And £20m to the NHS and vulnerable groups.
Does that make a difference with clubs furloughing their lowest paid staff because that looks crass from the outside.
Printable View
And £20m to the NHS and vulnerable groups.
Does that make a difference with clubs furloughing their lowest paid staff because that looks crass from the outside.
No
Then I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
Swansea are furloughing non-playing staff, despite the fact they are still sat on TV and season ticket and advertising money. They are also paying players a full wage. Now they are getting a slice of the £125m money from the Premier League AND the games they are due to play are still due to be played. Their last game was on March 7th, just 27 days ago. Pre-season usually lasts 80 days. They are also selling season tickets for next season.
Why is it that they can take money from the UK purse and take money from the Premier League AND earn money from season ticket sales ANDDDD pay wealthy footballers a full wage? Why isn't this being stopped?
You are tying yourself up in knots here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
I don't really know where you stand but if you believe that government assistance should be available as a priority to those who need it then Premier League clubs claiming government assistance without exploring other avenues (like the wage cuts that happened without question) is wrong.
Defending Spurs taking tax payers money is an odd hill to die on.
Where did I defend Spurs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
All these clubs are owned by wealthy people, the wages they are furloughing are barely comparable to the wages they are continuing to pay. I say that these very successful businessmen have spotted an opportunity to offload the burden of wages onto us, the tax payer, and it is obvious that they can continue paying these wages until the season restarts (note the announcement today that the season is POSTPONED, not cancelled).
Government assistance should be available to those companies that cannot afford to pay wages. I refuse to believe that Spurs, Swansea and others fall into that category. Spurs are paying their chairman £7m a year. That is 583,300 per month. They have, reportedly, passed on the wages of 500 employees to the Government. Even if all 500 are on £2,500 a month (they won't be, most will be on a minimum wage, part time etc) that comes to £1.25m a month. Remember that when Spurs spend £70m on a new player in the next transfer window. This is money that is needed elsewhere.
Not entirely sure why, but I falsely got the impression that you were one of the few defending the clubs in this situation. Carry on...Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO