Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:03 pm

RientO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:53 pm

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 9:10 pm

It's not that they think they can furlough their staff. It's because they can furlough their staff, hence why they are doing it.

Understood. To do so whilst paying the talent upwards of £100k/week may be considered outside the scope of what the government intended. And may well be challenged.

From what I've heard the PFA are urging players not to agree to club agreed wage cuts and are looking to agree reductions across all clubs in the Premier League (and possibly in the other leagues too, or at least deferrals). That's probably the hold up as far as players taking a haircut.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:10 pm

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:03 pm

RientO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:53 pm
Understood. To do so whilst paying the talent upwards of £100k/week may be considered outside the scope of what the government intended. And may well be challenged.

From what I've heard the PFA are urging players not to agree to club agreed wage cuts and are looking to agree reductions across all clubs in the Premier League (and possibly in the other leagues too, or at least deferrals). That's probably the hold up as far as players taking a haircut.

Overpaid or not these guys have contracts written under the Laws of England. Why should they give up their right to be paid the amount stipulated in the contract? It's a basic principle that should never be surrendered.

Cheshunto wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:58 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:10 pm

Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:03 pm

From what I've heard the PFA are urging players not to agree to club agreed wage cuts and are looking to agree reductions across all clubs in the Premier League (and possibly in the other leagues too, or at least deferrals). That's probably the hold up as far as players taking a haircut.

Overpaid or not these guys have contracts written under the Laws of England. Why should they give up their right to be paid the amount stipulated in the contract? It's a basic principle that should never be surrendered.

Yeah but Max, I would imagine the 550 non playing employees at Spurs also have a figure stipulated in their contracts so why should they be expected to take a drop in salary while the overpaid players get the full amount.
I think people like Levy and Ashley are morally wrong to expect the taxpayers to pick up 80% of their employees salary’s while continuing to pay Mourinho £290,000 per week

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 12:25 am

Cheshunto wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:58 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:10 pm

Overpaid or not these guys have contracts written under the Laws of England. Why should they give up their right to be paid the amount stipulated in the contract? It's a basic principle that should never be surrendered.

Yeah but Max, I would imagine the 550 non playing employees at Spurs also have a figure stipulated in their contracts so why should they be expected to take a drop in salary while the overpaid players get the full amount.
I think people like Levy and Ashley are morally wrong to expect the taxpayers to pick up 80% of their employees salary’s while continuing to pay Mourinho £290,000 per week

Where was I unclear about this?

At Spurs, if that is the example you choose, then the Club should pay the non football staff their contracted salaries and then claim back the 80% of that from Rich Boy Sunack.

Thor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:41 am Statements from all concerned. Basically a message of nothingness.