50% wages deferred for 3 months

Teddyjohn said:
Several of the Bundesliga clubs have implemented large pay cuts. Juve have done it. Atletico Madrid and Barcelona are reported to be taking cuts of around 70%. The West Brom chief executive and Stendel at Hearts are taking 100% wage cuts.

I'm sure plenty of the above have large outgoings.

Considering the players haven't played or trained in weeks and probably won't be for the next two or three months at the very least a pay cut of some kind would've been a better gesture.
Click to expand...
Your 100% they are paid to play football and entertain they can't do that right now

Most of us on here right from the start decided if season didn't finish we'd sacrifice the money for the rest of the games we had already paid out of hard earned pockets to help the club most of our players probably don't give a toss about the state of the club only themselves and if times get tough they'll run away somewhere else

90% of the typical modern day footballer
 
Robert Marshall said:
Maybe the Club is going to pay them out of the Europa League money and just need time for it to be issued. I have no idea
Click to expand...
Maybe, but my point still stands. The most sensible option would have been to take a pay cut which would protect the club short to medium term.

BTW on your other point, I've been an accountant for 17 years, I got told last week by the company I work for that I need to take a 3 month pay cut, as well as everyone else over a particular salary banding. The only employees exempt are frontline staff. It's the sensible thing to do to protect everyones jobs
 
I bet there are more FF posters slagging our players for deferring their wages than their will be on the Huddleboard and Kerrydale street slagging Celtic players who have done nothing yet. Let's do Rangers down, the mantra on FF.
 
Greebo said:
Where is this logic coming from

These salaries were going to have to be paid. They are still going to have to be paid. The wage bill hasn't somehow gotten bigger, it has stayed the same size.
Click to expand...
But revenues and cash coming in now has greatly reduced

The salaries you mention above would have been paid from cash input now which has dried up
 
LewisRob2009 said:
Maybe, but my point still stands. The most sensible option would have been to take a pay cut which would protect the club short to medium term.

BTW on your other point, I've been an accountant for 17 years, I got told last week by the company I work for that I need to take a 3 month pay cut, as well as everyone else over a particular salary banding. The only employees exempt are frontline staff. It's the sensible thing to do to protect everyones jobs
Click to expand...
Of course it would be.
 
LewisRob2009 said:
Maybe, but my point still stands. The most sensible option would have been to take a pay cut which would protect the club short to medium term.

BTW on your other point, I've been an accountant for 17 years, I got told last week by the company I work for that I need to take a 3 month pay cut, as well as everyone else over a particular salary banding. The only employees exempt are frontline staff. It's the sensible thing to do to protect everyones jobs
Click to expand...
Maybe most sensible from the club's point of view but not sure if the players would agree with that assessment.
Most players don't care about the club they play for, It's their job to play football and get the money that their contract entitles them to.
Sorry to hear about your salary cut but as you say understandable in the circumstances.
 
sheddensbear said:
I bet there are more FF posters slagging our players for deferring their wages than their will be on the Huddleboard and Kerrydale street slagging Celtic players who have done nothing yet. Let's do Rangers down, the mantra on FF.
Click to expand...
It's got f-all to do with slagging players.

Some of us just believe there should have been a better solution to protect the club
 
Teddyjohn said:
You're deluded if you think it wasn't put to them. The EPL and Serie A players have (rightfully) been hounded for refusing pay cuts. That is always going to be the first offer from clubs, the only difference with those situations is how publicly it's been played out.
Click to expand...

The only difference is how publically it's played out? I disagree, I'd suggest the only difference is that one is factually true and the other is a guess you've made.

It's mentioned in the papers today "It’s understood the first-team stars made the first approach in a move to prevent potential wage cuts to behind-the-scenes staff."

We don't know what's happened behind the scenes, why not save the complaining and vilifying until we do?
 
Its-Sebo said:
The only difference is how publically it's played out? I disagree, I'd suggest the only difference is that one is factually true and the other is a guess you've made.

It's mentioned in the papers today "It’s understood the first-team stars made the first approach in a move to prevent potential wage cuts to behind-the-scenes staff."

We don't know what's happened behind the scenes, why not save the complaining and vilifying until we do?
Click to expand...
Exactly and i stated that earlier with the usual suspect incapable of seeing it.

It's quite clear to most that the option of cuts was the best for the club and would have rightly been put to the players. The players have knocked that on the head and then agreement on the next best option for the club has been put in place. . . . Deferrals.
 
LewisRob2009 said:
But revenues and cash coming in now has greatly reduced

The salaries you mention above would have been paid from cash input now which has dried up
Click to expand...

That's the point

The salaries would have to have been paid, as they are a contractual obligation. The fact that revenue has reduced does not change that. None of this is the players fault and they are still due their pay.

Do you really think it's a good idea to breach the players' contracts just now.

Instead they have agreed to put the payment back, to give the club a chance to bring some money in.

How is that not helping financially.
 
Now and forever said:
Exactly and i stated that earlier with the usual suspect incapable of seeing it.

It's quite clear to most that the option of cuts was the best for the club and would have rightly been put to the players. The players have knocked that on the head and then agreement on the next best option for the club has been put in place. . . . Deferrals.
Click to expand...

Either you've quoted the wrong post or misread mine! :)

My point is that there's no way of knowing if the players have refused a cut, we literally know nothing other than the players approached the club and volunteered a deferral (papers suggesting the players made the first move, not the club, if true it means the players haven't rejected anything). To say they've rejected a pay cut is unfair speculation.

If it turns out they have/haven't rejected a pay-cut then we should discuss the merits of that when that information comes out.
 
Greebo said:
And it still misses the point.

The salaries are due, the fact that the club has less money coming in is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You are the one missing the point mate and i tried explaining it last night as is the other poster now.

On another note you are still stating a dererral is a better option than cuts. No one is saying a dererral doesn't help, it clearly does but cuts would have been better for the club and they can be implimented in more ways than one.
 
Robert Marshall said:
Some of our fans pay their ST over several months, is that not the same thing?

[/QUOTE I'm sure most Fan's priorities would be family, mortgage etc first before a season ticket especially when we don't know when we will be playing again and many might not have the money for a season ticket even with paying in 4 month installments. Would the club show loyalty to the fans that are struggling to pay their season tickets thank's to this Pandemic i have my doubts.
Click to expand...
 
Its-Sebo said:
Either you've quoted the wrong post or misread mine! :)

My point is that there's no way of knowing if the players have refused a cut, we literally know nothing other than the players approached the club and volunteered a deferral (papers suggesting the players made the first move, not the club, if true it means the players haven't rejected anything). To say they've rejected a pay cut is unfair speculation.

If it turns out they have/haven't rejected a pay-cut then we should discuss the merits of that when that information comes out.
Click to expand...
Read the tweet in the last couple of pages that states the players came forward first in order to 'resist' cuts. Some papers also stating they resisted taking cuts.

Even without that it's common sense the club would ask them to cut first. Anything else would have been a dereliction of duty from people employed to look after the club.

No you can't force them but you can ask them.
 
Now and forever said:
Read the tweet in the last couple of pages that states the players came forward first in order to 'resist' cuts. Some papers also stating they resisted taking cuts.

Even without that it's common sense the club would ask them to cut first. Anything else would have been a dereliction of duty from people employed to look after the club.

No you can't force them but you can ask them.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the tweet (other than McGregor wanting tax to go to NHS) and the article is behind a paywall, I can't read it.

You're contradicting yourself – you've said the players came forward first to resist cuts but also saying it's common sense the club have first asked them to take a pay cut?
 
LewisRob2009 said:
If this is the case, why did the government set up the furlough scheme? The salaries of employees up and down the country are due, doesn't matter if business revenue and cashflow is down, it's irrelevant!! Really?
Click to expand...

It's actually getting to the stage where I don't know if you are kidding or not.

So I'm going to make life easier, assume that you are and be done with out.
 
Its-Sebo said:
There's nothing in the tweet (other than McGregor wanting tax to go to NHS) and the article is behind a paywall, I can't read it.

You're contradicting yourself – you've said the players came forward first to resist cuts but also saying it's common sense the club have first asked them to take a pay cut?
Click to expand...
Do you think its common sense for the club to have asked for cuts?

And the tweet say's the players came forward with the deferral plan in order to resist cuts.

Cuts that the club would rightly have enquired about
 
Last edited:
LewisRob2009 said:
If this is the case, why did the government set up the furlough scheme? The salaries of employees up and down the country are due, doesn't matter if business revenue and cashflow is down, it's irrelevant!! Really?
Click to expand...

The salaries of footballers are watertight guaranteed contracts. Your Joe Bloggs isnt.
 
LewisRob2009 said:
If this is the case, why did the government set up the furlough scheme? The salaries of employees up and down the country are due, doesn't matter if business revenue and cashflow is down, it's irrelevant!! Really?
Click to expand...
Hopefully you are fishing with this statement mate!
 
Greebo said:
It's actually getting to the stage where I don't know if you are kidding or not.

So I'm going to make life easier, assume that you are and be done with out.
Click to expand...
I was kinda being serious.

I get they are contractual obligations and are due now, next month, the month after however it would have been sensible for the players to "offer" to take a temp reduced salary allowing the club to alleviate any shortfall in revenue now.

