50% wages deferred for 3 months

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?
It's self explanatory mate

The relevant bodies have also taken the clubs proposals to players in England, Italy etc.
 
It's self explanatory mate

The relevant bodies have also taken the clubs proposals to players in England, Italy etc.

If the players have rejected a wage-cut from the club via the SPFL, why is everywhere reporting that the players have made the first move? Surely that alone shows that while it's possible your version of events may have happened, it's also possible they haven't.

Therefore, let's wait until we know what's actually happened before criticising players and their choices.
 
If the players have rejected a wage-cut from the club via the SPFL, why is everywhere reporting that the players have made the first move? Surely that alone shows that while it's possible your version of events may have happened, it's also possible they haven't.

Therefore, let's wait until we know what's actually happened before criticising players and their choices.
FFS. . . They brought the deferral proposal to the club to resist the suggestion of cuts from the SPFL.(the clubs)

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
 
FFS. . . They brought the deferral proposal to the club to resist the suggestion of cuts from the SPFL.(the clubs)

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Not blind at all, we all have different ways of assessing stuff.

You stick to connecting dots in order to preemptively criticize choices made by our players, I'll defer 50% of my opinion until we know what's actually happened.
 
Not blind at all, we all have different ways of assessing stuff.

You stick to connecting dots in order to preemptively criticize choices made by our players, I'll defer 50% of my opinion until we know what's actually happened.
Right you are mate thats what we'll do.
 
Yes mate same with mine, but doesn’t sit right that any football club in the world that can afford to pay players thousands of pounds a week then make the government pay 80% of their non playing staffs wages.

It’s not just rangers most clubs are at it.
Agree with this, doesnt sit right me me either.
 
I don’t think it would have happened to the extent of Barca/Juventus (as their players are far richer) but I would have liked to have seen players take something of a pay cut, say 30%. Football (like many businesses) are struggling big time, and the employees of the businesses can do something to alleviate the strain where they can, and I’m sure most footballers could afford 70% of their wages.

I’m sorry but I can’t take the “I must receive full wages in order to the fund the NHS” argument seriously.

And I just don’t see wage deferrals as a cause for much back slapping.
 
Having a discussion with a mate on pay cuts and the lost revenue in tax versus cost to the Govt of furloughing. Figures used below are probably too low for an EPL club and too high for Rangers but you will get the drift.

If you have a squad of 30 with an average salary of £80k per month (very roughly £20k per week) and they give up 20% that drops the monthly bill of £2.4m per month by £480k per month. The loss of revenue to the Exchequer on that £480k at 40% is £192k. Split that at £2500 per non-playing member of staff and it would pay for almost 77 non-playing staff furloughed at £2500 per month.

So if the players take full salary instead of a 20% cut then the extra tax they pay would cover the cost of 77 furloughed non-playing staff. Have I got that right? Obviously you can scale that down for clubs with a lower monthly salary or smaller squads.

Basically if the players take a 20% cut in salary and the club uses that money to pay in full their staff that would otherwise be furloughed at £2500 per month then its likely the club will come out ahead. However, if the players continue to take their full salary and pay tax on it (either now or later in the tax year) and the club takes up the chance to use the Govt furlough scheme at £2500 per employee per month then its likely the Exchequer comes out ahead.

Obviously lots of variables - squad size, average salary, number of staff furloughed and tax rate (higher in Scotland at 46%). Fascinating debate I thought.
 
Last edited:
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

Wage cuts still require money to be paid out by the Club when there is no income. It also affects contracts which we may suffer from if we're looking to sell a player.

Deferment means no money being paid out. It's preferable at the moment.
 
Wage cuts still require money to be paid out by the Club when there is no income. It also affects contracts which we may suffer from if we're looking to sell a player.

Deferment means no money being paid out. It's preferable at the moment.
Its not as you can do both in conjunction with each other.

They can take the 50% deferral and then claim a percentage of that back. They haven''t, they are not giving up a penny and are recieving all of it back.
 
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

So are you now advocating breaching players' contracts, by imposing pay cuts which they do not agree to. I just want to be absolutely certain, this sounds like a joke as well.
 
When are people on FF going to understand the difference between fans and professional players ?
Scott Allan became a millionaire because he was offered a 4 year contract by Celtic. A fan would refuse and keep his £2k a week job. Players do not give up a guaranteed contract and wait for a contract which might not happen because of injury or change of manager.
 
You paid off all your staff Robert. That's fact.
You told us all on here.

No furlough. No phuck all.

The only thing you care about is Rab Marshall.

Fuckin Rangers family. Do one ya selfish ride.

You could not give a phuck about your staff or the Rangers background employee's.

The only thing for you is Rab Marshall and family.

That's fair enough but spare us all the sanctimony about it's all about the Rangers .

It's all about you Ran

And most of us know it.
Sometimes it is nice to remind people how much they are detached from reality
 
So are you now advocating breaching players' contracts, by imposing pay cuts which they do not agree to. I just want to be absolutely certain, this sounds like a joke as well.
FFS, just listen to yourself.

If there is no football for, say 6 months, are you honestly saying the club wouldn't insist on the playing staff cutting there monthly salary? It may come to that if theres no matches for the foreseeable and a sustained reduction in income.
 
FFS, just listen to yourself.

