50% wages deferred for 3 months

[Talktalk]

Aye very good, I don’t care what Rooney says and what other people in other walks of life get.

The players in my opinion should have took a wage cut and not a deferral.

The proper thing has been done, they’re deferring their wages to help ease a cash flow problem and I’m sure they will do the same again if needed in 3 months time . Why should they and them alone lose 50% of their wages ?

 

[weeneebs]

I agree Stevie. The lower paid staff lose money & the players don’t.

The lower paid staff aren't losing out the club are fulfilling the extra 20% of their wages in addition to the furlough scheme which pays them 80%. In essence we have virtually zero outgoings for the next 3 months with the top paid staff deferring their wagers for that period allowing us to get through the worst times of this crisis

 

[chilebear]

Sorry @chilebear, I wasn't referring to you. It was another poster on the first page

Ok pal
WATP

 

[Smkz23]

Good that the non-playing staff will not be losing out, however I’m a bit gutted at the players not taking a pay cut of some sort. A 20% cut across the board could’ve been the difference in a new signing in the summer. Deferring the wages is shite IMO.

Enabling signings is the last reason players should take a pay cut for in this situation.

 

[Let’s Gio]

Being reported that manager, coaching staff and players have agreed 50% wage deferral for 3 months.

Good on them. they didn’t have to do that.

 

[dublinbluenose]

I'm confused as to negativity here. Have I misunderstood this?

It was morally wrong to furlough stuff and use governments money for lower paid staff whilst still paying the players earning megabucks (i.e Celtic/Spurs) but this isn't what has happened here?

The players/coaching staff have deferred their wages for three months - so we don't pay them but we have also used the government scheme and topped up the 20% for non playing staff lower down the scale which means that we have, as a whole treated everything fairly so the staff earning less will continued to be paid 100% and the players not be taking a salary for 3 months (as they can afford it but will get it at a later date)?

It’s FF club will never do right from wrong for some

 

[snoopyboymason]

All over my social media I see messages from bears praising the club, the management and players for this announcement.come on here and it’s negative after negative.if people are so disgusted by the clubs actions then surely it stands to reason they won’t be coming back to Ibrox.

So if you are critical of the club you shouldn’t go to the games?

 

[KensingtonBlue]

I'm confused as to negativity here. Have I misunderstood this?

It was morally wrong to furlough stuff and use governments money for lower paid staff whilst still paying the players earning megabucks (i.e Celtic/Spurs) but this isn't what has happened here?

The players/coaching staff have deferred their wages for three months - so we don't pay them but we have also used the government scheme and topped up the 20% for non playing staff lower down the scale which means that we have, as a whole treated everything fairly so the staff earning less will continued to be paid 100% and the players not be taking a salary for 3 months (as they can afford it but will get it at a later date)?

Taking government money to pay low paid staff is the same regardless of what happens to the players.

Its an option we didn’t have to take. Morally I have a problem with it. It’s an abuse of the system at the taxpayers expense.

 

[Stevethebluenose90]

Ah yes brilliant, just as I thought. Of course your biggest concern here is getting Liverpool’s back. The thing is we’re not a cash rich footballing super power like they are, and we’re not paying hundreds of thousands of pounds out to single players each week like they are. In fact in general we’re not paying wages that are even in the same Galaxy as what they’re paying, nor do we generate an income that is in the same Galaxy as what they do, so the two situations aren’t even comparable. They’re cash rich, we are absolutely not hence why we’ve been going on soft loans for a fair length of time.

I’m not overly pleased we’re furloughing, especially in light of the players only agreeing to a deferral (id have rather seen players take a modest cut to avoid furloughing staff), but I understand it because put simply, we’re not a cash rich club.

Looks like the “Moral high ground” that you were harping on about has been thrown out the window. Certainly not unexpected.

 

[Stevie13000]

What's your point? Surely the outcome is the important thing; people don't lose out on money.

You were complaining about the staff losing money, this now won't be the case.

My point is we are not a cash rich club and I think we will have next to no money come the summer to strengthen the squad.

I have had to take a wage cut and I don’t earn thousands of pounds a WEEK!

 

[chilebear]

The proper thing has been done, they’re deferring their wages to help ease a cash flow problem and I’m sure they will do the same again if needed in 3 months time . Why should they and them alone lose 50% of their wages ?

Maybe they shouldnt accept the full 100% of the deferral further down the line

 

[Ambiorix]

I agree Stevie. The lower paid staff lose money & the players don’t.

How are the lower paid staff losing money?

Rangers will ensure that everyone furloughed under this government scheme will receive 100 per cent salary through ‘top up’ assistance from the club with all other conditions and benefits remaining unchanged.

 

[Danger Zone]

I think peoples issue with the furloughing of staff is that players have taken a 50% deferment (which the people who have issues would assume was to cover the staff wages)
But we are still using the furlough scheme.

It makes business sense. But some will see it as taking advantage of the government scheme when we perhaps don’t have to.

You’ve articulated it better than I did. The players are entitled to the cash, but I though most would be a bit more selfless and taken a small cut to protect the rest of the staff and the club. At this point, all we’re looking at is a giant bill in a few months time, whilst the government cover 80% of the non playing staffs salary. Not really how I’d have liked to see it done, but what can you do, if they don’t want to lose any money then that’s that.

 

[davmcc]

Maybe they are waiting to see the outcome of the league season and what's happening with next season before deciding if they take a cut or not?

If they still have to fulfill the remaining fixtures and play a full season next season then the players would be due full pay.

If this season is finished and no remaining fixtures are played then they should be given reduced pay.

 

[Virgil Hilts]

Eh? If there’s no actual cuts you can forget about us spending that kind of money on players any time soon.

I don’t think our revenue to 30-06-2020 will be too far away from last year’s £53.2m (assuming we get the s/t money in for 30-6).

 

[McQueen]

So the players aren’t taking a pay cut? All they’ve done is offer to help the club out on cash flow by effectively giving them a loan.

 

[garytcrsc]

I know as much as everyone whos saying that its a great idea. Im giving my opinion as to what we know thus far.
If its a 50% deferral then i think its poor. If more news comes out on it tnen ill happily change my mind

Why is it poor? We keep getting told that the leagues are going to be completed. So revenues will start up again and players should get paid what is in their contracts. If leagues do not get completed or are played behind closed doors, then the discussion of cuts should be taken up with the players/coaching staff, as the anticipated revenue is gone.

Hopefully this deferral will allow Rangers to continue to pay non-playing staff. If it doesn't and they are furloughed, then I agree that is poor from the players and coaches. However, until then let's try to look on the positive side.

 

[Its-Sebo]

Dirty bastards? Come on, don’t try and put words in my mouth like a petulant wean. They could help the rest of the staff and the club a lot more by taking a small cut, instead they’ve merely offered to collect a wedge a few months down the line, what is it about that you find so difficult to grasp? I’ve even said I can’t really be too angered because they’re contractually obliged to it, yet you’re throwing terms like “dirty bastards” around like I’ve just called them scum. Maybe give it a rest.

I'm not suggesting you called them scum or that was your intention. You know as much as anyone that people jump the gun to have a dig at our team on here, regardless of facts (or lack of).

Before we knew anything some were already steering the narrative towards this being a shîte move by the playing staff.

Remember you quoted me, not the other way about! (for a change)

 

[Forth Bear]

Well done to the players and management.

 

[weeneebs]

Good that the non-playing staff will not be losing out, however I’m a bit gutted at the players not taking a pay cut of some sort. A 20% cut across the board could’ve been the difference in a new signing in the summer. Deferring the wages is shite IMO.

A 20% cut would still be a massive outgoing for the club on wages alone, we might not be able to sustain that through the summer

 

[Talktalk]

Maybe they shouldnt accept the full 100% of the deferral further down the line

How do you know they won’t ?

 

[B Ferguson 6]

I presume now this has happened the club will issue the season ticket renewals.

 

[Its-Sebo]

My point is we are not a cash rich club and I think we will have next to no money come the summer to strengthen the squad.

