Premier League 2019-2020 Thread

[The_Steve]

Just to put Liverpool's figures into context

 

 

[villa4europe]

49 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

If they play in June/July behind closed doors with the virus still going on for the sake of tv contract obligations  and then not refund a third of my season ticket then frankly football can do one. 

I would seriously consider not renewing my season ticket if they take this callous approach.

Pre postponement when the talk was just of behind closed doors I'd read somewhere it'd be a refund of the ticket price and then a code letting you stream the 3pm kick off as some sort of sweetener 

[OutByEaster?]

Players vs Clubs rnd 1.

This will get very interesting - the clubs having declared that the players should all take a 30% pay cut for the good of football and the nation - with £20m going to the NHS and the rest going to erm...the clubs. Then the players saying  if you cut our pay you take millions out of public services by reducing the tax we pay so we're going to say no to a pay cut and give an amount that is more than £20m to the NHS (but less out of our pockets than a 30% pay cut.)

We'll find out who has the most influence in the media very shortly I think.

My sympathies are with the players - I'd like to see billionaires putting their hand into their pocket to support their own business's before the millionaires that work for them.

[Adam2003]

4 hours ago, sne said:

Players union not keen on lowering their wages apparently, for tax reasons.

The piece I read made a point discussed on here - it’s all very well saying “players should give up their wages” but that would have meant a £200m loss in taxes that players pay... basically there are no winners in all this and that’s worth remembering.

[Adam2003]

3 hours ago, The_Steve said:

Just to put Liverpool's figures into context

 

 

And so further to my last post... if Liverpool spent £25m on wages, then that’s £12m in taxes... so the “taxpayer paying £840,000” is still £11m+ in credit...

[Mic09]

Arguing that Liverpool players shouldn't take a pay cut because the state will lose out on taxes is crazy.

Actual jobs, livelihoods, can be saved on the spot and people would rather send it off to Westminster for it to be minced through the beurocratic machine which may or may not help anyone.  

[OutByEaster?]

16 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Actual jobs, livelihoods, can be saved on the spot.

How?

Liverpool made a £42m profit last year - those jobs aren't at threat - the threat is to the profit being made by their owners. The choice is give the money to Liverpool's billionaire owners to protect their profit margin or give it to the UK's public services.

 

 

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

How?

Liverpool made a £42m profit last year - those jobs aren't at threat - the threat is to the profit being made by their owners. The choice is give the money to Liverpool's billionaire owners to protect their profit margin or give it to the UK's public services.

 

 

The problem is that the billionaire owners would rather keep the money in their pockets and use the Gov scheme to pay their employees. 

In that case the tax payer pays their wages and billionaire owners aren't affected, while players also don't have to take pay cuts to save jobs of people in their clubs.

I would rather Salah earn 50% less for 3 months which could save a few hundred jobs at the club than money being going to Westminster, and could be used for NHS OR the royals, bonuses for highways England bosses, airline bailouts, new parliament building, HS2, or a million other things that we could do without right now.

[OutByEaster?]

57 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

The problem is that the billionaire owners would rather keep the money in their pockets and use the Gov scheme to pay their employees. 

Agreed.

Quote

In that case the tax payer pays their wages and billionaire owners aren't affected, while players also don't have to take pay cuts to save jobs of people in their clubs.

I don't get how those two sentences fit together. The first bit makes sense - furlough the workforce and the govt pays so the football club or its billionaires don't have to - they can keep the money to help offset the losses caused by no football. Players taking pay cuts is immaterial to that - at smaller clubs it's not - it's vital if they're to keep their heads above water if you're Walsall - for Liverpool it's not, for just about everyone in the Premier league it's not - they can afford not to furlough their non-playing staff regardless.

There's absolutely no indication whatsoever from Premier league clubs that they will use a 30% pay cut for players to take other staff out of furlough.

The proposed 30% pay cut in the Premier league isn't there to save jobs, it's there to try to offset the losses as far as is possible so that the owners don't have to take a loss on the chin. As is very often the case with a corporate structure the word "jobs" can almost always be substituted with the word "profit".

Quote

I would rather Salah earn 50% less for 3 months which could save a few hundred jobs at the club than money going to Westminster, and could be used for NHS OR the royals, bonuses for highways England bosses, airline bailouts, new parliament building, HS2, or a million other things that we could do without right now.

