Are Derby players deferring wages?

[Rev]

6 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:

It shouldn’t be allowed for any company to furlough only selected employees. It should be all non essential staff or none at all. Football club or big business. 

That doesn't make any sense at all.

If staff are none essential, surely it's better to furlough them than sack them?

[i-Ram]

Liverpool have rowed back; the right decision in my opinion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52191140

[Rev]

2 hours ago, David said:

There is a robotic surgeon sat in Derby hospital right now which cost £1.2m, which was paid for by Mel. That’s just one of a number of ways he has helped financially across the local community.
 

Including https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=1160013

To say he doesn’t give a poo about the little people is just simply wrong. 

He also bought a back up, so further surgeons could be trained without disrupting the operation of the frontline machine, didn't he?

[Millenniumram]

Another article reflecting badly on the club and the way it’s being run - becoming a theme in recent times sadly...

It’s fair enough in my view to furlough the staff - it’s tough financially at the moment for all businesses, including football clubs at our level, because they simply cannot function as they normally do and bring in a regular level of income. It’s with exactly that in mind that this scheme was brought in, to protect the jobs of those who cannot currently work, so there’s no problem in my opinion with us using the funding if the alternative is people losing their jobs entirely. 

However, I do feel that it should be the clubs responsibility to top up that last 20% of wages. A lot of these non-playing staff will be unskilled workers on low enough wages as it is - leaving them with a 1/5 of their income missing in times as tough as these could really make life very difficult for them. Considering the thousands that we pay every week to players, you’d think we could find sufficient funds somewhere to pay the comparatively tiny amount needed to make sure that the staff who really need the money still get 100% of their earnings. It’s very poor form and frankly a bit embarrassing if this ends up being the final decision made. I’m hoping there’s still some other plan to get the funds as, while I’ve been critical of Mels footballing decisions at times, he’s always seemed a decent bloke to me - so it would surprise me if he didn’t help support people in this time of crisis.

[NottsRam77]

12 hours ago, ketteringram said:

How many non playing staff do we have? No player jokes please!

But it’s so tempting lol

[TommyPowell]

On 31/03/2020 at 14:59, ramboy63 said:

Crikey i do hope they can manage on £5000 a week

which effectively 20% of their supposed wage.Would you accept an 80% drop on your weekly wage.It should be left up to the individual to donate what they want to

[TommyPowell]

8 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Another article reflecting badly on the club and the way it’s being run - becoming a theme in recent times sadly...

It’s fair enough in my view to furlough the staff - it’s tough financially at the moment for all businesses, including football clubs at our level, because they simply cannot function as they normally do and bring in a regular level of income. It’s with exactly that in mind that this scheme was brought in, to protect the jobs of those who cannot currently work, so there’s no problem in my opinion with us using the funding if the alternative is people losing their jobs entirely. 

However, I do feel that it should be the clubs responsibility to top up that last 20% of wages. A lot of these non-playing staff will be unskilled workers on low enough wages as it is - leaving them with a 1/5 of their income missing in times as tough as these could really make life very difficult for them. Considering the thousands that we pay every week to players, you’d think we could find sufficient funds somewhere to pay the comparatively tiny amount needed to make sure that the staff who really need the money still get 100% of their earnings. It’s very poor form and frankly a bit embarrassing if this ends up being the final decision made. I’m hoping there’s still some other plan to get the funds as, while I’ve been critical of Mels footballing decisions at times, he’s always seemed a decent bloke to me - so it would surprise me if he didn’t help support people in this time of crisis.

Do the Mail ever publish anything positive about Derby?

[Jayram]

15 hours ago, David said:

There is a robotic surgeon sat in Derby hospital right now which cost £1.2m, which was paid for by Mel. That’s just one of a number of ways he has helped financially across the local community.
 

Including https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=1160013

To say he doesn’t give a poo about the little people is just simply wrong. 

I’m not having a go at MM for the sake of it but I cant believe the club cannot afford to pay the remaining 20% of wages to the non playing staff. A fifth of salary is a lot of money to be missing from someone’s pay and is going to cause some people genuine hardship. I don’t doubt that Mel has done good things in the local community but not paying his staff the extra is not right.

[RamNut]

I’m not surprised. We have been walking a tightrope financially. Players next. 

[1967RAMS]

13 hours ago, reverendo de duivel said:

That doesn't make any sense at all.

If staff are none essential, surely it's better to furlough them than sack them?

It makes perfect sense, you just didn’t understand it. A company should furlough its staff if they are in financial difficulties thus saving jobs. It is abhorrent to abuse this situation by furloughing people on 30K a year or less, whilst continuing to pay other staff 30K a WEEK to sit on their arse. It’s a complete abuse of the government’s generosity. Liverpool have reversed their decision today. I hope Derby do the same. It’s shameful 

[ketteringram]

Just Furlough all the staff, including players. Then, due to the limit, all of the players would be on £2,500 per month (I think). Whether or not they can manage on it , is irrelevant.

[Millenniumram]

2 hours ago, TommyPowell said:

Do the Mail ever publish anything positive about Derby?

The article is in the daily telegraph 

[EulogyForEvolution]

On 31/03/2020 at 20:26, DCFC27 said:

Easily afford to do it is quite a loose comment, some might. But at the end of the day the more you earn the more you spend. I used to know a premier league footballer getting 40k net per month but his mortgage payment was £25k per month car was a few grand a month and regular expenses left him with not much short of of his income per month. 
Put that into context you might have say Davies and Huddlestone on their last big contracts and they will need almost every penny as they’ll never earn that money for the rest of their lives.

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. 

[Alph]

55 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:

It makes perfect sense, you just didn’t understand it. A company should furlough its staff if they are in financial difficulties thus saving jobs. It is abhorrent to abuse this situation by furloughing people on 30K a year or less, whilst continuing to pay other staff 30K a WEEK to sit on their arse. It’s a complete abuse of the government’s generosity. Liverpool have reversed their decision today. I hope Derby do the same. It’s shameful 

But a company like a football club could say that it's top management/players etc are key staff and by laying off the lowest skilled/paid workers it will help balance the books, keep its key staff and eventually be in a healthy position to take back on it's lower skilled workers? 

To do it in reverse, keep the guys under 30k and lay off guys on 30k pw that would limit the top end guys to 2.5k per month wage? 

[Alph]

13 minutes 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 would say we decided that footballers could potentially earn a lifetime money by 35. We decided it with how popular football is. We pour money into football and then complain about players wages and ticket prices. 

Many players run businesses now while they are playing. So maybe Sergio Aguero could lose 20k pw and not care. I don't know. But the mid and lower earning guys at say Sheffield United etc might not have as much loose cash as people assume. They could well have businesses that are suffering now. 

I know a couple of players that played at Derby that were buying houses as soon as they started making a few quid. I don't know what they were earning but let's just say it was 8k If they're investing it in properties then it doesn't stretch that far. 

Ok, so they're still rich in terms of what they have. But they'd have felt something like this if they had to drop wages. 

Many might not feel sorry for them. Oh diddums you've got 5 houses and only £10k in the bank. But if we had worked up to that level in football and had invested it I don't think we'd consider it entirely fair. We'd say we are being punished for being successful in a hugely competitive and popular trade. 

Footballers genuinely don't seem to have problem with cuts. Clubs maybe so. But the players themselves seem to have attracted a lot of heated attitudes to them. 

[1967RAMS]

14 minutes ago, Alpha said:

But a company like a football club could say that it's top management/players etc are key staff and by laying off the lowest skilled/paid workers it will help balance the books, keep its key staff and eventually be in a healthy position to take back on it's lower skilled workers? 

To do it in reverse, keep the guys under 30k and lay off guys on 30k pw that would limit the top end guys to 2.5k per month wage? 

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. 

[nottingram]

1 hour ago, ketteringram said:

Just Furlough all the staff, including players. Then, due to the limit, all of the players would be on £2,500 per month (I think). Whether or not they can manage on it , is irrelevant.

I would say it is entirely relevant and also highly morally questionable to hand out fixed term contracts worth up to £100k a month and then cut them by 97.5%. Pretty much nobody could survive on a cut to that tune and an employer expecting an employee to do so would be viewed very dimly no matter the profession.

To be clear I am not comfortable with the idea of a club furloughing anybody, particularly lower paid staff. But until the PFA pull their fingers out their arses and allow players to make voluntary contributions then clubs in precarious financial situations will have to make decisions to protect themselves.

[Day]

3 hours ago, Jayram said:

I’m not having a go at MM for the sake of it but I cant believe the club cannot afford to pay the remaining 20% of wages to the non playing staff. A fifth of salary is a lot of money to be missing from someone’s pay and is going to cause some people genuine hardship. I don’t doubt that Mel has done good things in the local community but not paying his staff the extra is not right.

Without knowing his personal finances and how much cash he has in the bank I wouldn’t know. He’s a businessman that possibly has many other interests outside of the club which may also see staff currently unable to work. 

I don’t agree that we should look at a millionaire and say well they can afford it, then a few months later ask for big money signings until we completely drain them of their wealth then look to discard them for the next fancy millionaire who can fund the stars who entertainment us.

The article by John Percy said an announcement would be made on Wednesday 

On Wednesday, however, Derby are expected to announce a major initiative to support the local community and the staff, backed by manager Phillip Cocu and first-team players.

Before we stick the boot in, might be worth waiting for this announcement. 

Would have been nice for this story not to break the way it has, leaves a couple of days of anger to build towards the club when we might find out on Wednesday the players have either taken a cut, defer or donated wages to ensure staff don’t lose a penny.

[Ambitious]

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 

 

[Day]