further charitable donations from players could be made in private and I would suspect have been made. I am not particularly comfortable with anyone being publicly pressured into charitable donations, no matter their profession or salary.

[goldstar]

1 hour ago, rynny said:

Are the 2 mutually exclusive? Can you not defend Footballers and worry about the children trapped with abusive parents? Not even sure how they even relate? 

When you think about the latter, the former should be completely laughable, shallow and pathetic in comparison. 

[rynny]

21 minutes ago, goldstar said:

When you think about the latter, the former should be completely laughable, shallow and pathetic in comparison. 

I'm still failing to see the link between the 2. If every single footballer took a 90% pay cut, every single child that is trapped at home with an abusive parent would still be trapped. 

There are worse atrocities in the world than footballers pay, however this is a football forum, on a thread discussing footballers pay, people are giving their opinion on that, I'm sure if we talking on a thread about child abuse etc then everyone would agree how bad and terrible it is.

Shaming people that are agreeing with our captain is out of order, in my opinion, and making out that they should be worrying about other things is low (again in my opinion). 

Have you actually read Rooney's article? I don't think you have because some of the accusations you are throwing at him wold not have happened if you had. 

[Alph]

10 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I think that Footballers are being singled out because they are still taking a huge wage when they are not playing. Now the argument from a good few is that they have a contract. Well, I know lots of people currently not working who have got a contract, who are now being paid significantly below their contractual terms (it’s called furloughing).

There are fingers being pointed at Politicians but they are still working.

There are fingers being pointed at ‘rich people’ but I imagine that a large number are now relying on reserves rather than current income. Productive ‘rich people’, e.g. business owners, are in particular taking a huge hit.

There are fingers being pointed at other elite sports people, but a great deal of those high earners are not earning as they could - golfers, tennis players, boxers, etc., all unable to compete and earn prize money.

l am not attacking footballers, nor defending politicians, ‘rich people’ or elite sports people. However, I think I am less blinkered than many who want to support footballers, especially those in the Premier League. They, as a collective, appear to have been slow to react to this situation, and played right into the hands of those who want to stereotype them as greedy, overpaid prima donnas.

But as you said, they are under contract. So under the terms of the contract they will have adapted their lifestyle. If you had a 5 year contract in 20kpw then that would change the way you live. 

I understand they aren't out there earning and so it's a tricky one to claim they should/shouldn't get full pay. 

But the problem is how to execute a pay cut. 70% for Messi and 70% for his Barcelona teammates. The effect this has on players at the lower end of the scale at Barcelona could be significant. These players could be knee deep in business ventures effected by this virus. 

Same in the PL. When we talk about all PL players giving back some of their wages... who's wages? The lowest paid players at Sheffield United or the highest at Man City? 

They probably could come up with an earning cap I suppose. 

But it seems like the perception is all PL players have thousands of pounds that can't get rid of every week

[rynny]

From Rooney's article, to put some more perspective on what is being said. 

[sage]

4 minutes ago, rynny said:

From Rooney's article, to put some more perspective on what is being said. 

Ooh hark at you looking at the whole article to get some context on the hysteria. 

[goldstar]

4 minutes ago, rynny said:

Shaming people that are agreeing with our captain is out of order, in my opinion, and making out that they should be worrying about other things is low (again in my opinion). 

Once again, the fact you are more worried about me 'shaming people' on a forum where i have seen much worse ganging up on commenters is frankly laughable. Yes my view is they should be worrying about other things and if they don't agree then that is their opinion and prerogative. 

It amazes me that you are more preoccupied with critiquing my opinion than you are the issue itself. My basic viewpoint as seen above is that pointing the finger at others doesn't mean those privileged (not just footballers) are any less guilty of hoarding wealth when there is such disparity in this country.

Would it kill some of them to pay a cleaner/cook/teacher/nurse wages? I'm not saying none of them have or that youngsters could pay the amount seasoned veterans can, but my general idea is pretty simple, those that will refuse to lose some pay or help others out are morally wrong.

[goldstar]

7 minutes ago, rynny said:

From Rooney's article, to put some more perspective on what is being said. 

Which would leave him on £5600 would it not? 

[i-Ram]

9 minutes ago, Alpha said:

But as you said, they are under contract. So under the terms of the contract they will have adapted their lifestyle. If you had a 5 year contract in 20kpw then that would change the way you live. 

I understand they aren't out there earning and so it's a tricky one to claim they should/shouldn't get full pay. 

