Break with the PFA happens

[Spursex]

Premier League players to negotiate proposed wage cuts on club-by-club basis

By Dan Roan

BBC sports editor

• 1 hour ago
• From the section Premier League

The Premier League says it will give £20m to the NHS
Premier League players are set to start negotiations on a club-by-club basis over proposed wage cuts.
It comes after talks aimed at a collective pay deal in response to the coronavirus crisis broke down without resolution over the weekend.

The Premier League proposed a 30% pay cut, but the Professional Footballers' Association says that may harm the NHS.

The row has escalated into one of the most serious disputes between players and clubs in the league's history.

The government has said it expects the football authorities to "come together with an agreement urgently."

Writing in Monday's Telegraph, the culture secretary Oliver Dowden said "the deadlock between the PFA and the Premier League clubs on players' wage cuts is deeply concerning."
"Clubs, players and owners should be thinking very carefully about their next steps," he wrote.
"It's especially important that a disagreement over players' wages doesn't undermine all the good work that sport - including football - is doing to help the government's efforts to tackle coronavirus."

• Furloughing staff: What have clubs done so far?

On Saturday the Premier League told senior players that a pay cut was required because the clubs faced losses of more than £1bn if the season could not be resumed.
But with players rejecting a league-wide proposal, they are now expected to ask their own clubs to explain more about the specifics of their finances before accepting any cuts or deferrals.
Some clubs are hoping that if executives and coaches accept pay cuts, it could help persuade players - who earn an average of £3.5m a year in the Premier League - to do the same by the end of the week.

What has happened so far?

Health secretary Matt Hancock was among the leading politicians calling for players to take a pay cut and "play their part."
The league wants players to take a 30% salary cut in order to "protect employment throughout the professional game".
But the union says that equates to more than £500m in wage reductions over 12 months, and a loss in tax contributions of more than £200m to the UK government.
As part of the proposals, the Premier League would advance £125m to the English Football League (EFL) and National League, and give £20m towards the NHS.

The PFA says it is happy to continue talks with the Premier League but called on the league to increase its charitable donation and long-term funding of the EFL. Players are understood to be wary of agreeing pay cuts that would help billionaire owners save money which may subsequently be spent on transfers.
Top-flight professionals have been coming under increasing pressure to take a drop in pay, especially with five Premier League clubs - Liverpool, Newcastle, Tottenham, Bournemouth and Norwich - now placing some non-playing staff on furlough leave under the government's coronavirus job retention scheme.

Premier League leaders Liverpool have faced criticism from former players and fans for furloughing non-playing staff.

However, clubs themselves are understood to have financial concerns, with Burnley saying on Saturday they faced a shortfall of £50m if the Premier League season was not completed.
The PFA said all Premier League players "will play their part in making significant financial contributions in these unprecedented times".

Captains of Premier League clubs, led by Liverpool's Jordan Henderson, have been in talks over a plan to make charitable donations.

England defender Danny Rose - on loan at Newcastle from Tottenham - said that players were keen to give up a portion of their wages to help good causes, but felt their "backs are against the wall" regarding the pressure they had faced to accept cuts.

While Derby striker Wayne Rooney has said players are in a "no-win situation".

 

[Departed]

Someone might want to ask the union where the money is supposed to come from. What part of ZERO revenues do they not understand?

 

[Real Deal]

Someone might want to ask the union where the money is supposed to come from. What part of ZERO revenues do they not understand?

It depends on when the last payments were made from the TV deals, sponsorship deals ect. There will be a pot of money at each club still. Even if that is now frozen.

Also their is a difference between the footballers giving money and the chairman of football clubs giving money.

I think most fans know quite a few footballers give money away already. It's more of a club owner issue.

 

[Departed]

It depends on when the last payments were made from the TV deals, sponsorship deals ect. There will be a pot of money at each club still. Even if that is now frozen.

Also their is a difference between the footballers giving money and the chairman of football clubs giving money.

I think most fans know quite a few footballers give money away already. It's more of a club owner issue.

