Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th

Brightonian said:
I'm all for players having the option to refuse to play. No one should be forced to put their health or, more pertinently, that of their loved ones, in danger. But if they continue to do so after the rest of us have had to go back to work then they should be furloughed and put on £2500 a month. And be grateful, since by then plenty of the rest of us won't even have that option - it'll be work or lose your job/pay.
Click to expand...
Wouldnt that be worse for the country though? I mean the amount the players would be taxed would be reduced, and the amount going back to the country thus reduced (tax money going to NHS and other stuff).
The only ones who benefit from this are the greedy owners.

Or am I missing something?
 
Brightonian said:
I'm all for players having the option to refuse to play. No one should be forced to put their health or, more pertinently, that of their loved ones, in danger. But if they continue to do so after the rest of us have had to go back to work then they should be furloughed and put on £2500 a month. And be grateful, since by then plenty of the rest of us won't even have that option - it'll be work or lose your job/pay.
Click to expand...

Clubs won't go against their players wishes.
 
golden_blunder said:
I can’t believe that the players haven’t had their say yet. What happens if half of them don’t want to play? They need to take their feedback and suggestions from them onboard before making a major decision
Click to expand...

Very odd. Especially when you have a number of PL players already speaking out against the idea. Aguero, Rose, Murray etc
 
TheReligion said:
Clubs won't go against their players wishes.
Click to expand...

I'm not really making a practical suggestion. I just find it slightly obscene that footballers will be paid their absurd wages to do nothing while normal people will be forced to go back to work and face a far higher risk of infection than a footballer would, or else earn nothing.
 
Brightonian said:
I'm all for players having the option to refuse to play. No one should be forced to put their health or, more pertinently, that of their loved ones, in danger. But if they continue to do so after the rest of us have had to go back to work then they should be furloughed and put on £2500 a month. And be grateful, since by then plenty of the rest of us won't even have that option - it'll be work or lose your job/pay.
Click to expand...

Its just going to add to the narrative of out of touch millionaire football players refusing to go back to work when the rest of the country does.

It would be interesting to see how many players were prepared to drop their wages down to £2000 a month over going to work.
 
Megadrive Man said:
Its just going to add to the narrative of out of touch millionaire football players refusing to go back to work when the rest of the country does.

It would be interesting to see how many players were prepared to drop their wages down to £2000 a month over going to work.
Click to expand...
Probably none but if they simply claim to feel unwell or sick or whatever then they won't play and clubs will have to pay them anyway. Like I said before: clubs need more power over players because right now it's the opposite.
 
Sylar said:
Wouldnt that be worse for the country though? I mean the amount the players would be taxed would be reduced, and the amount going back to the country thus reduced (tax money going to NHS and other stuff).
The only ones who benefit from this are the greedy owners.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
First part is a fair point but then it’s slightly negated by the second one. Whilst there are rich owners in the PL. The rich owners in the PL acquired their wealth outside of football. In general owning a football club isn’t actually that profitable due to the vast sums paid to players and the money spent on transfers.

A lot of clubs would run out of money if they went a season or two without tv money etc. and then wouldn’t be able to pay their players anyway. Obviously though you’ve got the likes of city, Chelsea who have owners with astronomical wealth made outside of football but they’re actually few and far between.
 
Megadrive Man said:
Its just going to add to the narrative of out of touch millionaire football players refusing to go back to work when the rest of the country does.

It would be interesting to see how many players were prepared to drop their wages down to £2000 a month over going to work.
Click to expand...
Its not the same at all. Im not sitting touch tight to my co worker at the office dripping in sweat.

Its incomparable
 
What's all this rubbish about players going on furlough or dropping wages to £2k a month :lol

Haven't the United players all dropped by 30% and that money going to charity? Even if they went a year without pay, it makes no difference to them. Worst case scenario they have to sell a house or two. They're not key workers, and are financially successful enough to the PL/FA to feck off.

On a side note, I just downloaded that photo of the Liverpool fan crying, ready to post for whenever season is cancelled, or they're GIVEN the title
 
Pep's Suit said:
Probably none but if they simply claim to feel unwell or sick or whatever then they won't play and clubs will have to pay them anyway. Like I said before: clubs need more power over players because right now it's the opposite.
Click to expand...

Players have all the power, that is exactly the reason we have not seen clubs cutting their wages.

If you think about it, players should really be furloughed, there is no way the can work and it would save alot of money for clubs.
 
Leroy The Red said:
First part is a fair point but then it’s slightly negated by the second one. Whilst there are rich owners in the PL. The rich owners in the PL acquired their wealth outside of football. In general owning a football club isn’t actually that profitable due to the vast sums paid to players and the money spent on transfers.

A lot of clubs would run out of money if they went a season or two without tv money etc. and then wouldn’t be able to pay their players anyway. Obviously though you’ve got the likes of city, Chelsea who have owners with astronomical wealth made outside of football but they’re actually few and far between.
Click to expand...

but is what I wrote incorrect? They are the only ones who benefit from players taking a paycut.
I think 'run out of money' is a bit of hyperbole no?