But the problem is how to execute a pay cut. 70% for Messi and 70% for his Barcelona teammates. The effect this has on players at the lower end of the scale at Barcelona could be significant. These players could be knee deep in business ventures effected by this virus. 

Same in the PL. When we talk about all PL players giving back some of their wages... who's wages? The lowest paid players at Sheffield United or the highest at Man City? 

They probably could come up with an earning cap I suppose. 

But it seems like the perception is all PL players have thousands of pounds that can't get rid of every week

This seems to be the latest position: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52181757

I don’t think I have anything to add buddy, without going round in circles, other than to say I personally wouldn’t be unhappy if this pandemic breaks football as it is currently set-up. It needs a complete re-set, like many other parts of the market economy, as it has in my view become obscene the amount of money that is being earned for kicking a bag of wind around.  

[rynny]

4 minutes ago, goldstar said:

Would it kill some of them to pay a cleaner/cook/teacher/nurse wages? I'm not saying none of them have or that youngsters could pay the amount seasoned veterans can, but my general idea is pretty simple, those that will refuse to lose some pay or help others out are morally wrong.

So you haven't read Rooney's article. 

[Alph]

33 minutes ago, goldstar said:

When you think about the latter, the former should be completely laughable, shallow and pathetic in comparison. 

That's the market though driven by people. Could the money spent on football tickets, merchandise, TV subscriptions etc etc be spent better by the fans? If all that money went on Water Aid then 32Red wouldn't be using Rooney to increase awareness of their brand. 

But they're happy to help pay his wage because it brings in customers. 

The money for footballers isn't created out of thin air. If clubs can't afford a player then that shouldn't be the players problem. They're providing a service. They're making headlines and creating website clicks etc. Clubs buy what they can't afford to try and get the edge on each other. 

Is it right that a nurse can save lives for £8.21ph while De Gea saves goals for £821ph. No, and I don't think you will find anyone that thinks otherwise including De Gea. But there's money in football and not in the NHS? Why? 

If I had a son and he could be Doctor or a PL player then I know which I would advise. I know which one has the money in it. Would he be sent to hell for picking the football? 

That seems to be the question here. Is it fair? Should that be the way? Well we can say no but do we support the football more than the NHS? What really do we care about more? 

Until a crisis and then we all want to reinvent the wheel. 

I know I barely think of the NHS until i need them. I don't care about a nurse working 12 hour shifts for poo money. I could say that I do and feel less of a dick but what do I do about it? Nothing. I can't suddenly expect footballers to so something about it because they have more cash and I need a nurse!

[rynny]

9 minutes ago, goldstar said:

It amazes me that you are more preoccupied with critiquing my opinion than you are the issue itself. My basic viewpoint as seen above is that pointing the finger at others doesn't mean those privileged (not just footballers) are any less guilty of hoarding wealth when there is such disparity in this country.

It amazes me that you single out this section and ignore the rest of my post that actually discusses it. No wait it doesn't. 

 

[goldstar]

4 minutes ago, Alpha said:

That's the market though driven by people. Could the money spent on football tickets, merchandise, TV subscriptions etc etc be spent better by the fans? If all that money went on Water Aid then 32Red wouldn't be using Rooney to increase awareness of their brand. 

But they're happy to help pay his wage because it brings in customers. 

The money for footballers isn't created out of thin air. If clubs can't afford a player then that shouldn't be the players problem. They're providing a service. They're making headlines and creating website clicks etc. Clubs buy what they can't afford to try and get the edge on each other. 

Is it right that a nurse can save lives for £8.21ph while De Gea saves goals for £821ph. No, and I don't think you will find anyone that thinks otherwise including De Gea. But there's money in football and not in the NHS? Why? 

If I had a son and he could be Doctor or a PL player then I know which I would advise. I know which one has the money in it. Would he be sent to hell for picking the football? 

That seems to be the question here. Is it fair? Should that be the way? Well we can say no but do we support the football more than the NHS? What really do we care about more? 

Until a crisis and then we all want to reinvent the wheel. 

I know I barely think of the NHS until i need them. I don't care about a nurse working 12 hour shifts for poo money. I could say that I do and feel less of a dick but what do I do about it? Nothing. I can't suddenly expect footballers to so something about it because they have more cash and I need a nurse!

I don't have an answer, but wish i did. If voicing my opinion that the world isn't fair and there are some greedy bamfords about in all walks of life is wrong, then i don't want to be right!