@chairboyscentral said:
I can't imagine Klopp will be happy either. As manager, he's not going to speak out, but it's completely at odds with what he seems to believe in.
What does Klopp believe in out of interest?
Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to announce he was taking a cut in his wages. The rest only agreed under pressure.
@chairboyscentral said:
I can't imagine Klopp will be happy either. As manager, he's not going to speak out, but it's completely at odds with what he seems to believe in.
What does Klopp believe in out of interest?
Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to announce he was taking a cut in his wages. The rest only agreed under pressure.
That's not necessarily true. Howe was the first to decide to not wait for the LMA to make a decision.
@chairboyscentral said:
I can't imagine Klopp will be happy either. As manager, he's not going to speak out, but it's completely at odds with what he seems to believe in.
What does Klopp believe in out of interest?
Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to announce he was taking a cut in his wages. The rest only agreed under pressure.
That's not necessarily true. Howe was the first to decide to not wait for the LMA to make a decision.
@chairboyscentral said:
I can't imagine Klopp will be happy either. As manager, he's not going to speak out, but it's completely at odds with what he seems to believe in.
What does Klopp believe in out of interest?
Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to announce he was taking a cut in his wages. The rest only agreed under pressure.
That's not necessarily true. Howe was the first to decide to not wait for the LMA to make a decision.
Who was then?
Just because they haven't announced it publically doesn't mean managers weren't already willing to or even suggesting wage cuts or donations, but were told to wait for their union's advice.
We'll never know, but its harsh to assume the worst of all the managers.
@chairboyscentral said:
I can't imagine Klopp will be happy either. As manager, he's not going to speak out, but it's completely at odds with what he seems to believe in.
What does Klopp believe in out of interest?
Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to announce he was taking a cut in his wages. The rest only agreed under pressure.
That's not necessarily true. Howe was the first to decide to not wait for the LMA to make a decision.
Who was then?
Just because they haven't announced it publically doesn't mean managers weren't already willing to or even suggesting wage cuts or donations, but were told to wait for their union's advice.
We'll never know, but its harsh to assume the worst of all the managers.
But the FACT is that Eddie Howe was the first to be identified as agreeing to a cut and apparently ignored his union!
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
If the clubs don't furlough anyone then no-one has to take a pay cut. As soon as they take Government money they are open to scrutiny.
Yes its been a nice deflection as those great taxpayers Green and Branson demand a government bailout lets go after footballers who work for private companies for earning more than nhs workers. Are mps taking a pay cut? Are any of the bankers who are still trying to sting small businesses? Clap for carers. Give rich people money...
@chairboyscentral said:
I can't imagine Klopp will be happy either. As manager, he's not going to speak out, but it's completely at odds with what he seems to believe in.
What does Klopp believe in out of interest?
Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to announce he was taking a cut in his wages. The rest only agreed under pressure.
That's not necessarily true. Howe was the first to decide to not wait for the LMA to make a decision.
Who was then?
Just because they haven't announced it publically doesn't mean managers weren't already willing to or even suggesting wage cuts or donations, but were told to wait for their union's advice.
We'll never know, but its harsh to assume the worst of all the managers.
The same is true for players. Plenty of them are very charitable etc., they don't just want the limelight. They shouldn't have to announce things publicly if they don't want to - and besides, you'd only get comments like 'Is that it? They could have donated three times that!'.
Listened to an interesting debate on an NFL podcast recently.
Basically are people who hoard toilet roll any worse than those that hoard loads of money?
Currently footballers are getting the critisism that should be levelled at the club owners for using Government funds when their businesses are not in danger.
Billionaire club owners using the government furlough scheme to pay staff wages does indeed not sit well.
It's the tax paying public in the UK that will intimately have to pay this money back when it should be the wealthy foreign owners taking the hit.
Football fans won't forget this quickly I suspect.
Exactly, as above, it's the billionaire owners who are taking the piss, not the players who were already discussing the best way of going about things by donating a wage share (to an NHS or charity fund) rather than just taking a % wage cut which only really benefits the owners, yet they're the ones getting hammered.
Also got to remember that the players are all young blokes and not businessmen like the owners, I doubt they're all over their own personal finances
@mooneyman said:
If the players take a 30% pay cut, then the government will receive around 30% less income tax. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
And if you think that's why they don't want to lose £ I've got a car I'd like to sell you.
The only people who gain from the players taking a pay cut are the owners of the clubs. The Government get less tax receipts from the players as most of those greedy owners hold much of their cash overseas or have effective tax avoidance schemes.
If you want to sell your car, could I suggest you follow Philip Schofield's advice!
@Malone are you trying to suggest that you think the owners of the football clubs are going to pass the £ of player wages saved onto the NHS? Or even to use it to pay the non-playing staff like Liverpool/Spurs/Newcastle/Norwich (joke).
Of course they are not. They're going to put it straight back into their bank accounts!