All my original point was that the players would have 100% support and taken a cut as opposed to defer payment. This would have been the ideal situation for the clubs finances now and next season
 
g87 said:
The salaries of footballers are watertight guaranteed contracts. Your Joe Bloggs isnt.
Click to expand...
The basis of the point remains, your income reduces 70-80%, you do what you can to reduce costs, cash out etc, not defer liabilities.
 
Now and forever said:
Do you think its common sense for the club to have asked for cuts?

And the tweet say's the players the players came forward with the deferral plan in order to resist cuts.

Cuts that the club would rightly have enquired about
Click to expand...

Am I reading the wrong tweet? The one I'm looking at says nothing about them coming forward with the deferral plan in order to resist salary cut.

I don't know if it's common sense for the club to ask for cuts, I don't run the business, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were to ask if that's what you mean. That doesn't change the fact that we don't know if the club asked anything of the playing staff so we should stop pretending that it's a fact that the players have rejected a cut.

In fact, the very little evidence we have is suggesting that the club hasn't asked the players to take a cut.
 
Greebo said:
It's actually getting to the stage where I don't know if you are kidding or not.

So I'm going to make life easier, assume that you are and be done with out.
Click to expand...
Makes
Its-Sebo said:
Am I reading the wrong tweet? The one I'm looking at says nothing about them coming forward with the deferral plan in order to resist salary cut.

I don't know if it's common sense for the club to ask for cuts, I don't run the business, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were to ask if that's what you mean. That doesn't change the fact that we don't know if the club asked anything of the playing staff so we should stop pretending that it's a fact that the players have rejected a cut.

In fact, the very little evidence we have is suggesting that the club hasn't asked the players to take a cut.
Click to expand...
Crazy to think that isn't the first option for clubs. When that is knocked back by the players then they move onto the next best option which is deferrals.

You must be reading the wrong tweet and post which states the players came forward with their deferral offer to desist the cuts option which was put forward by the premier league. It says this move was lead by McGregor.

The premier league is the clubs.


Edit. . .The top post is a mistake.
 
Now and forever said:
Makes

Crazy to think that isn't the first option for clubs. When that is knocked back by the players then they move onto the next best option which is deferrals.

You must be reading the wrong tweet and post which states the players came forward with their deferral offer to desist the cuts option which was put forward by the premier league. It says this move was lead by McGregor.

The premier league is the clubs.


Edit. . .The top post is a mistake.
Click to expand...

You're conflating two different points from the tweet. It mentions A) the players coming to the club with the deferral plan (as we already know) and B) McGregor was opposed to the SPFLs (not the clubs) wage cut proposal because he wants full amount to go to NHS. That is not the same as the playing staff suggesting the deferral plan to avoid losing out on their wages, as you're suggesting.

Maybe the club has already asked the players to take a wage cut, maybe they haven't, maybe the club are going to ask but haven't yet – we simply don't know. Reports that the players have made the first move suggests that they haven't been asked by the club to take a cut, but again that's just guesswork by me based on very little.
 
Its-Sebo said:
You're conflating two different points from the tweet. It mentions A) the players coming to the club with the deferral plan (as we already know) and B) McGregor was opposed to the SPFLs (not the clubs) wage cut proposal because he wants full amount to go to NHS. That is not the same as the playing staff suggesting the deferral plan to avoid losing out on their wages, as you're suggesting.

Maybe the club has already asked the players to take a wage cut, maybe they haven't, maybe the club are going to ask but haven't yet – we simply don't know. Reports that the players have made the first move suggests that they haven't been asked by the club to take a cut, but again that's just guesswork by me based on very little.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is nonense mate.

The SPFL IS the clubs so their proposal came from the clubs.

The players obviously knocked that back and wanted to offer deferrals.
 
Now and forever said:
Sorry but that is nonense mate.

The SPFL IS the clubs so their proposal came from the clubs.

The players obviously knocked that back and wanted to offer deferrals.
Click to expand...

There's that 'obviously' word again, used when there are no facts.

There are no reports saying the players have rejected a wage cut, there are no reports that Rangers have even asked the players to take a wage cut, the only bit of information we have is saying that the players made the first approach which suggests that they haven't been asked by the club to take a wage cut. How do you derive from that that it's obvious the club have asked the players to take a wage cut and the players knocked it back?

I'm even conceding that they might have been asked but as of yet, we don't have a fücking clue so why chastise them as if they have.
 
Its-Sebo said:
There's that 'obviously' word again, used when there are no facts.

There are no reports saying the players have rejected a wage cut, there are no reports that Rangers have even asked the players to take a wage cut, the only bit of information we have is saying that the players made the first approach which suggests that they haven't been asked by the club to take a wage cut. How do you derive from that that it's obvious the club have asked the players to take a wage cut and the players knocked it back?

