Wage cut for players and staff (Statement on 24/4)

[Pasquale for King]

12 minutes ago, Jambo4050 said:

Maybe I’m naive, but surely all players try regardless of what fans think?

I have magic beans for sale 😜?!?!

[DETTY29]

2 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Article 12 allows only a suspension not a termination.  I do hope it is legally watertight.

Players then sue the SFA not the clubs.

 

Or the clubs sue the SFA.

[Shanks]

Does anyone know what the clause actually states?  Are we able to suspend payments to players or cancel the contracts?  These are two very different things.

 

I'd be happily surprised if we are able to cancel any player we want's contract with no termination fee that doesn't accept 50% pay, I just can't see it though.

[Fozzyonthefence]

7 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

So you're comparing the average in one profession to the absolute tippy top of another. Aye that's a fair comparison. 

I think he is referring to the average in the Premier League.  £3m is absolutely nowhere near the tippy top in the PL. Some are on £200/300k per week!

[OTT]

19 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

I’ve not seen any proof of this, football rules are in no way legally binding in the real world. If it was surely others would’ve used it by now?

 

Fag packet logic, but the contract which commits us to paying them thousands of pounds each week is legally binding, so clause 12 which is included within that contract must also be legally binding.

 

I suppose they could try and protest it, but whats the point in inserting clauses in a contract if you're unable to enforce them? I suspect the players don't have a leg to stand on since the criteria needed to activate clause 12 has been met. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, DETTY29 said:

Players then sue the SFA not the clubs.

 

Or the clubs sue the SFA.

If they signed the contract they won’t have a leg to stand on, which would see them fall over as most of our squad have one dodgy leg anyway 🙈.

[davemclaren]

20 minutes ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

Wages have been paid in full yesterday, so contract terminations would take effective from salary date in April if 50% per cent reduction not accepted. This would be the start if the process hence bringing in the Union. 

On what legal basis though?

[Fozzyonthefence]

24 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

I’ve not seen any proof of this, football rules are in no way legally binding in the real world. If it was surely others would’ve used it by now?

But the contract would be legally binding.  If it’s in that....

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

I think he is referring to the average in the Premier League.  £3m is absolutely nowhere near the tippy top in the PL. Some are on £200/300k per week!

Yeah the Man City players average is £8.73m which is over a million less than Barca’s. Not that’s tippy top tiki taca, 70% cut or not 😜.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

A reason a company may want an employee to take a cut or make redundant,  the cost of the employee is well beyond the wage, taking into account insurance contributions etc.

 

If a person is paid 20k the cost of that employee is substantially more than just the wage

[Pasquale for King]

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:

But the contract would be legally binding.  If it’s in that....

Yeah it would appear it is, I thought it was an obscure SFA rule, like the one that deems that two teams MUST play 19 home and away games every season.

[Pasquale for King]

4 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Fag packet logic, but the contract which commits us to paying them thousands of pounds each week is legally binding, so clause 12 which is included within that contract must also be legally binding.

 

I suppose they could try and protest it, but whats the point in inserting clauses in a contract if you're unable to enforce them? I suspect the players don't have a leg to stand on since the criteria needed to activate clause 12 has been met. 

Yes I’ve covered that I presumed it was an SFA rule as opposed to a clause In the contract, thankfully.

[JamboAl]

29 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

But the “negotiation” would have to start with full payment of the contract, no? You can’t just sack someone who has a contract without doing so (in football)

Where has she said she's going to sack anyone?

[Pasquale for King]

10 minutes ago, Longshanks said:

Does anyone know what the clause actually states?  Are we able to suspend payments to players or cancel the contracts?  These are two very different things.

 

I'd be happily surprised if we are able to cancel any player we want's contract with no termination fee that doesn't accept 50% pay, I just can't see it though.

Found this, can’t share links just now.

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

52 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Absolutely. Average for a doctor is just over £100k and a football player in the EPL just over £3m. That’s capitalism.

 

Why not compare a Doctor to a Hollywood actor? 

[luckydug]

7 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

You taken a cut?

I am retired but members of my family have and  my wife and I will be affected. 

I thought you were better than that playing the poster rather than the topic. 

What on earth has a pensioners income got to do with rich footballers making a sacrifice. 

I see the Governor of the BoE thinks Spurs are doing the right thing. 

Capitalism sucks. 

 

[busby1985]

2 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Where has she said she's going to sack anyone?

Yeah that seems to be a common mistake on here. She never once said she’ll sack anyone, she just said that they’d be up for negotiating their termination if they didn’t want to accept the cuts. It’s 50% cut or article 12. 

[Pasquale for King]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Why not compare a Doctor to a Hollywood actor? 

It’s not my comparison compadre I just found the average wage. You’re worth what people are willing to pay you, that’s capitalism. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Yes I’ve covered that I presumed it was an SFA rule as opposed to a clause In the contract, thankfully.

Hopefully it is and AB can move towards

invoking it.  Is there even any point trying to negotiate with the SPFA?  The 2 sides are miles apart, the players don’t seem to want to give up a penny, never mind 50%.   If the clause is watertight, just get it done!