@Twizz said: @Malone are you trying to suggest that you think the owners of the football clubs are going to pass the £ of player wages saved onto the NHS? Or even to use it to pay the non-playing staff like Liverpool/Spurs/Newcastle/Norwich (joke).
Of course they are not. They're going to put it straight back into their bank accounts!
Players are so well represented these days, that there's no way they'll agree to such a huge reduction, unless it goes to their club's staff or the NHS.
Surely? If there's any morality left out there.
@Twizz said: @Malone are you trying to suggest that you think the owners of the football clubs are going to pass the £ of player wages saved onto the NHS? Or even to use it to pay the non-playing staff like Liverpool/Spurs/Newcastle/Norwich (joke).
Of course they are not. They're going to put it straight back into their bank accounts!
Players are so well represented these days, that there's no way they'll agree to such a huge reduction, unless it goes to their club's staff or the NHS.
Surely? If there's any morality left out there.
Let's hope so @Malone, as people have said it will be remembered who did what. Too many have got into the habit in this country of thinking anything we can save in tax is a win with no consequence.
I note F1 doing very well in PR terms whilst the drivers all live in Monaco.
Let's not forget that what Matt Hancock did by dragging footballers salaries into this (there is a debate to be had on that, and how it's affecting football finances in general, but surely now isn't the time) was to deflect the argument away from some of the poor management by the government during this crisis.
@Twizz said:
Let's not forget that what Matt Hancock did by dragging footballers salaries into this (there is a debate to be had on that, and how it's affecting football finances in general, but surely now isn't the time) was to deflect the argument away from some of the poor management by the government during this crisis.
One for the noble , honest erm journalism industry too, sports writers are arguing MPs shouldn't have brought footballers into it ignoring the often vile chaps who write the stuff towards the front of their papers who actually asked him the question and hyped the response. The original answer that they should probably contribute too if they are earning well isn't entirely unfair despite some of the bandwagons since and the fact others haven't been targeted.
Still think it was fairly inevitable that they'd be asked what they were doing at some point as others are chipping in and the response has been poorly coordinated regardless of the obvious complexity.
@Twizz said:
Let's not forget that what Matt Hancock did by dragging footballers salaries into this (there is a debate to be had on that, and how it's affecting football finances in general, but surely now isn't the time) was to deflect the argument away from some of the poor management by the government during this crisis.
He was asked a question and responded to it. That really does not qualify as 'dragging footballers into this'. Nor was it a pre meditated effort to deflect. It is disappointing how frequently people read a news article and jump to the conclusion that confirms their bias, rather than looking at what was actually said and in what context.
Some people seem desperate to start blaming politicians already. That will create an unhelpful blame culture at the worst possible time. There are already reports that ministers and civil servants are increasingly keen to get everything in writing as they know that emails and other written notes will be used in the inevitable public inquiry. That is not what we want at the moment.
The government will certainly have made wrong turns and poor decisions, but they may also have made some very good ones. At this stage we simply don't know. Better to have a reasoned argument and analysis after the event, allowing for full accountability with all the facts.
He was asked a question and responded to it. That really does not qualify as 'dragging footballers into this'. Nor was it a pre meditated effort to deflect. It is disappointing how frequently people read a news article and jump to the conclusion that confirms their bias, rather than looking at what was actually said and in what context.
I beg to differ. If the government really wanted very high earners to pay more towards public services, they could tax them. That's what tax is for.
Seems pretty simple to me. Increase tax levels and the more you earn, the more you pay. Or if you like, the more you earn, the more you can contribute to a brighter future for all. Then it’s not just footballers who’re expected to fund the shortfall. Perhaps even Mr Rees-Mogg and his ilk can dig deep too?
I get that. I just don’t see what it tells us about whether Hancock’s comments about footballers were or were not a deliberate attempt to deflect attention onto them.
If Hancock believed that it was only fair that high earners pay more towards the public services that are stopping us all dying at the moment, his answer to that (yes, very specific) question, would have been something more like "I believe everybody earning very large amounts of money should be paying more towards the public services that are stopping us all dying, so we are raising taxes to make sure this applies to everyone, not just premier league footballers". He didn't though did he.
Comments
Eddie Howe was the first Premier League manager to announce he was taking a cut in his wages. The rest only agreed under pressure.
That's not necessarily true. Howe was the first to decide to not wait for the LMA to make a decision.
If the clubs don't furlough anyone then no-one has to take a pay cut. As soon as they take Government money they are open to scrutiny.
That goes for any company in the land.
Who was then?
Just because they haven't announced it publically doesn't mean managers weren't already willing to or even suggesting wage cuts or donations, but were told to wait for their union's advice.
We'll never know, but its harsh to assume the worst of all the managers.
Different perspective:
https://www.football365.com/news/feature-premier-league-player-wage-cut-matt-hancock
But the FACT is that Eddie Howe was the first to be identified as agreeing to a cut and apparently ignored his union!
