As we should expect, the press in England are going potty over the decision by Premier League clubs (most notably Liverpool and Spurs) to ‘furlough’ their non-playing staff.
I wasn’t aware of the meaning of ‘furloughing’.
But in simple terms, taking into account the current global crisis, it means that under the "Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme" all employers in the UK will be able to access government support to continue paying part of employees’ salaries who would otherwise have been laid off during the ongoing health crisis.
Furloughed workers have been asked to stop working, but have not been laid off. Basically, on a crisis UIF.
Those employers are now able to continue paying part of their staff’s wages to avoid redundancies, thanks to government paying up to £2 500 per employee.
The controversy arises from the belief that no
profit-making organisation should be relying on tax-payer subsidies in the time of crises, but not hugely profitable clubs like Liverpool.
I completely hear that. I think it’s a disgrace.
And I only hope that while Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has given his hotels in London to the National Health Service (NHS) for use until the pandemic is beaten, he doesn’t decide to follow suit and go "hat in hand" to try and scrounge cash to cover his wage bill.
Like I guess it was during the time of war, you’d hope that the people of a nation would unite to help avoid disaster.
Huge, profitable organisations aren’t desperate for hand-outs, especially when thousands of businesses are going under, resulting in mass retrenchments. Saying that, why is it that football has been singled out for so much criticism?
I suppose it’s all about the media creating "stories" to keep publications relevant?
The top of end Premier League is an easy target. With grossly overpaid, globally-recognised players and mammoth TV and sponsorship deals, it’s a dead certainty for public interest.
But what about hedge fund managers, bankers, IT and communications giants and the likes?
Are they scrounging off the state? I guess that news doesn’t sell papers?
The other strange finance-related matter is that of players being asked to take salary cuts over the postponement period.
And the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) have come up with an excuse. They’re saying that if players' earnings are reduced, the NHS will suffer to the tune of £200M.
Ok, so if the suggested salary cuts amount to £500m across the league, then at roughly 40 percent that’s £200m lost in government revenue directly to NHS daaaah.
If government tax income drops by £200m are they really going to take that out of the NHS?
With £500bn of extra government borrowing probable, £200m is a mere drop of piss in a pub toilet.
I’d suggest a great solution would be for top club players to apportion a small amount of their salaries to cover wider staff salaries at each club. Footballers rely on the security, the cooks, the cleaners, the physios, etc.
LOOK OUT FOR COMMUNITY
It would be a wonderful gesture and great PR. Unlike the board at Liverpool who have undone the clubs ethos of caring about the community “You’ll never Walk Alone” has been tainted.
It’s a business and that’s what matters, profit over people.
I wonder what "ordinary" Liverpool fans think? And for that matter, Jurgen Klopp - a man of great principal and genuine compassion.
I’d say he (and most fans) aren’t very happy!
Guys, as always, stay safe, listen to the advice, stay indoors we’re gonna beat it.