50% wages deferred for 3 months

garytcrsc said:
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.
Click to expand...

There might not be any football for several months and little if any income coming into the club during that time. During this time our club will no different from any other business or employer who will find it difficult to operate financially. That is the reason why the UK Governnent brought the measures in to assist them. Rest assured when normality returns those same businesses, employers and employees will be asked by the same UK Government to stump up through raised taxes. I personally would rather the club took the relevant measures required and every bit of assistance that is available just now so that when the time comes we will be able to resume.
 
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...
A deferral kicks the can down the road and leaves us a big debt to pay.
 
leannegers22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep so players are really picking up wages for doing SFA, would have respected them more if it was a reduction rather than deferral.
 
Yosser said:
Yep so players are really picking up wages for doing SFA, would have respected them more if it was a reduction rather than deferral.
Click to expand...

I'd hope that the players were keeping themselves in shape and following fitness plans that the club has given them. This isn't a holiday. If they are not following the plans and come back massively out of shape then fine them.
 
Using the Job Retention Scheme is the right decision and the only one from a business point of view. Really it would have been negligent if the board didn’t take advantage of it. Still, I’m disappointed by the high earners only deferring. Even a relatively small temporary wage cut would have made a massive difference and I still think it’s embarrassing utilising the JRS while paying players their huge salaries. This applies to all clubs doing likewise.
 
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Now and forever said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course 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.
 
Last edited:
Now and forever said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveL said:
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.
Click to expand...

100% every club in Scotland will have wage cuts by the end of the next fortnight so no shame at all in protecting the business and jobs.

What separates Rangers from lesser clubs is that we didn’t furlough minimum wage workers while still paying the CEO £3,5000,000 a year.
 
‘Players are sitting in the house not earning their money’

Want £30 mil for Morelos
Want £15 mil for Tavernier
Want £25 mil for Barisic

like it, or lump it, they’re the clubs assets. The club are looking after their assets.

the jealousy is absolutely reeking on this thread
 
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.
 
Greebo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think my points very clear mate.
 
Club securing its short term future and keeping all its employees in jobs and with full pay.
I'm sure they don't make these decisions lightly and look into every option available.
 
Greebo said:
Where does £37,500 a year come from.

What am I missing.
Click to expand...

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 £2.87m deferred for 1st team players only. Obviously other personnel will be taking deferred wages as well, which will need to be added to the £2.87m figure.
 
Last edited:
Was hoping the players wage cut would stop having to put non playing staff on furlough
 
2 minutes after the deferral was announced ill phils going on about players leaving and the manager getting a pay off. Surely that dhims aren’t still falling for his shit
 
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.
 
ellis1873 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I dont know where you've read that they'll be getting it on one large payment in 3 months time. I haven't read any details of how and when they'll get it paid back to them, but I'd think the most likely way would be through a wage increase for the rest of their contract or for a set period of time.
 
TN8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Also the folk laughing at Aberdeen etc. Was only a matter of time before we did something similar.
 
Geno said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mearns Bluenose said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top