• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Furlough the players to avoid a cashflow crisis

ex_user1234

Resigned
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
678
Could be worse than that. In 2018/19 it was £79.1M : 16.1 : 11.2 for the £106.3M solidarity payments, but you'd hope that with some imagination this may not be strictly followed in current circumstances, some clubs are in more dire cashflow crises than others.

Also some is going to the National League.
All cash is welcome, although it is of course debt. But even if we get £500k from the EPL as a loan, how long is that going to last? Two months? The Club need to be prepared that there may be no more football matches this calendar year, and therefore little to no revenue. Perhaps they are prepared. As a fan-owned club it would be nice of them to share their thinking. I'm staggered at the lack of information coming out.
 

ex_user1234

Resigned
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
678
My issue with this is that, on reading the club statement, I assumed that we have furloughed the players. It says that the majority of the staff have been furloughed and thanks to the staff, including players, for their support. As I see it, there are two options in this scenario:

1) You furlough the players and say that you've done so.
2) You don't furlough the players and explain why you haven't.

I don't know enough about the ins and outs to be able to say definitively that we should have gone with one or two. What I struggle to understand is that we've seemingly found a third option of not furloughing the players, but essentially pretending that we have and therefore not explaining the justification for not having done so. The fact that only the odd club has been cited as having furloughed their players suggests that there are reasons why seemingly the majority of clubs are choosing not to do this. Is it too much to ask that the club openly say that the players have not been furloughed instead of including a misleading paragraph in the general statement suggesting that we have and at least give some form of justification for the reason for not having done so. Given that so many other clubs are in the same boat, surely there isn't an ECFC specific reason for this...
No, it's not too much to ask. Here is the statement:

"The majority of our staff have now been furloughed via the Government’s Job Retention Scheme. This step has been taken to protect the club and its employees and we are grateful that we have staff, players and supporters that understand the difficulties placed on the club in this current situation."

I agree it's misleading. It should also read "the majority of our non-playing staff"...
 

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
9,670
Some wonderful furlough comms from the boss of a garage in the North East:


Frankly, if this doesn't make you laugh then nothing will!
 

John William

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
9,914
Location
Undisclosed
The latest update from BBC news

PL Videoconference at 3pm


As someone said in the Guardian, whatever happens Raheem Sterling will be criticised.
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
34,044
Location
Touring Central Java...
I'm not sure the evidence suggests that the players will 'deal with it' As John says, they seem to be hiding behind a desire to view the financial circumstances of the clubs before they make a move. It's self evident, whether its Chelsea or Cheltenham, that revenue has completely dried up, so you are suggesting that owners use their funds whilst arguing that players should still be paid at the normal level...If owners should dip into their funds (I don't disagree) then why is it not reasonable for players to accept a little pain too?
Hancock had no right to single out pro footballers. He didn't single out any of the rich Tory Party contributors
We're talking mainly about PL players, right?
The players should be allowed to decide how much they want to give and then give it . They shouldn't be made to feel they are obliged At least give them.the pleasure of doing a charitable act..
 

Legohead

Banned
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
6,762
All I know is that if I was working for a company and I was earning 100k a week and the majority of my colleagues 25k A YEAR then it would be an instant no brainer for me to offer to cover the cost of the others wages along with others who were earning the same as me. The number of pro footballers taking quick decisive actions of their own volition was shockingly low and goes to show to me that most will only give when they have no choice but to do so.
 

Rosencrantz

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,121
Location
Tiverton
All I know is that if I was working for a company and I was earning 100k a week and the majority of my colleagues 25k A YEAR then it would be an instant no brainer for me to offer to cover the cost of the others wages along with others who were earning the same as me. The number of pro footballers taking quick decisive actions of their own volition was shockingly low and goes to show to me that most will only give when they have no choice but to do so.
I fear you are probably an outlier when it comes to most people in companies where it is not their own business on the line. How often do you see board members or CEO's taking pay cuts or refusing their over generous bonus when simultaneously laying off lower grade workers? Not often I would guess.

I see Karen Brady is offering to match the reduction in wage of the players at West Ham. Hopefully a cue for all others at the top of the PL clubs to take at bare minimum. And then maybe at all other companies who are laying off or furloughing employees outside football and sport.
 

PeteUSA

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
18,435
Location
Avondale (Near Phoenix) Arizona, USA.
One would assume ALL members of our club board are working for free during these troubled times? Or at least taken a sizeable reduction.
 

Martin Lawrence

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,163
Location
Whipton
One would assume ALL members of our club board are working for free during these troubled times? Or at least taken a sizeable reduction.
I would be amazed if any of them claim anything at the minute. In any case, most offer their time FOC anyway.
 

ex_user1234

Resigned
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
678
I would be amazed if any of them claim anything at the minute. In any case, most offer their time FOC anyway.
How would we know? The whole set-up is opaque. I'm amazed more people on here don't demand more openness as a fan-owned club. The Trust and Club have a plan I'm told to steer us through the rocky waters ahead. Ok, perhaps it might be an idea to share it with the people that own the club - the fans. Just a thought.
 
Top