Would be interesting to see how many investors have actually increased their wealth vs made a loss. The loss for me seems to be the 'sugardaddies' as opposed to many other owners who have tried to make as much profit as possible before this pandemic.

Would also be interesting to see what contracts would state on circumstances like this. A player being told 'play in these conditions or take a pay cut to 2k' could see a lot of issues come from this, but thats a different point. (and its not going to happen like the initial person I quoted, stated)
 
Phurry said:
I don't think you understand how the furlough payments actually work...
Click to expand...

Yes you are the only one who knows this, apologise.

Rashford who cannot play football, cannot go to the training ground at United earning 200k a week.
The club furloughs him and the club saves 200k a week.

Rashford gets £2k a month until he can return.
 
Phurry said:
I don't think you understand how the furlough payments actually work...
Click to expand...
I think he does he’s just insanely unrealistic to think players on £200k a week are going to accept £2.5k a month.
 
The Champions League next season should be a World Cup style month long tournament that is played after all the domestic games.
 
Offside said:
I think he does he’s just insanely unrealistic to think players on £200k a week are going to accept £2.5k a month.
Click to expand...
I also suspect that most players aren't actually employees, more like self-employed contractors who then contract to a club. If so, that alone makes trying to furlough them an interesting idea, they are a supplier with a very different contract to an employee...
 
Offside said:
I think he does he’s just insanely unrealistic to think players on £200k a week are going to accept £2.5k a month.
Click to expand...

That is a different subject, Ofcourse I know no player will accept this hence why I started off saying players have all the power.
 
Offside said:
The Champions League next season should be a World Cup style month long tournament that is played after all the domestic games.
Click to expand...

But for national teams and call it Euro 2021
 
Offside said:
Don’t massively disagree with the idea to be honest.
Click to expand...

The only reason they are protected is because they are footballers, any other industry, employees are on furlough no matter the wage.

If we are not playing football, the players are not entertaining crowds so the club is not making any money, yet they are still having to pay millions in salary.

We have seen clubs around Europe force players to take salary caps, Juve players have taken cuts of 30% and these have been differed to be paid over the next 2 years or so.
 
Phurry said:
I also suspect that most players aren't actually employees, more like self-employed contractors who then contract to a club. If so, that alone makes trying to furlough them an interesting idea, they are a supplier with a very different contract to an employee...
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Megadrive Man said:
Its just going to add to the narrative of out of touch millionaire football players refusing to go back to work when the rest of the country does.

It would be interesting to see how many players were prepared to drop their wages down to £2000 a month over going to work.
Click to expand...

Probably more than you would think. The money they make gives them the freedom to say feck it and sacrifice their salary for a few months if they fear for their health.
 
Sylar said:
but is what I wrote incorrect? They are the only ones who benefit from players taking a paycut.
I think 'run out of money' is a bit of hyperbole no?

Would be interesting to see how many investors have actually increased their wealth vs made a loss. The loss for me seems to be the 'sugardaddies' as opposed to many other owners who have tried to make as much profit as possible before this pandemic.

Would also be interesting to see what contracts would state on circumstances like this. A player being told 'play in these conditions or take a pay cut to 2k' could see a lot of issues come from this, but thats a different point. (and its not going to happen like the initial person I quoted, stated)
Click to expand...
No, you’re correct. The benefit would be to club owners... initially. But for arguments sake if footballers don’t want to play until 100% risk free and safe, football will need to be suspended indefinitely and if footballers remain on full pay ultimately the club will suffer and then so will fans.

It’s not a hyperbole at all, look at PL clubs wages and revenue. The margins are so thin. PL chairmen tend to make more money from their other businesses. If they went two seasons with no TV/prize money, their pool of money generated from football would run out and they’d then have to start funding the club via their other more profitable businesses. Sugar daddies obviously don’t have this problem. Nor the Glazers but the Glazers are Manchester United owners. We’re on another planet to most clubs . But the simple fact is most clubs aren’t run by sugar daddies and most clubs aren’t Manchester United or Arsenal.
When you start going into the lower leagues. Clubs and chairmen have got no chance. Simon Jordan’s story is a great example of what owning a club can be like if you’ve not bottomless funds or PL tv money to survive on.
 
Leroy The Red said:
No, you’re correct. The benefit would be to club owners... initially. But for arguments sake if footballers don’t want to play until 100% risk free and safe, football will need to be suspended indefinitely and if footballers remain on full pay ultimately the club will suffer and then so will fans.

It’s not a hyperbole at all, look at PL clubs wages and revenue. The margins are so thin. PL chairmen tend to make more money from their other businesses. If they went two seasons with no TV/prize money, their pool of money generated from football would run out and they’d then have to start funding the club via their other more profitable businesses. Sugar daddies obviously don’t have this problem. Nor the Glazers but the Glazers are Manchester United owners. We’re on another planet to most clubs . But the simple fact is most clubs aren’t run by sugar daddies and most clubs aren’t Manchester United or Arsenal.
When you start going into the lower leagues. Clubs and chairmen have got no chance. Simon Jordan’s story is a great example of what owning a club can be like if you’ve not bottomless funds or PL tv money to survive on.
Click to expand...

