DRAYTON GREEN
Vital Football Legend
I started a thread before on the owners amateur video which was removed due to readers reporting rather than doing the right thing of actually putting their point of view forward, which is whole point of a forum.
This time we have SW coming out arguing for clubs decision for furlowing non playing staff.
https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/webber-defends-city-s-use-of-furlough-scheme-1-6623711
https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/deferrals-not-yet-being-considered-by-city-1-6623665
A simple question is being raised.
Should supporters / tax payers who are likely to be in financial predicaments themselves and already having paid out for games not being played this season / next season and away priority schemes for away games this season / next season, be footing the bill for non playing staff whilst the overpaid players continue to earn full wages ?
A quote from SW :
City’s sporting director, Stuart Webber, said: “It almost became an obsession of putting the footballers out on the street and they all have to have a sign saying how much money they’ve given back.
Is ' putting players out on the street ' a good message to send out when they are all safely tucked away in their large houses on huge wages whilst NHS staff on small wages are working long hours risking their lives everyday ?
Should owners of football clubs keep their own money and use tax payers money to pay their staff ?
If they have morals they would not.
Is the argument of picking on footballers fair when richer companies are not mentioned ?
Football is in public eye and other companies are not and are likely to provide a product and need to make a profit. Football club owners often run it as a hobby and take a loss as the obscene wages of footballers defy economic logic.
More from the article.
The wages saved on 200 non-playing staff during the shutdown has contributed towards saving £2.5m for the self-funded club, with senior staff sticking to their guns despite seeing wealthier clubs Liverpool, Tottenham and Bournemouth reverse their decision to use the scheme.
If we have 200 staff and even allowing for earning maximum £ 2500 per month gross for full 3 months, my maths makes a saving of £ 1.5 million and that is assuming they are all paid up to this amount and work 12 months a year.
Its a simple question.
Should Norwich City owners take our money to pay their non playing staff in addition to the costs we already incur towards overpaid players ?
This time we have SW coming out arguing for clubs decision for furlowing non playing staff.
https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/webber-defends-city-s-use-of-furlough-scheme-1-6623711
https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/deferrals-not-yet-being-considered-by-city-1-6623665
A simple question is being raised.
Should supporters / tax payers who are likely to be in financial predicaments themselves and already having paid out for games not being played this season / next season and away priority schemes for away games this season / next season, be footing the bill for non playing staff whilst the overpaid players continue to earn full wages ?
A quote from SW :
City’s sporting director, Stuart Webber, said: “It almost became an obsession of putting the footballers out on the street and they all have to have a sign saying how much money they’ve given back.
Is ' putting players out on the street ' a good message to send out when they are all safely tucked away in their large houses on huge wages whilst NHS staff on small wages are working long hours risking their lives everyday ?
Should owners of football clubs keep their own money and use tax payers money to pay their staff ?
If they have morals they would not.
Is the argument of picking on footballers fair when richer companies are not mentioned ?
Football is in public eye and other companies are not and are likely to provide a product and need to make a profit. Football club owners often run it as a hobby and take a loss as the obscene wages of footballers defy economic logic.
More from the article.
The wages saved on 200 non-playing staff during the shutdown has contributed towards saving £2.5m for the self-funded club, with senior staff sticking to their guns despite seeing wealthier clubs Liverpool, Tottenham and Bournemouth reverse their decision to use the scheme.
If we have 200 staff and even allowing for earning maximum £ 2500 per month gross for full 3 months, my maths makes a saving of £ 1.5 million and that is assuming they are all paid up to this amount and work 12 months a year.
Its a simple question.
Should Norwich City owners take our money to pay their non playing staff in addition to the costs we already incur towards overpaid players ?
Last edited: