How is this poisonous little man still in his job should have gone last year still clinging to his £2m a year job and doing his best to wreck the image of his union members by blocking a deal. Time the players got rid or left the union perhaps.

Football doing a great job to alienate everyone. PFA now claiming that for players to take a pay cut will cost the NHS £200 million in revenue via taxes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52168692

Football is a strange ‘industry’. Runs and operates like no other. Gravy train from the players upwards.

Looks knackered
Spoke to him in William Hills in Clitheroe a few months back
Not supposed to have a gambling problem either

I think when all this is done football will be less relevant. If anything this has made me realise health and family are everything and if as experts are predicting the economy will be in poor shape for years and we all have less cash I wont subsidise a gravy train either by sky the turnstiles or merchandising

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:31 pm

I think when all this is done football will be less relevant. If anything this has made me realise health and family are everything and if as experts are predicting the economy will be in poor shape for years and we all have less cash I wont subsidise a gravy train either by sky the turnstiles or merchandising

Well how will you see the Clarets play then, do you know someone who will be able to fix you up with complimentaries?

I don’t understand this bullying of the football industry. Why isn’t there a clamour for actors and musicians to donate 30% of their income? I haven’t heard the Law Society being asked to donate £20m to the NHS and there are more millionaire lawyers than football players!

CrispyClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:40 pm

Football doing a great job to alienate everyone. PFA now claiming that for players to take a pay cut will cost the NHS £200 million in revenue via taxes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52168692

Are their figures wrong?

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:12 am

I don’t understand this bullying of the football industry. Why isn’t there a clamour for actors and musicians to donate 30% of their income? I haven’t heard the Law Society being asked to donate £20m to the NHS and there are more millionaire lawyers than football players!

Keir Starmer and Keira Knightley first against the wall with their pockets out.

Where do I sign?

Surely actors & musicians aren’t actually earning at the moment? Personally think that, if players continue on full whack, I will find it difficult to support them once this is all over. Probably the straw that broke this camel’s back.

Didn’t he say he was leaving after a review of how the PFA operates?
He must have dragged that review on for about two years now.

Yep musicians (the vast majority who dont earn big money) are well snookered.
I go to small venues to watch musicians and all events have been cancelled for the past three weeks and for at least the next few. For all these artists, playing live (and flogging a bit of merch there) is their major income. It looks pretty certain that the festival season will be a write-off too.

The more savvy ones have started doing online gigs from their front rooms for voluntary donations but they'll be struggling to maintain the modest income stream they had.
Completely different from top leagues' footballers who are still drawing full earnings (and those being vastly higher anyway).

I dare say Ed Sheeran (and the other big stars) will be OK of course.

Targetman wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:58 pm

Well how will you see the Clarets play then, do you know someone who will be able to fix you up with complimentaries?

I and many more probably wont be able to afford £30 plus for matchday tickets nor dare risk committing to a season ticket therefore prices will have to be slashed and the gravy train derailed.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:12 am

I don’t understand this bullying of the football industry. Why isn’t there a clamour for actors and musicians to donate 30% of their income? I haven’t heard the Law Society being asked to donate £20m to the NHS and there are more millionaire lawyers than football players!

It’s a relevant point - and I know that when you refer to musicians you are just giving examples of any industry / occupation with very highly paid people.
It is a valid point that footballers taking a 30% cut will deny a big chunk of tax to the government and therefore in theory to the NHS....but even this is still a bit of an own goal PR wise for football who only a couple of days ago said themselves they were in discussions about this.

The easiest and “fairest” way to solve this across all highly paid occupations and ensure that the money goes directly to government is of course to increase income tax rates on higher salaries - as a temporary measure.

Someone on this board suggested salaries over £250k a year and I think increasing the rate to 65%....that would work and raise a pretty significant amount of additional tax revenue. For premier league footballers / managers alone back of a fag packet estimate this would be £200m extra tax revenue a year alone. Add to that the rest of football, other occupations and you would surely be in the billions.