I'm even conceding that they might have been asked but as of yet, we don't have a fücking clue so why chastise them as if they have.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the SPFL is the clubs?
 
LewisRob2009 said:
I was kinda being serious.

I get they are contractual obligations and are due now, next month, the month after however it would have been sensible for the players to "offer" to take a temp reduced salary allowing the club to alleviate any shortfall in revenue now.

All my original point was that the players would have 100% support and taken a cut as opposed to defer payment. This would have been the ideal situation for the clubs finances now and next season
Click to expand...

It might be. Or maybe it's the first step given there are concerns that there is no set time to return to playing.
 
Now and forever said:
Do you understand that the SPFL is the clubs?
Click to expand...

What do you mean the SPFL is the clubs? The SPFL is the league the clubs play in. Rangers aren't the SPFL and vice versa.

The SPFL doesn't pay transfer fees, the SPFL doesn't pay the wages, the SPFL is not the club and doesn't decide what we do with our wages.
 
Its-Sebo said:
What do you mean the SPFL is the clubs? The SPFL is the league the clubs play in. Rangers aren't the SPFL and vice versa.

The SPFL doesn't pay transfer fees, the SPFL doesn't pay the wages, the SPFL is not the club and doesn't decide what we do with our wages.
Click to expand...
So you dont realise that when the SPFL take a wagecut proposal to the players that comes directly from the clubs?

Thats where your confusion is coming from on this and thats what i mean by the SPFL is the clubs.
 
Can't say I'm impressed with this at all. So they wait 3 months but still get full wages whilst everyone else is suffering. I will always love Rangers but hate modern football.
 
Now and forever said:
So you dont realise that when the SPFL take a wagecut proposal to the players that comes directly from the clubs?

Thats where your confusion is coming from on this and thats what i mean by the SPFL is the clubs.
Click to expand...

There's no way the SPFL can propose a one-size-fits-all solution for cuts across all clubs within the league, nor can they enforce it. What works for us might not work for Hamilton. How each club handles its wages has got nothing to do with the SPFL.
 
I was not going to post again on this one. BUT surely all top class players can realise that society is going through a crisis that we all hope never happens again and they are in the lucky position to do something big in helping humanity at no real cost to them selves and I am including all 1st class teams but sadly it doesn't look like it, its that curse again Money.
 
Its-Sebo said:
There's no way the SPFL can propose a one-size-fits-all solution for cuts across all clubs within the league, nor can they enforce it. What works for us might not work for Hamilton. How each club handles its wages has got nothing to do with the SPFL.
Click to expand...
Again. . Do you realise that the SPFL is the clubs?

Where exactly do you think the SPFL got the proposal from?
 
Alfredo the great said:
Can't say I'm impressed with this at all. So they wait 3 months but still get full wages whilst everyone else is suffering. I will always love Rangers but hate modern football.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you Alfredo it is but a small guesture from our playing staff. Just more debt put in place
 
BrooklynBlue said:
It might be. Or maybe it's the first step given there are concerns that there is no set time to return to playing.
Click to expand...
It may come to a point where the club may have to insist to the players there's no other option than pay cuts.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

Realistically, are we going to see full stadiums in the next 6 months? I doubt it
 
Its-Sebo said:
i
Repeating that doesn't mean it makes any more sense than the last time
Click to expand...
Its-Sebo said:
Repeating that doesn't mean it makes any more sense than the last time
Click to expand...
It may not make sense to you but it is fact and if you cant understand the basic point that the SPFL is the clubs then you are never going to understand the wider point we were discussing.

Clubs would have been talking to the SPFL board and agreed for them to take that proposal to the players.

Do you think the SPFL just made a number up and took it to the players on nobodies behalf??
 
Now and forever said:
Again. . Do you realise that the SPFL is the clubs?

Where exactly do you think the SPFL got the proposal from?
Click to expand...

Obviously everyone has there own opinion but there's some amount of reaching a gap-filling going on here.

So rather than waiting until we know what's actually happened and then having an opinion, we're criticizing players based on the assumption that they've rejected a wage cut request, not from the club directly, but indirectly from the SPFL who're presenting Rangers' proposal (at the request of Rangers) of a wage cut to Rangers playing staff because the SPFL is the club? Why the fück would we not just ask the players ourselves?
 
Now and forever said:
It may not make sense to you but it is fact and if you cant understand the basic point that the SPFL is the clubs then you are never going to understand the wider point we were discussing.

Clubs would have been talking to the SPFL board and agreed for them to take that proposal to the players.

Do you think the SPFL just made a number up and took it to the players on nobodies behalf??
Click to expand...

'SPFL is the clubs' is not a fact ffs, if it's even true it would be 'SPFL acting on behalf of the clubs'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top