Both the payers and owners are generous This is different. There isn't any money.

 

[muttley]

Both the payers and owners are generous This is different. There isn't any money.

There could be money. Take Sky for instance. They negotiated £9.2m per game for 128 games this season and we're in Year 1 of a 3 year contract. We have a quarter of the season to go. Why can't an £18b revenue company who make over a billion of profit every year step up and play their part. Why can't they leave their cashflow (that they paid in December and flowed to the clubs in Feb) in for now. Why can't they get it back by adjusting the £9.2m down and then adjusting their next four Jul and Dec payments and help football to adjust over 2 years. Ditto with BT who make even higher profits than Sky but obviously have less games in the contract. They also make profit on their £9.2m per game.

I would also love to see that average £3.5m average wage per Prem player cut in half and all Sky and BT sport subscriptions go down to the general public. Let's remember who created this monster in the first place with their extortionate pricing for the privilege of just watching a game of football on TV. The same root cause that is holding the game to ransom right now and threatening its very existence for 3/4 of that billion shortfall.

God bless the TV companies and their mafiosi relationship with the Premier League.

 

[Departed]

The TV companies are getting hammered on both sides, paying for something they aren't receiving and subscribers ditching them because they aren't delivering what they said they could/would.

This isn't about benevolence anymore. This is about flat out survival. The club needs to decrease expenses so that it's cash keeps it afloat for as long as possible.

If we get football behind closed doors, the entire picture changes, although subscribers reupping their TV packages may be an issue.

We are 6 months away, at the most, from this becoming a serious financial crisis.

 

[muttley]

The TV companies are not paying for something they're not receiving though. They are refusing to pay the £9.2m per televised game. Even if the money sits at the clubs their current stance is that they want it back legally. All I would be asking them to do is to figure out their mark-up on the 75% of games played and figure out either a contribution, or renegotiation of the £9.2m on the remainder of the contract. Do their bit to help out cashflow knowing their own resilience as the big companies can withstand the hit in slightly lower subscriptions. Isn't that what a true business partnership is about....compromise and success together. Good times / bad times etc.

By the way, this is not me saying the players shouldn't take a pay cut. I'm just asking for the root cause of the £1b shortfall to be more heavily scrutinised. Apparently £760m is with the TV deals.

 

[Deleted member 7310]

It depends on when the last payments were made from the TV deals, sponsorship deals ect. There will be a pot of money at each club still. Even if that is now frozen.

Also their is a difference between the footballers giving money and the chairman of football clubs giving money.

I think most fans know quite a few footballers give money away already. It's more of a club owner issue.

By receiving wages and donating, they reduce their own tax burden and they endanger the clubs' financial stability.

In addition, it should not be up to the players to decide where the money goes to, but up to the government.

This goes for everyone, I want the chairman, exec team and entire coaching team to cut down at least 70%.

 

[Spursex]

Paying back broadcasters would cost Premier League clubs £762million

During this coronavirus pandemic, few issues have been as emotive and divisive as that of Premier League footballers and their pay.

It has led to a terrible ‘he said, she said’ approach to every development - from that of furloughing staff to claims of a loss of revenue for the Exchequer.
It has become far too politicised and personal, has damaged the sport’s reputation and crucially may also have set-back relations between the players and their employers as it has exposed a clear sense of mistrust.

What is sadly evident is that the players have little faith in the clubs who, in turn, have grown frustrated by the opposition they have met and the way the arguments have been presented by the Premier League and Professional Footballers Association. It should not be like this.

The biggest problem seems to be the conflation of two things. One is a desire for the players to help, to make donations, to get behind the NHS and do their bit which should be formalised later this week with a fund established to complement the brilliant work that many are already doing and having been doing for some time. It is a great initiative.

The second is the sense that this means players do not therefore need to take pay cuts and deferrals because they would rather that money went to do good instead of, allegedly, lining the pockets of billionaire football club owners.

