Why though?
Why? Why should they be the only ones taking the burden?
Itâs not like they were at fault for all of this.
The owner has a net worth of 4.3 billion, the chairman and players gets paid millions a year, and people are asking why they should take a financial hit before Debbie in the canteen who is on minimum wage loses twenty percent of her salary. Not sure what needs explaining to you.
16 Likes
but why
5 Likes
Agreed, but it wonât change anything I donât think.
Too many people see t see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires .
Yeah, but we donât live in a philosophical idealistic world.
The ownerâs net worth is not up for charity.
He has given jobs to individuals and those individuals are paid for a job.
Suspension of the football matches affects the revenue, which impacts your salary.
He is not a billionaire today by giving away money without any income.
We expect a lot from rich people.
As for CEO earning millions, For fuck sake, if I worked my ass all my life to become a CEO and I was told to slash my wages each time market is affected, I would flip.
Government gave them a leeway to minimize their losses and they took it. Thatâs business and thatâs how businesses survive.
Wait a miniute. Arenât they just using a government scheme that covers temporarily unemployed workers pay? The footballers wages arenât covered by it. The owner might be a billionaire but the owners of many companies are.
Itâs fair enough to have a discussion over tax and inequality of income but Spurs are doing what every other business affected by this are doing.
1 Like
My CEO and directors took voluntary paycuts before putting anyone on furlough or reducing their hours by twenty percent. I have friends in different sectors who have said the same is happening at their workplace.
Perhaps the senior and playing staff at Spurs did the same, but it seems not, because theyâd sure as hell be letting us know they did for the good PR.
So itâs ill informed to just say Spurs are doing no different to anyone else here, because frankly you have no idea what hundreds of companies or organisations are doing, do you?
Also, it doesnât matter if the footballers or executives wages are covered by the government scheme. If someone earning fuck all earns twenty percent less because their hours are reduced, that has a massive impact. A footballer or chairman losing twenty percent of their salary does not leave them having to choose between the roof over their head and being able to feed their family. Theyâll still survive comfortably. Of course they should be taking reductions before people living paycheck to paycheck.
4 Likes
Why should people that earn more take cuts first though? Literally just because they earn more money?
A footballerâs active earning tenure is limited compared to an average person.
We are asking them to lose 20% of their salary which would amount minimum of 110k in just 2 months.
Is it fair?
There is no guaranteed that this will last just 2 months, so should they keep losing money?
I am okay with everyone taking a pay cut, but if you argue that only CEOs, Chairmans, and players should, then that is just discriminatory.
Itâs just common decency. The general population need money to get by. Billionaires might scrape by for a month or two without an income.
6 Likes
It is commendable that there are billionaires out them safeguarding everyoneâs interest at their own expense but Itâs also common decency to not shame someone if they donât want to indulge in charity.
With this kind of thinking you create a need for a larger government bureaucracy to right the failings of private industry on a moral and practical basis. This is how social left ideas and politics grow.
Part of the logic behind low tax rates and less government regulation is that private individuals and companies are better placed to correct decisions for themselves. You essentially justify the need for bigger government, more regulation and higher taxes by treating normal working people like trash where you clearly have the capacity and means to act.
Wages, TV revenue and expenditure on playing staff in the Prem is at a record high, Spurs clearly have the capacity to fully subsidise the wages of their workers/support stuff during this unique crisis. The players/execs of all top clubs should agree to reduce their wages.
Even before the outbreak I was in favour a levy on the wealth of the Premier League, it clearly does not trickle down to lower leagues or the grassroots.
5 Likes
I donât see a problem with using the scheme for staff you have no use for. An organisation like a football club should be covering the other 20% though out of good will.
1 Like
Thatâs incorrect. The tax benefits are there primarily to create more job opportunities.
Tax benefits doesnât make any business immune to market collapse.
You bring in larger government, impose heavy taxes and you will see less employment opportunities.
At the end of the day, it is revenue & profit. If there is less revenue & profit coming in, there is going to be a shorter pool of funds to pay the wages.
Wages, TV revenue and all that may be high but football as an industry never clocks a really high profit. At our best, we have shown 5m profits, which is chump change in business world.
Football clubs in the world of business are like daily wagers who will not have much in terms of rainy day funds to bail them if the league collapses.
My performance appraisals are going on. Before March, I was certain about a good appraisal and a good hike but I can see in the revenue stats the impact and I have resigned to less than ideal appraisal.
It sucks but it is also upon me that I depend on single revenue stream which could be impacted like this.
Think Iâve explained why, but happy to discuss further if its not clear.
4 Likes
In the days of footballers, at the top level, earning 1k or thereabouts a week, sure. But now weâre talking 10-15 years of earning millions a year. Theyâre set for life, along with their children and childrens children if smart with the money. They earn more in one year of that period than what most will in a lifetime.
5 Likes
Directors who do that are altruistic and have to be respected. I suspect most will not do this. Most people try to pay the least tax possible or try to take the most government benefits or subsidies they can.
I saw this on Twitter. Apparantly Joe Lewis lives/is situated outside of the UK so he has tax breaks already (that has probably a lot to do with why he left the UK anyway). Than he is asking that same government to help him out. Even if he doesnât do anything wrong as far as the law goes that is a cunt move.
6 Likes
Cunt move by an absolute cunt club. No surprises there.
Shameless
6 Likes