Random Irritations

bobmac

Major Champion
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,475
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
Isn't there a maximum of £2500 a month? Poor babies couldn't even dream of surviving on that.

Especially when the AVERAGE SALARY for a PL player is over £100,000 PER WEEK.

Think of the enormous good/difference they could make if they all got together and pulled some of their wealth.
Just say instead of being paid 80% of their wages, they had 80% of their wages withheld and used to help people in need, they would still be earning over £20,000 per week for doing nothing.
 
Last edited:

Neilds

Assistant Pro
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
3,544
Location
Wiltshire
Visit site
My main issue is with the fact that we (taxpayers) are helping clubs pay the wages of furloughed staff, when they could actually cut the wages of the higher paid players and more than afford to pay the wages themselves. Remember, we are all going to be paying for this for years to come
 

bobmac

Major Champion
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,475
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
There are 20 premier league teams.
11 players per team plus a few reserves so say 15
£1,500,000 per team
Total PL wage bill £30,000,000 PER WEEK for doing nothing.
 

pendodave

Tour Rookie
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,154
Visit site
My main issue is with the fact that we (taxpayers) are helping clubs pay the wages of furloughed staff, when they could actually cut the wages of the higher paid players and more than afford to pay the wages themselves. Remember, we are all going to be paying for this for years to come
That applies to pretty much every company in the UK who are furloughing staff. Many will have wealthy owners or higher paid staff still in employment. Many will have shareholders to whom they have paid millions of pounds over the years, others will be owned by private equity companies who do all sorts of financial jiggerypokery to extract cash but pay no tax.
Go after that lot, and then I'm fine with footballers getting a bit of stick.
 

Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
5,665
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
There are 20 premier league teams.
11 players per team plus a few reserves so say 15
£1,500,000 per team
Total PL wage bill £30,000,000 PER WEEK for doing nothing.
Maybe we need to broaden the spectrum and instead of moaning just about premier league footballers we should make the multimillionaire golfer's contribute.
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,170
Location
Watford
Visit site
Maybe we need to broaden the spectrum and instead of moaning just about premier league footballers we should make the multimillionaire golfer's contribute.
But do they earn a wage? From sponsorship and that I suppose they do, but they have lost tournament earnings obviously. Not saying they're destitute at all, but a bit different to footballers who are making exactly as much as they always do.
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
26,693
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
But what happens if the season doesn’t finish?
Can’t see Sky & sponsors paying then the full wack.
That is why I believe the season will finish whatever. Whether it re-starts in August or earlier and they play the rest of the season behind closed doors for tv only. There is too much money to lose for clubs not to complete the season.
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
26,693
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
Maybe we need to broaden the spectrum and instead of moaning just about premier league footballers we should make the multimillionaire golfer's contribute.
Do we have any that live here still? They tend to live in Florida, climate, less travelling as they play most of their tournaments in the US and it is 10% tax there.

Pedantry aside, I get your point :D. Fingers are pointed at footballers but they could be pointed across a spectrum of society. Footballers are an easy target, although the point being made is still valid.
 

Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
5,665
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
But do they earn a wage? From sponsorship and that I suppose they do, but they have lost tournament earnings obviously. Not saying they're destitute at all, but a bit different to footballers who are making exactly as much as they always do.
My point is its easy to target footballers earning millions but people soon forget other sports where they earn vast sums and want to purely pin it on the Premier League players. Of course they should do more if they can but should they be obligated to just because they do something that pays them so well no they shouldn't. They're the employee of the club yes a well paid one but still the employee. The responsibility of paying the other staff isn't that of the players it's the clubs responsibility to ensure all its workers are paid not the the other way round.

But its easier to dig out those with the money they earn than focus on the people paying them.
 
D

Deleted member 18588

Guest
I have a bigger issue with billionaire owners than the footballers. Levi is worth nearly 6bn. Surely he can afford to pay his tee ladies, rather can get the government to pay 80%? Ashley is worth nearly 3bn too.

The owner of Norwich 'only' has 30m. They are different fish, rich, but not super rich.

I think you might mean Mr Louis who owns Spurs.

Don't think Daniel Levy is in the billionaire category. He could, however, well afford to be taking a cut in his earnings from Spurs.
 
D

Deleted member 23270

Guest
Golf bags with 14 way dividers. Don't know why but I prefer tour style bags with 5 or 6 sections.
 

woofers

Medal Winner
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
865
Visit site
I guess the reason we are focusing on PL footballers is because it is the biggest gross revenue generating team sport in the country. Silly amounts are paid for sponsorship, wages and TV rights.
Also because the football clubs employ many other people in support functions.
I think the feeling is that it wouldn’t really hurt the players to take a temporary pay cut, of a considerable magnitude, the saving which could be used to pay the support staff. That way, no one, employee or club, has to go through the red tape of furloughing and claiming the support money.
I don’t think other top ‘celebrities’ (or golfers) have the same support staff / functions that are being laid off, so it’s not directly comparable.
 

bluewolf

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
9,557
Location
St. Andish
Visit site
Rather than take a pay cut (and therefore pay less tax on their earnings), would it not be better to offer to pay the support staff wages? I'm no expert on tax matters so I'm sure someone can do the maths.
 
D

Deleted member 16999

Guest
I guess the reason we are focusing on PL footballers is because it is the biggest gross revenue generating team sport in the country. Silly amounts are paid for sponsorship, wages and TV rights.
Also because the football clubs employ many other people in support functions.
I think the feeling is that it wouldn’t really hurt the players to take a temporary pay cut, of a considerable magnitude, the saving which could be used to pay the support staff. That way, no one, employee or club, has to go through the red tape of furloughing and claiming the support money.
I don’t think other top ‘celebrities’ (or golfers) have the same support staff / functions that are being laid off, so it’s not directly comparable.
Surely it’s down to the owners, ie the Employer, to sort out wages, the Footballers and the support staff are all Employees.

Should all employees everywhere look to help the fellow employed or should we be making the Employer take responsibility.

As others have said what about the Hedge Fund Managers or the Bank Managers etc.

For example: Marcus Rashford has paid for over 400,000 people in Manchester to be fed in the last 2 weeks. Plenty are getting involved without media attention.
 
Top