Are they? Genuine question. We make 627m vs. 602 costs, and 178m of that is transfer spending that's technically optional. Our margins are anything but thin. I know we are a money machine but i would be surprised if other PL clubs were struggling, especially taking into account most will be having a year off on transfers.
 
This whole thing is just weird. 1 day I wake up and and am convinced the league will resume and other days I wake up certain it will not.

What’s other people thoughts on this?

Will it resume or will it be done away with and decided via ppg?
 
11101 said:
Are they? Genuine question. We make 627m vs. 602 costs, and 178m of that is transfer spending that's technically optional. Our margins are anything but thin. I know we are a money machine but i would be surprised if other PL clubs were struggling, especially taking into account most will be having a year off on transfers.
Click to expand...
To be fair their are certain ‘selling clubs’ where the lack of transfers could be a hindrance rather than a help.
 
11101 said:
Are they? Genuine question. We make 627m vs. 602 costs, and 178m of that is transfer spending that's technically optional. Our margins are anything but thin. I know we are a money machine but i would be surprised if other PL clubs were struggling, especially taking into account most will be having a year off on transfers.
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly were Man United, this will have less of an impact on us as quick as it will on other clubs.
Im not saying they’re struggling or will struggle anytime soon. I’ll stress this is purely based on a situation where there is no football until it is 100% risk free which is a while away right? . Where footballers can still be paid full salary. If most clubs go one or two seasons with no tv or prize money, they will struggle to pay all their players in full.
 
Phurry said:
I also suspect that most players aren't actually employees, more like self-employed contractors who then contract to a club. If so, that alone makes trying to furlough them an interesting idea, they are a supplier with a very different contract to an employee...
Click to expand...
They're employees
 
arnie_ni said:
Its not the same at all. Im not sitting touch tight to my co worker at the office dripping in sweat.

Its incomparable
Click to expand...

You are touching the same surfaces all day however. Think it’s also a fair assumption that not one of you would have actually undergone a fecking test to see if you are infected either.

This is before we get into the conversation of how you get to and from your place of work.
 
Leroy The Red said:
Yeah exactly were Man United, this will have less of an impact on us as quick as it will on other clubs.
Im not saying they’re struggling or will struggle anytime soon. I’ll stress this is purely based on a situation where there is no football until it is 100% risk free which is a while away right? . Where footballers can still be paid full salary. If most clubs go one or two seasons with no tv or prize money, they will struggle to pay all their players in full.
Click to expand...
Clubs in the efl wouldn’t survive a year without attended games unless they were subsidized. Total income on attendance tickets alone in all efl is around 250m ignoring any other income on the day.
 
Redcy said:
Clubs in the efl wouldn’t survive a year without attended games unless they were subsidized. Total income on attendance tickets alone in all efl is around 250m ignoring any other income on the day.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah they’ve got no chance of surviving. I meant PL clubs would be ok for a while.
 
InterFan1998 said:
Official: Serie A to return to team training May 18 and season continue June 13th.

https://app.football-italia.net/?re...t#article/footballitalia-153170&menu=news-all

Medical protocol agreed - if a player tests positive entire team will go into quarantine.
Click to expand...
There have been a couple of players already tested positive. When Italy opens up little more there will be more who are going to be tested positive. Not less. It is nightmare. If they agree to continue season they should be planing for a finish 3-4 months longer than they believe. At same time, there is a big question about next season as well.
 
InterFan1998 said:
Official: Serie A to return to team training May 18 and season continue June 13th.

https://app.football-italia.net/?re...t#article/footballitalia-153170&menu=news-all

Medical protocol agreed - if a player tests positive entire team will go into quarantine.
Click to expand...

So, if a player from a team tests positive, and that entire team goes into quarantine (for two weeks, may be) will the rest of the clubs continue playing?

If yes, we can have a situation where one club plays four or five matches less than another. Another nightmare.


——
Edit: If only one player from any Serie A club tests positive, the league will be cancelled. That is the current consensus, anyway.
 
Last edited:
TheLord said:
So, if a player from a team tests positive, and that entire team goes into quarantine (for two weeks, may be) will the rest of the clubs continue playing?
Click to expand...

If that happens, you will end up with one club needing to play 4 games when every other team has finished their season.. the scenes.
 
Redcy said:
Clubs in the efl wouldn’t survive a year without attended games unless they were subsidized. Total income on attendance tickets alone in all efl is around 250m ignoring any other income on the day.
Click to expand...
Clubs can survive whitout problems. You just need to plan economics little bit more. Cutting wages, less transfers and so on. Quality will surly be lower but clubs can survive if they lower their ambition. And because other clubs will be in similar position it wouldn't be that different to other teams.
 
TheLord said:
So, if a player from a team tests positive, and that entire team goes into quarantine (for two weeks, may be) will the rest of the clubs continue playing?

If yes, we can have a situation where one club plays four or five matches less than another. Another nightmare.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure if this happens they will call off season - and it most likely will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.