Spot on.
Yes its been a nice deflection as those great taxpayers Green and Branson demand a government bailout lets go after footballers who work for private companies for earning more than nhs workers. Are mps taking a pay cut? Are any of the bankers who are still trying to sting small businesses? Clap for carers. Give rich people money...
The same is true for players. Plenty of them are very charitable etc., they don't just want the limelight. They shouldn't have to announce things publicly if they don't want to - and besides, you'd only get comments like 'Is that it? They could have donated three times that!'.
Listened to an interesting debate on an NFL podcast recently.
Basically are people who hoard toilet roll any worse than those that hoard loads of money?
Currently footballers are getting the critisism that should be levelled at the club owners for using Government funds when their businesses are not in danger.
Or the government itself.
Billionaire club owners using the government furlough scheme to pay staff wages does indeed not sit well.
It's the tax paying public in the UK that will intimately have to pay this money back when it should be the wealthy foreign owners taking the hit.
Football fans won't forget this quickly I suspect.
Exactly, as above, it's the billionaire owners who are taking the piss, not the players who were already discussing the best way of going about things by donating a wage share (to an NHS or charity fund) rather than just taking a % wage cut which only really benefits the owners, yet they're the ones getting hammered.
Also got to remember that the players are all young blokes and not businessmen like the owners, I doubt they're all over their own personal finances
If the players take a 30% pay cut, then the government will receive around 30% less income tax. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It all depends where that 30% goes.
And if you think that's why they don't want to lose £ I've got a car I'd like to sell you.
The only people who gain from the players taking a pay cut are the owners of the clubs. The Government get less tax receipts from the players as most of those greedy owners hold much of their cash overseas or have effective tax avoidance schemes.
If you want to sell your car, could I suggest you follow Philip Schofield's advice!
@Malone are you trying to suggest that you think the owners of the football clubs are going to pass the £ of player wages saved onto the NHS? Or even to use it to pay the non-playing staff like Liverpool/Spurs/Newcastle/Norwich (joke).
Of course they are not. They're going to put it straight back into their bank accounts!
Players are so well represented these days, that there's no way they'll agree to such a huge reduction, unless it goes to their club's staff or the NHS.
Surely? If there's any morality left out there.
Let's hope so @Malone, as people have said it will be remembered who did what. Too many have got into the habit in this country of thinking anything we can save in tax is a win with no consequence.
I note F1 doing very well in PR terms whilst the drivers all live in Monaco.
Let's not forget that what Matt Hancock did by dragging footballers salaries into this (there is a debate to be had on that, and how it's affecting football finances in general, but surely now isn't the time) was to deflect the argument away from some of the poor management by the government during this crisis.
One for the noble , honest erm journalism industry too, sports writers are arguing MPs shouldn't have brought footballers into it ignoring the often vile chaps who write the stuff towards the front of their papers who actually asked him the question and hyped the response. The original answer that they should probably contribute too if they are earning well isn't entirely unfair despite some of the bandwagons since and the fact others haven't been targeted.
Still think it was fairly inevitable that they'd be asked what they were doing at some point as others are chipping in and the response has been poorly coordinated regardless of the obvious complexity.
He was asked a question and responded to it. That really does not qualify as 'dragging footballers into this'. Nor was it a pre meditated effort to deflect. It is disappointing how frequently people read a news article and jump to the conclusion that confirms their bias, rather than looking at what was actually said and in what context.
Some people seem desperate to start blaming politicians already. That will create an unhelpful blame culture at the worst possible time. There are already reports that ministers and civil servants are increasingly keen to get everything in writing as they know that emails and other written notes will be used in the inevitable public inquiry. That is not what we want at the moment.
The government will certainly have made wrong turns and poor decisions, but they may also have made some very good ones. At this stage we simply don't know. Better to have a reasoned argument and analysis after the event, allowing for full accountability with all the facts.
I beg to differ. If the government really wanted very high earners to pay more towards public services, they could tax them. That's what tax is for.
I’m not sure I understand your point @drcongo sorry.
Seems pretty simple to me. Increase tax levels and the more you earn, the more you pay. Or if you like, the more you earn, the more you can contribute to a brighter future for all. Then it’s not just footballers who’re expected to fund the shortfall. Perhaps even Mr Rees-Mogg and his ilk can dig deep too?
I get that. I just don’t see what it tells us about whether Hancock’s comments about footballers were or were not a deliberate attempt to deflect attention onto them.
If Hancock believed that it was only fair that high earners pay more towards the public services that are stopping us all dying at the moment, his answer to that (yes, very specific) question, would have been something more like "I believe everybody earning very large amounts of money should be paying more towards the public services that are stopping us all dying, so we are raising taxes to make sure this applies to everyone, not just premier league footballers". He didn't though did he.