Of course it won’t happen as it would mean the people who would be deciding this would be losing out

I see they are all lumped in as footballers. As they said on Sunderland Til I Die, PL players average £60k/week, Championship on £16k/week and L1 on £2k/week. Chasms of a difference but they are all footballers.

The players representatives are coming out of this with a lot of credit in my view.

Their concerns are that any 30% pay cut doesn't just benefit rich football club owners, at the expense of non-playing staff and tax income for the government. Its not just a matter of rich footballers refusing to take a pay cut.

Quote from BBC link, above: "But the union says that equates to more than £500m in wage reductions, and a loss in tax contributions of more than £200m to the UK government."

£500 million in wages - at footballers' margin rate of tax and NIC - would be 45% income tax and 2% employees NIC. 47% of £500m = £235m.
But, add to this Employers' NIC of 13.8% = £69m.

£235m + £69m = £304m.

That's unless the footballers have all got some tax avoidance schemes in place.

I wonder why GT is not quoting the higher number? Everyone likes big numbers.

I wish he'd said how many weeks/months the PFA had assumed to arrive at £500m.

Would I get a good estimate if I assumed 25 man squads for 20 PL teams and £70,000/week wages?

25 x 20 x £70,000 = £35 million. 30% of £35m = £10.5 million.

On this basis, GT/PFA is quoting £500 million as 30% of the annual wages for all Premier League footballers.

Which suggests total PL football wages are £1,700 million (rounded up). But, this is too low.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:42 am

It’s a relevant point - and I know that when you refer to musicians you are just giving examples of any industry / occupation with very highly paid people.
It is a valid point that footballers taking a 30% cut will deny a big chunk of tax to the government and therefore in theory to the NHS....but even this is still a bit of an own goal PR wise for football who only a couple of days ago said themselves they were in discussions about this.

The easiest and “fairest” way to solve this across all highly paid occupations and ensure that the money goes directly to government is of course to increase income tax rates on higher salaries - as a temporary measure.

Someone on this board suggested salaries over £250k a year and I think increasing the rate to 65%....that would work and raise a pretty significant amount of additional tax revenue. For premier league footballers / managers alone back of a fag packet estimate this would be £200m extra tax revenue a year alone. Add to that the rest of football, other occupations and you would surely be in the billions.

Of course it won’t happen as it would mean the people who would be deciding this would be losing out

Hi TVC15, taxing the people who earn "over £250k" would bring in "pennies" in the big scheme of things. If collecting more tax is how the debts run up in fighting covid-19 is required, then it has to be increased taxation for everyone. There's no other way that these sort of figures can be addressed if an increase in tax rates is the way to tackle it.

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:19 am

I and many more probably wont be able to afford £30 plus for matchday tickets nor dare risk committing to a season ticket therefore prices will have to be slashed and the gravy train derailed.

So does that mean you won't be able to visit Turf Moor again for a Premier League game unless prices are slashed?

The furloughing of non playing staff by clubs that expect the taxpayer to pay their employees wages, yet still paying the wages of multi millionaires is just plain wrong in my opinion. I do agree with Dushanbe that a 30% cut won't necessarily mean that the furloughing will stop. As has already been stated the government needs to temporarily raise taxes for their earnings bracket, so that money goes straight to the treasury.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:11 am

I wish he'd said how many weeks/months the PFA had assumed to arrive at £500m.

He did, just not in the BBC article.

The PFA statement read: “The players are mindful that as PAYE employees, the combined tax on their salaries is a significant contribution to funding essential public services — which are especially critical at this time. Taking a thirty per cent salary deduction will cost the Exchequer substantial sums. This would be detrimental to our NHS and government-funded services.

“The proposed 30% salary deduction over a 12-month period equates to over £500m in wage reductions and a loss in tax contributions of over £200m to our government. What effect does this loss of earning to the government mean to the NHS? Was this considered in the Premier League proposal and did the Health Secretary Matt Hancock factor this in when asking players to take a salary cut?”

