50% wages deferred for 3 months

Greebo

Well-Known Member
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?
What is the wee dig supposed to mean, no I didn't know it or I wouldn't have asked.

Thanks for explaining it anyway though.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
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.
Surely if the costs for 12 months are £23m then a 50% deferral for 3 months will be £23m divided by 4 (to get to 3 months) times 50%. So half of £5.75m, or £2,875,000.

Probably payable back to the players over the course of the tax year or longer. I doubt we will be paying it out in one go.
 

Burgh-Ger

Well-Known Member
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 furlough is up to a max of £2500
When you talk about liverpool players, which ones?
 

ellis1873

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
the furlough is up to a max of £2500
When you talk about liverpool players, which ones?
I don't know what you mean by Liverpool players, sorry.

Like I said, I might have completely missed the details of what's actually happening.
 

Bluecares

Active Member
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.
Liverpool have reversed that decision to Furlough. Rightly so.
 

Geno

Edited Appendage
Having read your previous posts re furloughed employees and the government scheme I was under the impression that you worked in the financial sector/civil service and were fully aware of the implications/constraints.

I apologise for any offence.
 

Coda

Well-Known Member
Players and staff showing a bit of class to safeguard the jobs of those at the club. Showing Furlough FC how to act with dignity.
 

Now and forever

Well-Known Member
I think mine is as well.

Today has been a good day for the financial well being of the club.

I will leave it to others to make moral judgement on whether people should get paid what they agreed to.
Do you think the players were asked to take a cut for the good of the club?

If they weren't the people assigned to look after the best interests of our club weren't doing their job.
 

Geno

Edited Appendage
What is the wee dig supposed to mean, no I didn't know it or I wouldn't have asked.

Thanks for explaining it anyway though.
Having read your previous posts regarding the government scheme I was under the impression that you fully understood the financial implications of it regarding furloughed employees.

I apologise if I caused any offence.
 

teddy_bears

Well-Known Member
Should be a cut and not a deferral but I suppose that kind of thinking is having a pop at the club as all the free thinkers on here are pointing out.
Yea, heaven forbid you dont agree with what the players or club do. To think the slagging the timmies get in here for being a cult and blindly agreeing with anything their club does or exscusing any bad behaviour of their players.

So they took a wage cut for a few months that they will get back anyway how noble of them. The club are making nothing through all this but the players shouldnt lose a dime. We are just jealous, no im looking out for my club more than players who come and go bank balance.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
Having read your previous posts regarding the government scheme I was under the impression that you fully understood the financial implications of it regarding furloughed employees.

I apologise if I caused any offence.
Thank you and my apologies for being touchy.

I genuinely didn't understand where the £37,500 was coming from, but I do now.
 

Sir Sasa Papac

Well-Known Member
Rooney hit this square on the head when he asked if bankers , fund managers actors and other major earners are being hounded like football players, yes players get well paid but not the only people who do, a top footballer will be on 40 or 50% tax off their money right away.
Bank managers and fund managers are still working the banks are not closed And the financial sector continues regardless. Actors won’t be getting paid for shows theyre not filming and if you’re watching them on the telly they’ve done the job already.
 

Sir Sasa Papac

Well-Known Member
It was my initial thought too....pay the smaller salaries, maintain the moral high ground over septic, but what if "non-playing staff" includes SG, GMc, Ross Wilson and other highly paid staff? I would imagine it's a close call.
We lose 20% of our turnover every year. We are at an at risk business with hundreds of employees.
The tims had £40m in the bank bfore they sold biscuit hips to Arsenal.
It’s not really fair to compare our situations particularly when much of the issue is celtics continual faux posturing as the countrys White Knight FC.
 

Mearns Bluenose

Active Member
Surely if the costs for 12 months are £23m then a 50% deferral for 3 months will be £23m divided by 4 (to get to 3 months) times 50%. So half of £5.75m, or £2,875,000.

Probably payable back to the players over the course of the tax year or longer. I doubt we will be paying it out in one go.
Correct. I forgot to deduct the 50%.
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
Robert Grieve......

How is deferred wages a “cost cutting measure”?

Decent enough gesture by the staff. They’ll get what their due if/when STs are sold and we get back to “normal”.

However, we’ll still have an issue further down the line. We mustn’t underestimate the impact that Covid-19 is and will have on our future operations.

Let’s say for talking sake, we planned a transfer kitty of £10m in the summer. Covid-19 has just saw that become about £6m/£7m.
 

Kaiserweiss

Well-Known Member
Then how would the club have paid the remaining percentage of wages for the next three months with no money coming in?
Yesterday: Thieving gypsy fenian 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.
we shouldn’t be and I think the government and especially HMRC will make it difficult for clubs to do so.

the players could and should have taken a 50% cut!

IMO Gerrard doesn’t need his 50% and never will
 

Kaiserweiss

Well-Known Member
Robert Grieve......

How is deferred wages a “cost cutting measure”?

Decent enough gesture by the staff. They’ll get what their due if/when STs are sold and we get back to “normal”.

However, we’ll still have an issue further down the line. We mustn’t underestimate the impact that Covid-19 is and will have on our future operations.

Let’s say for talking sake, we planned a transfer kitty of £10m in the summer. Covid-19 has just saw that become about £6m/£7m.
Unless we sell then due to the Covid19 I would be stunned if we spend money on anyway and the same for the peados
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
Unless we sell then due to the Covid19 I would be stunned if we spend money on anyway and the same for the peados
Yes I think you’re right.... I was referring to a simplistic scenario of the impact that Covid-19 will have on our finances.

But given that most teams in world football will be impacted - who is likely to spend the sort of money we’d be looking for in a transfer fee for a sellable asset like Morelos? Where £15m might’ve got buyers to the table, with us perhaps holding out for £20m - that’s just never going to happen now imo. Only top end EPL, La Liga and Bundesliga will be in a position throw money about and he ain’t going to be attracting serious interest from those clubs.

Not only will the current situation cripple our chances to invest in the playing squad but it’ll also hamper our bargaining power to command higher fees for our players.

I can’t see many changes in our playing squad next season now.... And we might see the likes of Flanagan getting new contracts!
 

Jelle1880

Well-Known Member
Well done to everyone involved, this is how it should be done. I understand the issue with furlough but we are not a cash rich club, we still need cash injections from the board to keep going which is a much better reason to do it than claiming you're a wealthy club and doing it imo.
 

boracay ranger

Well-Known Member
Should be a cut and not a deferral but I suppose that kind of thinking is having a pop at the club as all the free thinkers on here are pointing out.
It’s not really having a pop at the club it’s having a pop at the players.
The club couldn’t unilaterally apply a cut without breaching the players contracts in which case we would have risked kissing goodbye to any transfer fees for Morelos, Barišić etc.
The players would need to volunteer or agree any wage cut and I am sure that would have been much more difficult than agreeing a deferral with everyone.
If things continue like this or get worse, cuts will be needed in future.
 

GTM

Well-Known Member
Deferring wages is the right call for now. It allows the club to continue operating at that has to be main the priority.

If this awful situation drags on past the 3 months, I have no doubt this agreement will have to be revisited and I hope the same mature, pragmatic and understanding mindset continue to be at the fore.
 

deedle

Well-Known Member
No prizes for guessing what’s going through Lawwell‘s mind right now.

I reckon there’ll be increasing pressure on players to accept cuts. Ultimstely, clubs run the very real risk of going out of business.
 

android

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Actions of the senior players have allowed club to ensure everyone keeps their jobs

Allowed club to defer ST renewals for fans also

Folk might be angry or whatever at players, personally I think that’s harsh

Worth remembering more you earn the more you spend, they didn’t have to do this

great effort from everyone in my humble opinion

Manager will be doing an interview with RTV about this later

(again only my opinion)
Have I picked up the statement wrong and the players etc are actually deferring 50% of their salary for 3 months rather than 100%?
 

Woodrow Call

Well-Known Member
It's money that would have to be paid during this financial year anyway so does not effect the paybill for the year.

It does however really help cashflow, which is the most important thing just now, until some money starts coming in.
The club are gambling ST income the same as last year. It won't be. A lot of guys worrying about their leccy bill and food on the table before a daft game of fitba. That's not just us it's everyone.
 

MTP

Well-Known Member
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.
They haven't made a sacrifice though?
 
Last edited:

Woodrow Call

Well-Known Member
My logic is before any regular staff have to make any changes, players and management who are on big wages have to do something first. I know it’s a wage deferral for 3 months and some want a cut, but this is a good gesture volunteered by the players and management. It shows all of Rangers will get through it together in my view.
A good gesture? If the club says we're skint there's no wages what do the players do then. Oh aye we're free agents we'll find another club. Good luck with that. Every cnuts skint. Barcelona's skint. Juve's skint. Burnleys skint.

The world's skint. Good luck in finding someone giving you 15k a week. A reality check needed for our/everyone's players.

Welcome to the real world boys.
 

Mickey Donovan

Well-Known Member
we shouldn’t be and I think the government and especially HMRC will make it difficult for clubs to do so.

the players could and should have taken a 50% cut!

IMO Gerrard doesn’t need his 50% and never will
The whole point of the scheme is to prevent businesses from having to lay off staff while revenue is massively reduced.

Why would the government introduce a scheme then prevent businesses from using it? We'd likely need to layoff at least some staff in that case.
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
we shouldn’t be and I think the government and especially HMRC will make it difficult for clubs to do so.

the players could and should have taken a 50% cut!

IMO Gerrard doesn’t need his 50% and never will
I certainly wouldn’t have expected 50%, but surely they could have done 20%? They’re not working, they’re earning an absolute fortune for doing nothing, they’ll already have a fortune in the Bank, rent and mortgage payments are frozen, they know the club’s present financial position and that we’re not cash rich.

You can’t force them, they’re entitled to the money, but I thought they’d have been more selfless, or what I consider selfless anyway and actually saved the club some money. A deferral is certainly better than nothing, but when you’re on what they earn and you’re not actually working they’re not exactly white knights either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTP

MTP

Well-Known Member
I certainly wouldn’t have expected 50%, but surely they could have done 20%? They’re not working, they’re earning an absolute fortune for doing nothing, they’ll already have a fortune in the Bank, rent and mortgage payments are frozen, they know the club’s present financial position and that we’re not cash rich.

You can’t force them, they’re entitled to the money, but I thought they’d have been more selfless, or what I consider selfless anyway and actually saved the club some money. A deferral is certainly better than nothing, but when you’re on what they’re doing and you’re not actually working they’re not exactly white knights either.
They could be furloughed surely?

The deferral is shocking IMO - Every other high earner in the country who is not essential is going to find themselves in this boat, baffles me why footballers are different.
 

sheddensbear

Well-Known Member
I cannot see how the players could win. The agenda would be
Deferred wage--greedy /Sevco can't afford to pay them
Take wage cut--how many other players in Scotland have taken wage cut ? Should have taken bigger cut
No action--greedy
We have outgoings of about £2.5/3m per month for 1st team group with no income. No brainer. This again exposes the Rangers support as being fractured and overly critical of the club, so much hatred on FF to the club.
 
Top