I have had to take a wage cut and I don’t earn thousands of pounds a WEEK!

Did you volunteer that wage cut or were you asked/forced to take it?

Maybe if the players are asked to take a wage cut they will. We don't know. So there's no point in having a go at them until we do.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

The lower paid staff don’t lose anything.

Have you actually read the statement?

I have now, given it was in the middle of the thread, but I’m very happy having read it.

 

[JDC]

Taking government money to pay low paid staff is the same regardless of what happens to the players.

Its an option we didn’t have to take. Morally I have a problem with it. It’s an abuse of the system at the taxpayers expense.

We don’t have 30-40 million sitting in our bank account to pay them.

What money are we paying them with? We have not abused the system at all. If it wasn’t for the scheme then we couldn’t afford to keep them on at all

 

[Craigie]

Defer means they still get all the money at a later date?

Probably when the new investment is in place.

However we have done the right thing. We could not expect taxpayers money to be used for salaries when the highest earners made no sacrifice.

 

[Stevie13000]

E

The proper thing has been done, they’re deferring their wages to help ease a cash flow problem and I’m sure they will do the same again if needed in 3 months time . Why should they and them alone lose 50% of their wages ?

Eh to help the club financially, a deferral still means the club will need to find the money from somewhere to pay the players eventually.

 

[SDF91]

As with all football clubs that can afford to pay individuals stupid money (relative to their non-playing staff) the solution is to manage your assets and not take government handouts away from companies who really need it. Us, them, Liverpool (now reverses), Norwich, Bournemouth, Newcastle, Spurs - it’s just pathetic.

What football club has cash sitting at this stage of the season to get through something like this? Very few.

We’re also still feeling the effects of the past and don’t have the same level of credit facilities available to us as the clubs you mention. Certainly not at the same cost of borrowing. As a result, we get into soft loans from investors very quickly.

This was the club’s only sensible option.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

The lower paid staff are not losing money

Thanks FF. I have now read it & it’s good.

 

[dublinbluenose]

So if you are critical of the club you shouldn’t go to the games?

No but people are saying they are disgusted by the clubs actions,if they feel that strongly about it then why would have they come back.we have been all critical of the club from time to time and nothing wrong with that but some of the criticism is away over the top for me

 

[Jenny]

Taking government money to pay low paid staff is the same regardless of what happens to the players.

Its an option we didn’t have to take. Morally I have a problem with it. It’s an abuse of the system at the taxpayers expense.

I understand that and that would have been my preference too. However, this is a more equal approach that has been taken rather than simply furloughing lower paid staff to get them off the wage bill and keeping the players in the style in which they are accustomed to.

 

[Danger Zone]

I'm not suggesting you called them scum or that was your intention. You know as much as anyone that people jump the gun to have a dig at our team on here, regardless of facts (or lack of).

Before we knew anything some were already steering the narrative towards this being a shîte move by the playing staff.

Remember you quoted me, not the other way about! (for a change)

Fair enough mate, but I genuinely think it’s quite easy to connect the dots, and he club statement put out since then further suggests that the players were almost certainly asked if they’d be prepared to take a cut (because like I said, that really helps us out a lot, a big bill for in 3 months time doesn’t) and we could have avoided furloughing.

But, nothing we can do about it so this is how it is and we have to accept it.

 

[choppy72]

Rangers are paying the 20% top up

Rangers are paying 100% of staff salaries.

For some that will be significantly more than 20% above the government amount.

 

[Shamrock hand and crown]

I'm not suggesting you called them scum or that was your intention. You know as much as anyone that people jump the gun to have a dig at our team on here, regardless of facts (or lack of).

Before we knew anything some were already steering the narrative towards this being a shîte move by the playing staff.

Remember you quoted me, not the other way about! (for a change)

It wouldn’t matter what the club done mate. We have so -called supporters who can’t but help put the boot into either the players or the club.

 

[DamBuster72]

Not necessarily. Making good the deferred wages could be over the course of their contracts.

I think that would require new contracts to be signed for each player as not paying the deferred part of the salary in this tax year would have tax implications both for us as a company and the players as individuals.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

How are the lower paid staff losing money?

I posted my opinion before seeing the official statement which was well into the thread mate. Thanks.

 

[weeneebs]

Taking government money to pay low paid staff is the same regardless of what happens to the players.

Its an option we didn’t have to take. Morally I have a problem with it. It’s an abuse of the system at the taxpayers expense.

The same HMRC that fucked us over aye??

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

The lower paid staff aren't losing out the club are fulfilling the extra 20% of their wages in addition to the furlough scheme which pays them 80%. In essence we have virtually zero outgoings for the next 3 months with the top paid staff deferring their wagers for that period allowing us to get through the worst times of this crisis

Thank you.

 

[Danger Zone]

I don’t think our revenue to 30-06-2020 will be close to last year’s £53.2m (assuming we get the s/t money in for 30-6).

It won’t. Even if it was the guys point wouldn’t make sense, surely it would look even worse if we furloughed staff then went and signed a player for £5m a few months later?

 

[Yankeeger]

Can’t for life of me see why anyone would have an issue with this announcement from club

 

[Chas]

A good response by our club and well done to the playing and management staff deferring wages. That will be a huge cash flow pressure removed from the business for at least three months.

 

[Teddypicker87]

To put it into my way of thinking.

we are willing to pay Morelos 10k for the next 3 months and then give him another 30k when this is done ( assuming it is ) But we can’t pay a groundsman or ticket office worker 300 quid a week and expect the government to pay it.

The only reason I used Alfie for the example as he will probably be out top earner but you could say Kent, Tav etc

Just to be clear it’s not personal

Does the treasurer end up worse off by paying 80% of furloughed workers wages at rangers up to 600quid a week or by losing the tax and NI on 10k a week?

Cause their both coming from the same pot.

 

[Biniaro11]

I had a dig at Leeds who deferred their wages...disappointed we have done the same. Will pick up their salary in full in not so many weeks.

 

[Danger Zone]

Looks like the “Moral high ground” that you were harping on about has been thrown out the window. Certainly not unexpected.

Looks like you know the situations aren’t remotely similar and have decided to gloss over what I’ve just said in classic ‘fingers in ears’ denial mode. Certainly not unexpected.

Like expecting a cleaner not to take help because the minted lawyer didn’t have to.

 

[AzorIbrox]

Rangers are paying 100% of staff salaries.

For some that will be significantly more than 20% above the government amount.

The Government pay 80%, Rangers pay 20%.

 

[Mearns Bluenose]

Summary: The players have deferred their wages allowing us to ensure that all the non-playing staff are paid 100% of their wages. This 100% is ultimately funded 80% by the taxpayer with us covering the rest.

Surprised by deferred players wages, rather than a 3 month pay cut. No issue with us using the Gov scheme considering we posted a loss in our last full yearly accounts, combined by the loss in revenue due to Covid.

 

[Trueblue1968]

Some negativity on here regarding this i am thankful to the players and staff for doing so. these are unprecedented times and these actions need to be taken.

 

[EndOfDays]

But it won't be in month 4

I don't think they will be getting it back in 1 go, likely added to there wages for the next 6 months.

 

[Its-Sebo]

Fair enough mate, but I genuinely think it’s quite easy to connect the dots, and he club statement put out since then further suggests that the players were almost certainly asked if they’d be prepared to take a cut (because like I said, that really helps us out a lot, a big bill for in 3 months time doesn’t) and we could have avoided furloughing.

But, nothing we can do about it so this is how it is and we have to accept it.

Where are you picking up that they were asked to take a cut? If they were asked to take a cut but refused, instead suggesting a deferral I'm not sure it would be described as 'volunteered' by the club. I haven't re-read the statement though so I could be missing something obvious.

 

[Craigie]

That's very simplistic. You are assuming everyone is taking a 50% reduction in salary when that is clearly not the case.

Any salary reimbursement is likely to come from the pending fresh investment I would suggest and is likely to be paid in installments.