Salah earning 50% less isn't going to change the owners decision on furloughing - it might make Liverpool more profitable in the long term, but that's about all it'll do.

The clubs are giving £1m each to the NHS - and they're trying to claw back £20m a week from player wages - that money will go straight into their own coffers. It's typical of the corporate doctrine - when there's profit, it's absolutely kept within a very small circle of individuals, but when there are losses they're socialised - players paying wages back, the govt paying furloughed staff, the people of the UK bailing out its banks - rugged individualism for you and me, socialism at the top.

What the players are suggesting is that they take home full pay, and pay the tax on that, which will benefit the country, and then donate in excess of £20m to the NHS - in that scenario, the players are better off because they can do that with a smaller cut to their incomes, the nation is better off because it gathers the tax and the NHS is better off because it gets a bigger direct donation. 

It's a question of who you think needs the money most - and for parts of football, that boils down to the players, the nation and the NHS on one hand or Roman Abramovich on the other.

As for the use of tax, in the example you give - we are Westminster - we are the people who are buying those things - we voted for a group of people to spend the money in the way we wanted, that's democracy.

Now personally I don't like a lot of the things we voted for and I think our democracy is incredibly skewed - but tax is a good measure of the success of any democracy - in a really well functioning democracy we should be happy and proud to pay our taxes - because they pay for the things we wanted. In this case, if you're not keen on the things the government is spending tax on, vote for a different government - but right now, in a crisis, I think we're spending it in areas that have a clear and obvious benefit.

 

 

[Mic09]

32 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Agreed.

I don't get how those two sentences fit together. The first bit makes sense - furlough the workforce and the govt pays so the football club or its billionaires don't have to - they can keep the money to help offset the losses caused by no football. Players taking pay cuts is immaterial to that - at smaller clubs it's not - it's vital if they're to keep their heads above water if you're Walsall - for Liverpool it's not, for just about everyone in the Premier league it's not - they can afford not to furlough their non-playing staff regardless.

There's absolutely no indication whatsoever from Premier league clubs that they will use a 30% pay cut for players to take other staff out of furlough.

The proposed 30% pay cut in the Premier league isn't there to save jobs, it's there to try to offset the losses as far as is possible so that the owners don't have to take a loss on the chin. As is very often the case with a corporate structure the word "jobs" can almost always be substituted with the word "profit".

Salah earning 50% less isn't going to change the owners decision on furloughing - it might make Liverpool more profitable in the long term, but that's about all it'll do.

The clubs are giving £1m each to the NHS - and they're trying to claw back £20m a week from player wages - that money will go straight into their own coffers. It's typical of the corporate doctrine - when there's profit, it's absolutely kept within a very small circle of individuals, but when there are losses they're socialised - players paying wages back, the govt paying furloughed staff, the people of the UK bailing out its banks - rugged individualism for you and me, socialism at the top.

What the players are suggesting is that they take home full pay, and pay the tax on that, which will benefit the country, and then donate in excess of £20m to the NHS - in that scenario, the players are better off because they can do that with a smaller cut to their incomes, the nation is better off because it gathers the tax and the NHS is better off because it gets a bigger direct donation. 

It's a question of who you think needs the money most - and for parts of football, that boils down to the players, the nation and the NHS on one hand or Roman Abramovich on the other.

As for the use of tax, in the example you give - we are Westminster - we are the people who are buying those things - we voted for a group of people to spend the money in the way we wanted, that's democracy.

Now personally I don't like a lot of the things we voted for and I think our democracy is incredibly skewed - but tax is a good measure of the success of any democracy - in a really well functioning democracy we should be happy and proud to pay our taxes - because they pay for the things we wanted. In this case, if you're not keen on the things the government is spending tax on, vote for a different government - but right now, in a crisis, I think we're spending it in areas that have a clear and obvious benefit.

 

 

You make some good points but I think we will both agree that tax on 400 Premier League players wages is nothing but a drop when it comes to the bigger picture of government funds. 

We agree on a lot of what you posted, but my preference is with direct cash injection to those around us who need it most rather than a 3rd party (gov) taking a slice of the pie along the way.

I would simply rather players voluntarily (not because Gov or PL told them to do so) take a bit of a hit on their earnings and gave that money to the club that is feeding them. And when I say the club, I mean Doris the tea lady and Stuart the steward. 