Targetman wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:19 am

So does that mean you won't be able to visit Turf Moor again for a Premier League game unless prices are slashed?

The economy will be devastated for years to come with high unemployment rates, if I cannot earn I wont be going to the Turf does that answer your question ? These last few weeks have made me realise that what money I have will be better spent on essentials and ensuring my children can always keep a roof over their heads and my grandchildren have some sort of security in life.

CrispyClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:40 pm

Football doing a great job to alienate everyone. PFA now claiming that for players to take a pay cut will cost the NHS £200 million in revenue via taxes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52168692

What's stopping the players picking up their wage in full, so the taxes will be paid, and then transferring 30% of it into a fund?

Murger wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:36 am

What's stopping the players picking up their wage in full, so the taxes will be paid, and then transferring 30% of it into a fund?

Thats one thing being discussed.

"Liverpool’s Jordan Henderson had led a campaign by Premier League captains to make a collective donation to the NHS through the PFA but this is not yet finalised. This rival club’s players are becoming agitated by the delays and keen to help as the death toll rises, so the squad are now discussing a breakaway from the collective plan and fast-tracking the process by pooling money through a deduction to their net salary and sending it through the club as a charitable donation.

Those players do not want the club owners benefiting from their gestures and bosses are now considering the proposals."

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:29 am

The economy will be devastated for years to come with high unemployment rates, if I cannot earn I wont be going to the Turf does that answer your question ? These last few weeks have made me realise that what money I have will be better spent on essentials and ensuring my children can always keep a roof over their heads and my grandchildren have some sort of security in life.

I've said on other threads that I'll be binning our Sky subscription as soon as we are out of contract and I'll buy a couple of the new gen of 4K HRD boxes. Apart from sport, there's nothing to keep me there and I no longer think £45 quid a month, or whatever it is, is worth it for Sports and multiroom, especially when we can fall back on Netflix and Prime.

Sky and BT Sports subscriptions will take a massive hit once we are out of the woods and this will obviously impact the game as a whole.

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:29 am

The economy will be devastated for years to come with high unemployment rates, if I cannot earn I wont be going to the Turf does that answer your question ? These last few weeks have made me realise that what money I have will be better spent on essentials and ensuring my children can always keep a roof over their heads and my grandchildren have some sort of security in life.

Anyone, not just yourself, who cannot earn obviously wont be going to the Turf.

It's just that you said you wouldn't be contributing to the "gravy train" either through Sky, merchandise or the turnstiles. That seems to give the impression that you are able to do that financially if you choose but that you have opted not to do that in future. And that is of course your choice.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:16 am

Hi TVC15, taxing the people who earn "over £250k" would bring in "pennies" in the big scheme of things. If collecting more tax is how the debts run up in fighting covid-19 is required, then it has to be increased taxation for everyone. There's no other way that these sort of figures can be addressed if an increase in tax rates is the way to tackle it.

Hi Paul - in the scheme of things yes I agree but it was more in the context of the debate on highly paid footballers and sending out a message to the rest of society regarding the highest paid in the country. As I said I think it would bring in billions per year which you could cleverly spin as saying these monies are going directly to the NHS to build x and y new field hospital, new doctors and nurses, NHS salary increases etc.

On the general point of tax increases I have said on other threads that I believe that should come in sooner rather than later for all people above a much lower threshold than £250k (maybe £40k / £50k ?).
Eventually like you say everyone is going to have to pay higher taxes - but feels like with everything that is going on with job security etc that taxing the lower income workers and even increasing corporation tax at this stage could be difficult (but afterwards inevitable)

The first place any additional tax revenue should go is into social care. The poor relation and often neglected and forgotten.

Longtimeclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:04 pm

Looks knackered
Spoke to him in William Hills in Clitheroe a few months back
Not supposed to have a gambling problem either

Course he looks knackered, hard job he's had most of his life.

Murger wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:36 am

What's stopping the players picking up their wage in full, so the taxes will be paid, and then transferring 30% of it into a fund?

Nothing, but the donations would probably qualify for " Gift Aid ", enabling the charity to claim an extra 25% at source, and the donor to claim back another 15% from HMRC, as they're going to be Higher Rate Taxpayers ....

These thick arse footballers really don't help themselves.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... kdown.html

Absolutely hilarious - prostitute takes the moral high ground about staying at home, when she was the one going out. And people lap this crap up

mealdeal wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:40 pm

Absolutely hilarious - prostitute takes the moral high ground about staying at home, when she was the one going out. And people lap this crap up

They are both in the wrong,however i suppose the prostitute could argue she was working,still stupid though,and then Walker takes to social media preaching to the general public to stay at home,i do wonder who leaked the story to the press though.

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:05 pm

They are both in the wrong,however i suppose the prostitute could argue she was working,still stupid though,and then Walker takes to social media preaching to the general public to stay at home,i do wonder who leaked the story to the press though.

She might have been working, but Walker has done what he told others to do - he's stayed at home and bought some dubious services. She's the one that has run off to a journalist the minute she realised who her client was after she took her 2 grand whilst trying to claim the high ground. You can bet your arse she wouldn't have run to the daily mail if it had just been some Mr Nobody.

So you have one person showing good old British entrepreneurship - nation of shopkeepers and all that.

And then another person who joins a long list of very rich but very stupid footballers who fell for this old trick.

In all seriousness they were both stupid and wrong - they have not just put themselves at risk but more importantly put others at risk...and for what ?

I think both should be prosecuted - it is that serious and shows a compete disregard for the law and for the lives of others.

jackmiggins wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:17 am

Surely actors & musicians aren’t actually earning at the moment? Personally think that, if players continue on full whack, I will find it difficult to support them once this is all over. Probably the straw that broke this camel’s back.

Aren’t people downloading music anymore?

In normal circumstances if players took a 30% cut in pay then the business would be more profitable and pay more corporation tax so there would still be money for the NHS?

basil6345789 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:34 pm

In normal circumstances if players took a 30% cut in pay then the business would be more profitable and pay more corporation tax so there would still be money for the NHS?

In normal circumstances why would they be forced to take a 30% pay it?

I’m in a very secure job, but I’m expecting my employer will have to furlough me sometime soon, due to drop in orders & enquiries. My salary will drop by at least 50%. From this, I can assume that a massive proportion of our population will be facing hardship in the next few months. If our ‘professional footballers’ don’t feel they should be included, fair enough. Should they expect my support in the future?..........Doubt it. Do they expect their billionaire owners will ride the economic fallout?.......Doubt it. Let them take their full wages.......just don’t expect me to tip them when they’re emptying my bin at Xmas in five years time.

jackmiggins wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:13 pm

I’m in a very secure job, but I’m expecting my employer will have to furlough me sometime soon, due to drop in orders & enquiries. My salary will drop by at least 50%. From this, I can assume that a massive proportion of our population will be facing hardship in the next few months. If our ‘professional footballers’ don’t feel they should be included, fair enough. Should they expect my support in the future?..........Doubt it. Do they expect their billionaire owners will ride the economic fallout?.......Doubt it. Let them take their full wages.......just don’t expect me to tip them when they’re emptying my bin at Xmas in five years time.

Out of interest, have you already volunteered to take a pay cut?

I don't see why professional footballers should have to take a pay cut unless their employers can't afford to pay them. If their employer is just using it as an excuse not to pay them, even though they can afford to, then the owner deserves what comes to them. As far as I'm concerned that applies to everyone whether they're paid the minimum wage, or paid a salary in the millions a year. I've yet to see a good reason why footballers should take a pay cut en-masse. The only people who seem to crave it seem to be the bitter and twisted type who are full of jealousy.