Beyond the fact that not every Premier League club is under the ownership of a billionaire – although, certainly, those owners who have profited from the game or have the greatest resources should be doing more - it is not a case of one thing or the other.
It has not helped that the Premier League’s presentation to the captains and players on Saturday outlined the worst-case scenario as seemingly the scenario that will unfold.
Given there remains a determination to complete the 92 outstanding Premier League matches then, if that happens, no player will have to accept a 30 per cent reduction in their pay and certainly not for 12 months as has been portrayed. That only happens if the season is abandoned and, even then, a number of clubs have indicated they will not impose cuts for a year and will restore full pay when play resumes.
Instead the hope is that it would be a 10 per cent cut which is, of course, still a cut with the games being played behind closed doors. The 10 per cent has been estimated as the reduction in revenue from fans not being able to attend the games – through loss of sales and season ticket rebates - with the 20 per cent the hole if the games do not take place or are not televised.



Premier League clubs could be forced to pay back broadcasting money if games are not played Credit: REUTERS
Ah but, it is argued, the clubs have already received money from the broadcasters so why are they asking the players to take a pay cut now when they have cash in the bank? The problem with that is obvious: if the clubs continue to pay out the salaries in full to their players how do they then have enough money to cover their share of the broadcast rebate should the likes of Sky Sports and BT Sport come calling?

At the same time, contrary to some claims, the clubs have not received all the broadcast money for this season. For example DAZN, which holds rights in Brazil, Canada, Japan and Spain, has written to the Premier League to defer its payments.

There is an assumption that all the clubs have enough money to financially protect them against the current situation. But, for some, that money will run out especially if it is to be withheld or repaid to broadcasters. And then what happens?

Withholding 30 per cent now, when no football is being played and only until it re-starts, makes absolute sense.

The Premier League laid out the figures in its Powerpoint presentation to the players: “If no further matches are played this season, the Premier League as a whole may be liable to pay back the broadcasters for failing to deliver contracted terms.”
There was an “if” and a “maybe” in there but, in theory, the clubs would have to return or not receive £762million - £371million to Sky, £51million to BT and £341million to overseas rights holders. Furthermore the Premier League estimates the total losses to clubs to be £1.14billion if the season is curtailed (a 30 per cent cut in player basic wages still only equates to £570million).

Where is that money going to come from if not a large chunk of it from the salaries of the players who are the greatest expense? Should all clubs borrow it or expect more to be pumped in from their owners? Or should they ask for pay cuts next season? If footballers do not play football then, surely, it is logical they cannot expect their full pay until they do?

It is different further down the leagues and one of the biggest problems with this issue has been the apparent desire from the PFA to have a uniform approach – an agreed percentage across the board – when clubs vary so much and especially when it comes to the EFL. A 30 per cent reduction for a League Two player would hurt far more than the same figure for one in the Premier League.
This can be remedied. The Premier League reduction could include a small levy to help out the lower leagues while all across football the cuts would only apply to players earning more than an agreed amount.

One Premier League club, for example, has suggested it would not reduce the wages of those players who earned under £16,000-a-week (which is an annual salary of £832,000-a-year, by the way).

Take the example of another Premier League club. Its monthly wage bill is £6.9million. Of that £500,000 is committed to non-playing staff, meaning £6.4million goes to the players and coaches.
As yet, the club has not furloughed any employees and would like to reach an agreement with its squad on what they want to do before making any other decisions. Is it therefore unreasonable to hope the players would take the cut right now to protect the club and the game?

 

[Deleted member 7310]

I expect some PL and Championship clubs to go bankrupt and a surge of players becoming free agents, begging for any contract. Clubs will be begging to get players off their books and current valuations would be completely irrelevant.

The bankruptcy risk is too great, teams should put an ultimatum that if no agreement is made they will selectively start furloughing squad players and players with up to one year contracts immediately.

This will put immense pressure on the top earning players to cut immediately, while hedging the risk of key players walking due to breach of contract.

 

[Departed]

I expect some PL and Championship clubs to go bankrupt and a surge of players becoming free agents, begging for any contract. Clubs will be begging to get players off their books and current valuations would be completely irrelevant.

