Shields Bear
Well-Known Member
Furlough Furlough we will Furlough Rangers
No one's having a dig at the club, but players only deferring wages is disgusting
Just seen the message from Rangers regarding the deferral and the furlough of some staff. And yes, ultimately all staff will get paid, it is the UK taxpayer that is subsidizing these payments. That is not a good look.
Some of us haven't a choice, I'm self employed and will now have to try and cope on UC, player's taking a pay cut would've been the right thingWould you take a 30% pay cut? Or is it only other people to take it to help their employers
A deferral kicks the can down the road and leaves us a big debt to pay.The furloughed staff aren't losing anything either.
So I'm not sure what your point is.
Everyone is getting their full salary and cash flow is being helped, so bills can be paid until income starts coming in.
Yep so players are really picking up wages for doing SFA, would have respected them more if it was a reduction rather than deferral.Yesterday: Thieving gypsy 19th Century Terrorist bastards out for the british coin shouldn't be furloughing while they are cash rich
Today: I'm proud of Rangers for doing so.
Top banter.
Fwiw like I've said all along the club should be making use of it as we have every right to do so.
A deferral kicks the can down the road and leaves us a big debt to pay.
Yep so players are really picking up wages for doing SFA, would have respected them more if it was a reduction rather than deferral.
Yeah,because now 15 mil will have to be found in three months
Out of curiosity, could Rangers even sell ST at the moment as we don’t even know what the set up will be League wise etc. Or even when the Season will start and how many home games we will have.
Wish you'd been able to input that earlier SB, would've calmed things a bit i thinkFurlough Furlough we will Furlough Rangers
You kidding?A debt that existed already.
It had to be paid this financial year anyway, it is however now going to have to be paid later.
Assisting cash flow, when it was most needed and giving the club a chance to get some income in, to pay bills when they are due.
Not disputing that mate.It does yes but these deferrals will help massively in the short term.
You kidding?
It had to be paid when we were fully operational. Now we aren't and don't have income so 3 months down the line we have a debt of millions we otherwise wouldn't have had.
Can't believe how some can't see a wage cut is far better for the club.
Of course salaries would have to be paid and in normal circumstances they would have been.Of course a wage cut would have been far better, I didn't say it wouldn't.
However where did you get "It had to be paid when we were fully operational." from.
If they are deferring salary for three months then it is salary which would be due during that period. It wouldn't be deferred otherwise.
The salaries would have been due, they are being deferred, that helps cash flow, which part do you disagree with.
Of corse salaries would have to be paid and in normal circumstances they would have been.
These are not normal circumstances and by taking a dererral rather than a cut we will now have a multi million pound debt to deal with.
Yes the dererral helps cssh flow just now but i for one won't be saluting the 'great gesture'. In a time when the vast majority of the country have taken a hit, millionaire footballers have given up not a penny and i include all players of all clubs who haven't taken cuts in that.
We are not sitting boasting about having over 30 million in the bank, we need Directors to stump up cash to cover losses so it's completely different us using this scheme compared to some others.
Surely a 30% cut would be better than owing management money down the line?
I think my points very clear mate.Right, so your argument is basically that if they had taken a cut then the wages would not have been due to be paid.
However because they did not take a cut those wages (which would have to be paid anyway) will now have to be paid.
You made it sound as if there was some sort of new debt being created, as opposed to one that was already going to exist.
Let's be clear here, I am not "saluting the players", I am not saying anyone is making a "great gesture". What I am saying is that the club is in a far better position today, due to accepting the furlough payments and getting a cash flow benefit by the deferment of millions of pounds.
This will help the club survive.
The club are paying the extra 20%Correct, in which I think is wrong.
Furthough the staff who will lose 20% of their pay yet the players will still get their 15k plus salary a week eventually.
Where does £37,500 a year come from.
What am I missing.
Honestly mate I don’t know.Has any clubs players agreed to 30% wage cuts?
Yes, so No applause from me.Defer means they still get all the money at a later date?
I'd suggest for allowing the club to wait on season ticket renewals by saving some money on wages.For what?
Am I reading it correct when I see all that really happened is we've agreed to pay everyone what they will be due for the next three months, in one larger payment three months from now?
Also, there's a lot of non-playing staff being put on furlough? Which is something Liverpool have been slated for? And I absolutely get that we are not the 7th richest club in the world so the circumstances aren't the same but a cut in the wages of the top earners would have surely helped pay that of the non-playing staff?
I might be reading it completely wrong by the way.
The problem here seems to be that plenty have been too quick to slaughter Celtic's handling of it without waiting to see what Rangers were going to do. And now they've made a right c*nt of themselves and are beeling. For some it really is all about getting one up on them.
CorrectSeems to be to ensure non playing staff can remain on full wages and defer ST renewals too.
Many clubs across Europe have taken large pay cuts similar to that. Barcelona are taking a 70% pay cut. The West Brom chief executive has taken a 100% pay cut.Has any clubs players agreed to 30% wage cuts?
I think my points very clear mate.
The government will pay 80% of the wages up to a maximum of £2500/month which equates to £30k per year.
Anyone receiving the maximum from the government would be on a minimum salary of £37,500 p.a.
If you are furloughed and your salary is £40k p.a then the government will still only pay a maximum of £30k p.a.
If your employer decides to top up your wages to 100% then he would have to pay you the additional £10k which equates to 25% of salary.
But you knew this didn't you?
1st team playing squad costs were £23m, meaning £5.75m deferred for 1st team players only. Obviously other personnel will be taking deferred wages as well, which will need to be added to the £5.75m figure.