I think some people are missing the point. Fact is the majority of the working population are now sat at home because they have no work. Most of them are considerably worse off in the pocket due to not being able to carry out their usual occupation, being furloughed and losing any overtime/bonuses etc. and the self employed are suffering. Footballers are paid handsomely to play football. However, just like the majority of us they are no longer working. Therefore, why should they still expect, or the dinosaur that is Gordon Taylor expect them to receive their full salaries? I am sure plenty of footballers are doing their bit financially right now to support the NHS etc. However, if they all took a reduction of say 30% what is wrong with clubs like ours saving on the wage bill whilst receiving little or no revenue?

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:29 am

The economy will be devastated for years to come with high unemployment rates, if I cannot earn I wont be going to the Turf does that answer your question ? These last few weeks have made me realise that what money I have will be better spent on essentials and ensuring my children can always keep a roof over their heads and my grandchildren have some sort of security in life.

You don't know whether that will be the case.

jackmiggins, if you do get furloughed you will lose less than 20% so at least you don’t have to worry about 50%. I’m furloughed from April 1st for 3 weeks at100% and then at 80% until May 31st, when the situation will be further reviewed. If not back to work it will be could be anything from a further furlough period to loss of job or something in between. Good luck to you in your personal situation and to everyone else in theirs.

Darnhill Claret wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:46 pm

jackmiggins, if you do get furloughed you will lose less than 20% so at least you don’t have to worry about 50%. I’m furloughed from April 1st for 3 weeks at100% and then at 80% until May 31st, when the situation will be further reviewed. If not back to work it will be could be anything from a further furlough period to loss of job or something in between. Good luck to you in your personal situation and to everyone else in theirs.

He's obviously going to be capped at the £2500/month limit, so it is very possible to lose 50% maybe more

ChorltonCharlie wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:24 pm

Out of interest, have you already volunteered to take a pay cut?

I don't see why professional footballers should have to take a pay cut unless their employers can't afford to pay them. If their employer is just using it as an excuse not to pay them, even though they can afford to, then the owner deserves what comes to them. As far as I'm concerned that applies to everyone whether they're paid the minimum wage, or paid a salary in the millions a year. I've yet to see a good reason why footballers should take a pay cut en-masse. The only people who seem to crave it seem to be the bitter and twisted type who are full of jealousy.

Spurs, as well as other clubs, have furloughed their non playing staff, yet continue to pay Harry Kane £200,000 per week (according to google)

ceborame wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:19 pm

He's obviously going to be capped at the £2500/month limit, so it is very possible to lose 50% maybe more

Which was my point. It sounds like the guy is comfortably earning over the average wage. Where do we draw the line as to when people should voluntarily take a pay cut?

ceborame - I'm not really sure what your point is there. Spurs owner has the money to continue to pay everyone on the payroll. They don't need to furlough anyone. They also can continue to pay the players, then the players continue to pay tax and can make their own decisions on what they voluntarily contribute.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:01 pm

In normal circumstances why would they be forced to take a 30% pay it?

To try to get us out of the ridiculous situation we've found ourselves in. Or do you think it's ok?

basil6345789 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:11 pm

To try to get us out of the ridiculous situation we've found ourselves in. Or do you think it's ok?

I’m sorry but I just don’t understand the point you are trying to make. It must be the way you have tried to express yourself. “under normal circumstances” - what do yo mean by normal? In these circumstances would taking a 30% pay cut (loss of income tax and NI) be made up in increased corporation tax? A tax on profits that very few if any clubs will make?

If turnover remained the same and expenditure fell then there would be more profit but that’s not the case here.

Jamesy wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:29 pm

IHowever, just like the majority of us they are no longer working. Therefore, why should they still expect, or the dinosaur that is Gordon Taylor expect them to receive their full salaries? I am sure plenty of footballers are doing their bit financially right now to support the NHS etc. However, if they all took a reduction of say 30% what is wrong with clubs like ours saving on the wage bill whilst receiving little or no revenue?

They are, like many people still on a full salary, working from home. Why don’t the clubs release them from their contracts?