The bankruptcy risk is too great, teams should put an ultimatum that if no agreement is made they will selectively start furloughing squad players and players with up to one year contracts immediately.

This will put immense pressure on the top earning players to cut immediately, while hedging the risk of key players walking due to breach of contract.

This may kill the stupidity of transfer fees.

 

[Spursex]

This may kill the stupidity of transfer fees.

Yet, the clickbait press insists on still making transfer shite up and Spurs fans on twitter still keep sucking it up!

I really have no idea what will happen in the next transfer window, but I seriously doubt it will be business as usual!

 

[muttley]

I expect some PL and Championship clubs to go bankrupt and a surge of players becoming free agents, begging for any contract. Clubs will be begging to get players off their books and current valuations would be completely irrelevant.

The bankruptcy risk is too great, teams should put an ultimatum that if no agreement is made they will selectively start furloughing squad players and players with up to one year contracts immediately.

This will put immense pressure on the top earning players to cut immediately, while hedging the risk of key players walking due to breach of contract.

Are you saying furlough all footballers for a quarter and give them £2500 per month? If so, you're clearly an evil genius !!!

 

[Spursex]

Taylor still only talking about deferrals - what a ****, on £2 million a year - for a Union leader FFS!!



Premier League players 'prepared to step up' amid coronavirus crisis

By Simon Stone

BBC Sport

• 6 hours ago
• From the section Premier League

Liverpool are 25 points clear of Manchester City at the top of the Premier League
Premier League players are "mindful of their social responsibilities" and "prepared to step up to the mark" during the coronavirus pandemic, says Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor.
Talks are ongoing about a collective pay deal in response to the crisis.
The Premier League proposed a 30% pay cut, but the PFA said it would harm the NHS.
"It is a question of asking players to be involved," Taylor told BBC Sport.
"The question needs to come from the clubs and then to open up on the table and say it is not a question of us using your money for purposes you don't want."

• What are Premier League clubs doing on pay?
• Players left in 'no-win situation' over 'disgraceful' wage row - Rooney

Premier League players are set to start negotiations on a club-by-club basis over proposed wage cuts after talks broke down without resolution over the weekend.
Four top-flight clubs - Newcastle, Tottenham, Bournemouth and Norwich - have placed some non-playing staff on furlough leave under the government's coronavirus job retention scheme, increasing the pressure on players to take a pay cut.
On Monday, Premier League leaders Liverpool reversed the decision to furlough some staff after criticism from fans and former players.




'I don't think anybody is trying to be greedy' - Barnes on Liverpool's furlough U-turn
Taylor will donate £500,000 - a quarter of his salary - to a charitable fund being set up by Liverpool captain Jordan Henderson, while the PFA charity fund will donate £1m.
"It is not for me to tell clubs how to run their businesses. It is for me to look at the players' side of things," said Taylor.
"A football club is an entity involving non-playing staff - they need to look at the position of non-playing staff, the youngsters at clubs, the academies, the community programmes in their own areas and the bigger picture of the national health.
"I can only repeat that the players are mindful of their social responsibilities and they are quite prepared to step up to the mark to deal with it."
Taylor said all parties involved in the talks "can agree" if there are "full and frank discussions" between clubs, owners and players.
Players are understood to be wary of agreeing pay cuts that would help billionaire owners save money which may subsequently be spent on transfers.
"The players want to do their bit into the charity that they would donate to. They didn't want money being used for things that they didn't agree with," said Taylor.
"We have to deal with this on a club-by-club basis. It is the hardest way but I believe it is the best way."
Health secretary Matt Hancock last week called for players to take a pay cut and "play their part".
Former England captain and current Derby striker Wayne Rooney said players have been left in a "no-win situation", and Taylor agreed they were "very put out that they were being put in a corner".
"Many players have their own charity foundations and, within their contracts, players give six hours a week to community activities," said Taylor.
"It is unfair the Secretary of State singled out footballers because of their profile - they are not self-employed, they do pay tax and they do contribute."
'Taylor has let players down'
Former England and Arsenal striker Ian Wright accused the PFA of "being terribly slow to react" to react to the crisis and not offering enough support to Premier League players.
"It's embarrassing," he told BBC Radio 5 Live's Monday Night Club. "They should be speaking on the frontline - that's what they are paid for. They are a union.
"The players are paying them to make these decisions. The players shouldn't have to take these bullets."
Ex-England and Blackburn striker Chris Sutton described Taylor as "out of touch".
"These are the times you need your union boss and once he again he has let them down. He has waffled," Sutton said.
"He is out of touch. You can see it in these moments. There is a crisis on in this country and you need a decisive head. It is a huge problem.
"This is what he is paid his vast wages for. He needs to help his members. He is setting this up so the public are turning against them."
'Finish the season no matter how long it takes'
Taylor said completing the season remains "top of the agenda" and that everybody in the game, including broadcasters, needs to be flexible, "no matter how long it takes."
He added that players "would talk about [wage] deferrals in the hope that we could keep this season going eventually" in the current talks.
He suggested that, with the 2022 World Cup set to take place in Qatar in November and December, the current season could be finished this winter, with the 2021 campaign taking place during the calendar year.
"It needs to have ideas that come from left of stage to deal with what is a unique situation," Taylor said.
If the season needs to be completed behind closed doors, Taylor said players would understand there would be no gate receipts and that different discussions would then need to take place.
"If we can't play in front of full stadiums then the different scenarios would be looked at at the time," he said.

 

[muttley]

I still maintain what I've always said. You have to look upstream and you have to look downstream in the supply and demand model. The players are the downstream piece, and admittedly can and should help the immediate cashflow. Eventually the general public will realise that these really profitable, resilient and cashflow rich companies like Sky and BT can play their part too, in the short, mid and long term. That's the upstream piece.

If I were the 20 PL chairmen, I'd be looking for scenarios from the appointed FAPL Ltd directors, Richards and Scudamore, right now. They need to be re-sizing and re-phasing those 2 key TV contracts to help football downsize at the right pace without clubs falling off the map. It's not just about the players contribution. With the TV company's resilience, they can help relax the football community by leaving this season's money in regardless of whether games are played or not. For their part, the PL could then give them something like a £7m price per televised game which is 25% discount from current £9.2m per game. That could mean for the next 4 payments across 2 years, clubs will have some time to get used to the change starting with their August payment which would be 25% lower. I might not have the numbers right, but there is an equilibrium point where both parties get an acceptable outcome.

I'm not really feeling any quid-pro-quo or trade-offs happening between the TV companies / Premier League partnership right now. That should be as prevalent in the press as the pressure on the PFA and players. Gordon Taylor should be insisting on it for his stakeholders, the players.

 

[Departed]

I still maintain what I've always said. You have to look upstream and you have to look downstream in the supply and demand model. The players are the downstream piece, and admittedly can and should help the immediate cashflow. Eventually the general public will realise that these really profitable, resilient and cashflow rich companies like Sky and BT can play their part too, in the short, mid and long term. That's the upstream piece.

If I were the 20 PL chairmen, I'd be looking for scenarios from the appointed FAPL Ltd directors, Richards and Scudamore, right now. They need to be re-sizing and re-phasing those 2 key TV contracts to help football downsize at the right pace without clubs falling off the map. It's not just about the players contribution. With the TV company's resilience, they can help relax the football community by leaving this season's money in regardless of whether games are played or not. For their part, the PL could then give them something like a £7m price per televised game which is 25% discount from current £9.2m per game. That could mean for the next 4 payments across 2 years, clubs will have some time to get used to the change starting with their August payment which would be 25% lower. I might not have the numbers right, but there is an equilibrium point where both parties get an acceptable outcome.

I'm not really feeling any quid-pro-quo or trade-offs happening between the TV companies / Premier League partnership right now. That should be as prevalent in the press as the pressure on the PFA and players. Gordon Taylor should be insisting on it for his stakeholders, the players.

It think he's out of his depth. Taylor that is.