If there is no football for, say 6 months, are you honestly saying the club wouldn't insist on the playing staff cutting there monthly salary? It may come to that if theres no matches for the foreseeable and a sustained reduction in income.
Contracts aren’t worth the paper there written on. I honestly can’t believe as a support we keep this Mantra the contract goes out the window the minute this pandemic hit imo.
 
HMRC tried to put our club out the game and folk on here are complaining about our board taking money off them to Furlough our staff
take as much off the cxnts that we can get because they cost our club plenty or have some posters on here forgot about that

Had to read this multiple times. You think HMRC has cost us? How much did we owe to HMRC in the end?

The people that cost us were the ones in charge of our club. Not HMRC.
 
FFS, just listen to yourself.

If there is no football for, say 6 months, are you honestly saying the club wouldn't insist on the playing staff cutting there monthly salary? It may come to that if theres no matches for the foreseeable and a sustained reduction in income.
There is a clause in Scottish contracts that allows clubs to cancel players contracts in situations like this.

It would be last resort but if it went on for months that would be the clubs outball.

Budge at Hearts has already talked about it.

On anothrr note, ignore the village idiot. He doesn't even know who he's talking to now.
 
This is a piss poor media spin. Deferred wages, furloughed staff, all painted up as being in it together. We are no different now from those clubs we have critisised. Morally wrong to make the tax payer pay for wages and still somehow we will appear with a transfer kitty. The players should have taken the hit. Just my opinion.
 
There is a clause in Scottish contracts that allows clubs to cancel players contracts in situations like this.

It would be last resort but if it went on for months that would be the clubs outball.

Budge at Hearts has already talked about it.

On anothrr note, ignore the village idiot. He doesn't even know who he's talking to now.
Ok I will ignore you
Greebo has absolutely owned you and Lewis Robb2009. You should be thanking him for your education
 
This is a piss poor media spin. Deferred wages, furloughed staff, all painted up as being in it together. We are no different now from those clubs we have critisised. Morally wrong to make the tax payer pay for wages and still somehow we will appear with a transfer kitty. The players should have taken the hit. Just my opinion.

Had the season continued naturally Rangers would still be running at a loss and now with a global world wide emergency that loss would have been far bigger had we just done nothing.

Every club in Scotland will do the exact same thing it’s only a matter of time.

The yahoos will have wage cuts in force very soon they can’t continue to lose £5,000,000 a month indefinitely.

IMHO we did everything correct had we done what the filth did and furloughed staff while the CEO was still getting paid £3.5m a year in basic pay plus £2.5m in bonus money then Rangers should rightly be criticised.

The truth is we don’t have a big vault of cash on standby we did what was right to keep the squad at a decent level. Had we cut wages that would have potentially came at a cost of having to give players cuts of transfer fees in the future etc.
 
Very few on here have a go at me or TheLouden, probably no more than about a dozen.
Strangely enough loads and I mean loads of people in the pub tell m they love watching dafties fall for my wind ups
You've proven time and time again that you're not intelligent enough to wind anyone up but as the last poster stated, you are very funny.

Now i think i'll get back to debating with the adults thanks for your time.
 
FFS, just listen to yourself.

If there is no football for, say 6 months, are you honestly saying the club wouldn't insist on the playing staff cutting there monthly salary? It may come to that if theres no matches for the foreseeable and a sustained reduction in income.

I take it that is a yes, which would have been much easier to say.

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't picking you up wrong.
 
I have had enough conversation with the captains of industry and economic geniuses. Time to go and watch the X files, they make more sense, Goodnight and everyone keep safe
 
you weren't I'm your witness:cool:

I really don't need witnesses but thanks anyway.

Apparently the plan is not to pay players their wages, without their agreement, to impose it.

Giving them just cause to walk away from their contracts.

Making them free agents, to then go and get a job elsewhere.

Potentially costing the club tens of millions of pounds in transfer fees because as a free agent their registration reverts to the national association rather than the club, so no transfer fee.

Who would I be to argue with such a quality plan. However you did mention looking after assets quite some time ago.
 
I really don't need witnesses but thanks anyway.

Apparently the plan is not to pay players their wages, without their agreement, to impose it.

Giving them just cause to walk away from their contracts.

Making them free agents, to then go and get a job elsewhere.

Potentially costing the club tens of millions of pounds in transfer fees because as a free agent their registration reverts to the national association rather than the club, so no transfer fee.

Who would I be to argue with such a quality plan. However you did mention looking after assets quite some time ago.
You are obviously as thick as I am, but we just need to live with it :D :D :D
 
I really don't need witnesses but thanks anyway.

Apparently the plan is not to pay players their wages, without their agreement, to impose it.

Giving them just cause to walk away from their contracts.

Making them free agents, to then go and get a job elsewhere.

Potentially costing the club tens of millions of pounds in transfer fees because as a free agent their registration reverts to the national association rather than the club, so no transfer fee.

Who would I be to argue with such a quality plan. However you did mention looking after assets quite some time ago.
Certainly wasn't my plan.
 
This is a piss poor media spin. Deferred wages, furloughed staff, all painted up as being in it together. We are no different now from those clubs we have critisised. Morally wrong to make the tax payer pay for wages and still somehow we will appear with a transfer kitty. The players should have taken the hit. Just my opinion.
Spot on.
 
Back
Top