[Nookie Bear]

3 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Where has she said she's going to sack anyone?

This was in relation to making people redundant so “sack” was the wrong word. 
 

We can’t just let people go when they have contracts - no way will footballers give up 6-figure sums until their club is officially insolvent. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Why not compare a Doctor to a Hollywood actor? 

Because this is a football forum.

[luckydug]

10 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

A reason a company may want an employee to take a cut or make redundant,  the cost of the employee is well beyond the wage, taking into account insurance contributions etc.

 

If a person is paid 20k the cost of that employee is substantially more than just the wage

Dont forget the club's share of pension contributions. 

[Pasquale for King]

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:

Hopefully it is and AB can move towards

invoking it.  Is there even any point trying to negotiate with the SPFA?  The 2 sides are miles apart, the players don’t seem to want to give up a penny, never mind 50%.   If the clause is watertight, just get it done!

We have a month to implement it so discussions can take place to explain fully the thinking behind the decision and be seen to be going about it the right way. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 minute ago, Nookie Bear said:

This was in relation to making people redundant so “sack” was the wrong word. 
 

We can’t just let people go when they have contracts - no way will footballers give up 6-figure sums until their club is officially insolvent. 

Not unless the players agree to it, but it would appear that AB can suspend the contracts while the SFA / SPFL suspension of Scottish football continues. 

[McCrae]

What a mess we are in, a players dispute is the last thing we need. I think the club have handled this badly.

 

If wages can only be suspended we will have to pay then when the season starts.

[Nookie Bear]

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

I am retired but members of my family have and  my wife and I will be affected. 

I thought you were better than that playing the poster rather than the topic. 

What on earth has a pensioners income got to do with rich footballers making a sacrifice. 

I see the Governor of the BoE thinks Spurs are doing the right thing. 

Capitalism sucks. 

 

Well I did not know you were retired but fair play to your family members who have done their bit. Point is that there are huge numbers of people in the UK who earn similar salaries to the Hearts team who are not taking a cut - it’s not an easy option for these guys, as you will know. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, McCrae said:

What a mess we are in, a players dispute is the last thing we need. I think the club have handled this badly.

 

If wages can only be suspended we will have to pay then when the season starts.

Not if they've expired by then

[Bazzas right boot]

8 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Why not compare a Doctor to a Hollywood actor? 

 

Football Forum. 

We're in the UK. 

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 minutes ago, McCrae said:

What a mess we are in, a players dispute is the last thing we need. I think the club have handled this badly.

 

If wages can only be suspended we will have to pay then when the season starts.

Yes but we could save on not paying several months wages.  50% is a lot more than **** all!

[Nookie Bear]

5 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

Yeah that seems to be a common mistake on here. She never once said she’ll sack anyone, she just said that they’d be up for negotiating their termination if they didn’t want to accept the cuts. It’s 50% cut or article 12. 

“Take the 50% cut”

 

”No”

 

”Okay then, we will negotiate the termination of your contract”

 

”Ok, that’s 2 years at £2k per week - I’ll have £200k please”

 

”How about £50k”

 

”**** off”

[Lovecraft]

7 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Because this is a football forum.

  And a thread about footballers wages...

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

12 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

This was in relation to making people redundant so “sack” was the wrong word. 
 

We can’t just let people go when they have contracts - no way will footballers give up 6-figure sums until their club is officially insolvent. 

Standard of work and or performance, skills qualification and aptitude are good reasons for making someone redundant apparently. I would say our players fall into at least one or two of these categories. It seems we’re well on the way to doing this.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Pasquale for King

[Pasquale for King]

6 minutes ago, McCrae said:

What a mess we are in, a players dispute is the last thing we need. I think the club have handled this badly.

 

If wages can only be suspended we will have to pay then when the season starts.

Only the ones still under contract, if they haven’t been made redundant.

[Hungry hippo]

I'm very much supportive of the club invoking the clause on any players we don't reach agreement with but I'll await comment from the club before slating any players.

 

The club statement today said they are still working to achieve a solution so I'll hold fire pending a further update. There will be plenty time to criticise players if the talks do completely break down.

 

It's possible there may be slight room to manoeuvre given the government announcements since the 50% cut was suggested.

[Horatio Caine]

I find it unbelievable that these players, who have anchored us to the bottom of the league, by 4 points, feel they should not have their generous salaries reduced in any way.

 

I find it unbelievable that the players' union is willing to support them, when they know the damage that will be done to clubs.

 

Surely this is a moral issue.  Accept the cut, protect your club.  

 

Are the players of other clubs taking the same stance?  If so, Scottish football is fecked.

[Pasquale for King]

6 minutes ago, McCrae said:

What a mess we are in, a players dispute is the last thing we need. I think the club have handled this badly.

 

If wages can only be suspended we will have to pay then when the season starts.

Only the ones still under contract, if they haven’t been made redundant.