 

[PaulC]

The PFA couldn’t care less about taxes govts get. There sole interest lies with the players. The players have stood on their laurels instead of being pro active and now they look bad. 30% pay cut is nothing to most players. Clubs are owned by rich billionaires but why should they bank roll clubs just so players can get paid fir doing nothing. No doubt their businesses are suffering because of the virus as well. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by PaulC

[OutByEaster?]

In an ideal world, someone like FIFA or UEFA should be taking charge for the good of the game. I'd like to see them impose something along these lines:

• FIFA to make direct contributions out of its own coffers to protect the most vulnerable leagues.
• In the UK, telling the TV companies that they appreciate there isn't any football - but asking them to commit to paying one third of the agreed amount - in exchange the TV companies would get increased access and a permanent lifting of the Saturday three pm blackout - those companies that refused would never be considered for TV rights again, worldwide.
• Every Premier League owner/owning company asked to put in £20m from their own pocket - this cannot be leveraged against the club as debt, or leave the club indebted to the chairman/owner - If must be a gift investment. This is asking people that can afford it to invest in their own business's - like you having to buy a new fence after a storm. Any chairman not willing or able to do this should see their club docked ten points at the start of next season. 
• Premier league players then being asked to add £100m by proportion of their clubs wage bill - so Manchester United might pay £10m while Sheffield United might pay £3m. 
• Season ticket holders being asked to give up 50% of the money owed to them for unplayed games - roughly 350,000 season ticket holders all giving up something in the region of £70 each - another £20m+

i think that would be fair - I think it would spread the pain across every stakeholder in the game and I think it would be possible. 

Of course, it became a flight of fancy the second I mentioned FIFA or UEFA taking charge.

 

[John]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Of course, it became a flight of fancy the second I mentioned FIFA or UEFA taking charge.

Yes, they couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery, unless there was a suitcase full of money in it for them....

[romavillan]

Lockdown measures over here going to be extended to May the 16th, we're a couple of weeks ahead of you and it looks like the UK will be hit harder as the govt have been either half arsed of covertly going down the insane herd immunity route.

Lombardy and Tuscany both imposing masks to be warn by anyone out and about too. So football in those conditions is not a goer. put 2 weeks on May 16th and you get to the start of June already before maybe things get relaxed a bit, but even then not certain you could play behind closed doors unless everyone was tested and were negative that was involved. That's even tighter to the June 30th date which could be a hard deadline. 

So the PFA, FA, Football League and the clubs need to find a compromise, £20m to the NHS is an insult really, that's premier league clubs donating less than a below average players fee to the NHS between them. Should be 10x that at least if the players are going to take reduced wages to save the non playing staff. The only reason I can understand players being paid as much as they are is because I'm aware that the football industry makes all that and then some and the players are the game, Much rather them have the money than the owners of the clubs like back in the bad old days pre Jimmy Hill with the wage cap. If football is a multi billion a year industry, it should not all end up in the pockets of 20 owners as it used to.

Tricky to see how they will end up settling it but it's inevitable so a solution will be found. Hopefully one that does not involve us going down! 

[Adam2003]

4 minutes ago, romavillan said:

£20m to the NHS is an insult really, that's premier league clubs donating less than a below average players fee

Oh come on let’s have one thread without a dig at Wesley

[KenjiOgiwara]

On 04/04/2020 at 18:01, The_Steve said:

Liverpool are using the furloughing scheme for their non-paying staff

YNWA, unless there's a virus about it seems. Shit club. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

40 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

YNWA, unless there's a virus about it seems. Shit club. 

Bit harsh to blame the whole club. This would have come from the current owners and those running the club. They hardly represent the whole of Liverpool. 
 

Whilst it hurts us all to admit or ever say it. We all know they are a great club. But they are definitely run by scumbags.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Vive_La_Villa

[srsmithusa]

I'm a fan because I love the beauty of the game.  if I loved accounting or political science this would be fascinating.  I'll check back when some of beautiful game is occurring.

meanwhile, in Texas, we can get margarita's to go now.....

[KenjiOgiwara]

33 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Bit harsh to blame the whole club. This would have come from the current owners and those running the club. They hardly represent the whole of Liverpool. 
 

Whilst it hurts us all to admit or ever say it. We all know they are a great club. But they are definitely run by scumbags.

Nah. Shit club.  

[MaVilla]

Basically businesses dont care about their employees, and people are greedy.

More news at 11.