[Kidd’s Boots]

22 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

On what legal basis though?

On the basis that Directors legally have an obligation to the shareholders to ensure prudent financial planning & management of business, in this case, reducing the cost base to a sustainable level during unprecedented times. Notification of changes to terms and conditions where issued, which starts the process of either accepting  the changes or option to terminate.

[luckydug]

3 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Well I did not know you were retired but fair play to your family members who have done their bit. Point is that there are huge numbers of people in the UK who earn similar salaries to the Hearts team who are not taking a cut - it’s not an easy option for these guys, as you will know. 

Most of them will be 'key' workers. 

Everyone else is laid off. 

[132goals1958]

There does seem something immoral that we are using taxpayers money to furlough back room and admin staff so that theoretically we can pay thousands more to those shysters who are sitting around on their last verse. No wonder there is so much resentment.

[H2]

The club could quite easily put the players on furloughing, most of them would get less than 50% in these circumstances, they need to go have a wee think to themselves.

Edited April 1, 2020 by H2

[Pasquale for King]

7 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

“Take the 50% cut”

 

”No”

 

”Okay then, we will negotiate the termination of your contract”

 

”Ok, that’s 2 years at £2k per week - I’ll have £200k please”

 

”How about £50k”

 

”**** off”

[SectionDJambo]

5 minutes ago, McCrae said:

What a mess we are in, a players dispute is the last thing we need. I think the club have handled this badly.

 

If wages can only be suspended we will have to pay then when the season starts.

Which would be fair enough. Hearts are only asking for the 50% reduction to be as long as the shutdown. The suspension of wages would only last for the same time.
At least Hearts would have income to support payment again, after the shutdown.

The players are currently expecting full whack for doing absolutely nothing for their employer, whilst seeing the, far less well paid, office staff only getting 80% of their wages. They probably don’t care if them getting full wages will cost the lower paid worker, who probably has more emotional attachment to Hearts, their job.

[luckydug]

11 minutes ago, McCrae said:

What a mess we are in, a players dispute is the last thing we need. I think the club have handled this badly.

 

If wages can only be suspended we will have to pay then when the season starts.

Dont worry about it, there will be no football until September. 

Half these chancers will be away because their contract is finished. 

By the time football starts up every club in the country will have done what we are proposing to do. 

Only some will have left it to late. 

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

On the basis that Directors legally have an obligation to the shareholders to ensure prudent financial planning & management of business, in this case, reducing the cost base to a sustainable level during unprecedented times. Notification of changes to terms and conditions where issued, which starts the process of either accepting  the changes or option to terminate.

I don’t think players are ‘normal’ employees in terms of their contracts. I imagine they are more akin to consultant/service type contracts. Time will tell though. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

15 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

“Take the 50% cut”

 

”No”

 

”Okay then, we will negotiate the termination of your contract”

 

”Ok, that’s 2 years at £2k per week - I’ll have £200k please”

 

”How about £50k”

 

”**** off”

Or just suspend their contracts until the season restarts.  If I was a player, 50% would be looking pretty good right now.

 

However, can you imagine the media backlash if AB suspends contracts on no pay?  Look how bad it was when she asked them to take a 50% cut!

[luckydug]

4 minutes ago, 132goals1958 said:

There does seem something immoral that we are using taxpayers money to furlough back room and admin staff so that theoretically we can pay thousands more to those shysters who are sitting around on their last verse. No wonder there is so much resentment.

If you think we are bad what about Spurs, Newcastle and Norwich. 

Hundreds of backroom staff at Spurs furloughed. 

Just so that their 'superstars' can get their 600k pay cheques. 

They better enjoy it while it lasts the gravy train is about to hit the buffers imo. 

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I don’t think players are ‘normal’ employees in terms of their contracts. I imagine they are more akin to consultant/service type contracts. Time will tell though. 

I reckon they'll be regular PAYE employees, they certainly used to be when I worked in HMRC many moons ago.

I'd also think it'll be specified by the standard SPFL contract.

[Kidd’s Boots]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

I don’t think players are ‘normal’ employees in terms of their contracts. I imagine they are more akin to consultant/service type contracts. Time will tell though. 

Possibly not, but that doesn't change the responsibilities of the Directors'. I agree time will tell, and not only for our squad but others, football in general this week hasn't put its best foot forward in dealing with this scenario and the media today is being fed by some really unsavoury decisions.

[Fozzyonthefence]

13 minutes ago, 132goals1958 said:

There does seem something immoral that we are using taxpayers money to furlough back room and admin staff so that theoretically we can pay thousands more to those shysters who are sitting around on their last verse. No wonder there is so much resentment.

Correct.  Even more obscene when clubs like Spurs do it!

[132goals1958]

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

If you think we are bad what about Spurs, Newcastle and Norwich. 

Hundreds of backroom staff at Spurs furloughed. 

Just so that their 'superstars' can get their 600k pay cheques. 

They better enjoy it while it lasts the gravy train is about to hit the buffers imo. 

 

Absolutely shameful .Unadulterated greed