CCFC puts players and staff on Furlough (1 Viewer)

mark82

Moderator


Think that was just someone not understanding what was going on. The bold claim bit relates to someone saying maybe the players aren't on as much as we think. It's just people not understanding.
 

better days

Well-Known Member
Yeah it will be costing massively. I'd guess into the millions the more it goes on :(

I wonder what will happen about performance related bonuses? I'd bet most of the players will have a promotion or even a winning the league bonus in their contract.
No bonuses will be paid while players aren't playing. The same applies when a player is injured
If the club gets promoted there will be bonuses paid based on the number of games each player took part in during the season
The government support can be back dated to 1st March so the club can claim the 80% from the date the players last trained
Just as in close season even though there is no organised training the players are expected to keep fit and come back in good shape
The club have behaved pretty well over this
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
No bonuses will be paid while players aren't playing. The same applies when a player is injured
If the club gets promoted there will be bonuses paid based on the number of games each player took part in during the season
The government support can be back dated to 1st March so the club can claim the 80% from the date the players last trained
Just as in close season even though there is no organised training the players are expected to keep fit and come back in good shape
The club have behaved pretty well over this
Yep that’s what I think too
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Think that was just someone not understanding what was going on. The bold claim bit relates to someone saying maybe the players aren't on as much as we think. It's just people not understanding.
It does suggest that our players salaries aren’t huge doesn’t it?
 

CCFC54321

Well-Known Member
I’m reliably told Birmingham city are not covering the remaining 20% of their staffs salaries.

As for waspsagraph what an embarrassment- I called this out last years regarding wasps buying positive coverage. Looks like I was right.

who they going to cover next year when they go bust?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I’m reliably told Birmingham city are not covering the remaining 20% of their staffs salaries.

As for waspsagraph what an embarrassment- I called this out last years regarding wasps buying positive coverage. Looks like I was right.

who they going to cover next year when they go bust?

Wasps Netball
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
To be fair the CT coverage of it does look very biased towards Wasps.

But if we're honest how many if the shoe had been on the other foot and it'd been Wasps taking advantage of the furlough scheme and City laying off people it'd be "Wasps cunts taking more state aid and taxpayer money to prop themselves up. Bet they don't even need to and Eastwood is just taking the cash. Bastards" and with Cov it'd be "it's regrettable they have to lay people off it but understandable as there's no money coming in"
 

Nick

Administrator
To be fair the CT coverage of it does look very biased towards Wasps.

But if we're honest how many if the shoe had been on the other foot and it'd been Wasps taking advantage of the furlough scheme and City laying off people it'd be "Wasps cunts taking more state aid and taxpayer money to prop themselves up. Bet they don't even need to and Eastwood is just taking the cash. Bastards" and with Cov it'd be "it's regrettable they have to lay people off it but understandable as there's no money coming in"
Wasps are using the scheme?

I don't get your point.
 

Houchens Head

Fairly well known member from Malvern
What is "furlough"? Another bloody Yank word we seem to have adopted all of a sudden. Come on, let's face it. Who actually used the word before all this shit happened? When I was working it was either "paid leave" or "unpaid leave". Can we fuck off with the yank terms!?
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
What is "furlough"? Another bloody Yank word we seem to have adopted all of a sudden. Come on, let's face it. Who actually used the word before all this shit happened? When I was working it was either "paid leave" or "unpaid leave". Can we fuck off with the yank terms!?
Too right

Laid off is how it used to be in the construction industry
Be that due to lack of orders or weather related.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Yeah cut all players by 25% and staff on the government 80% for 3 months.

Which is why is baffling they are bigging wasps up but ignoring ccfc for covering the gaps.

I agree with you in terms of Wasps have been praised by reducing pay and getting the govt to pay the rest without topping up whereas City have been ignored for paying the top up. That's biased.

But the reception to when it was revealed that Wasps were using it compared to when it was revealed City were on here is compelling. Wasps were put across as opportunistic and heartless whereas City were being sensible.

That's why when any criticism of Wasps that comes from this board, regardless of how warranted, is difficult for anyone outside of the argument/independent to take it that seriously, just as it's hard to take the likes of Les Reid and Simon Gilbert without a coronary inducing amount of salt. There is a massively obvious bias there.
 

Nick

Administrator
I agree with you in terms of Wasps have been praised by reducing pay and getting the govt to pay the rest without topping up whereas City have been ignored for paying the top up. That's biased.

But the reception to when it was revealed that Wasps were using it compared to when it was revealed City were on here is compelling. Wasps were put across as opportunistic and heartless whereas City were being sensible.

That's why when any criticism of Wasps that comes from this board, regardless of how warranted, is difficult for anyone outside of the argument/independent to take it that seriously, just as it's hard to take the likes of Les Reid and Simon Gilbert without a coronary inducing amount of salt. There is a massively obvious bias there.

Yes because ccfc are paying the difference so nobody is losing out financially and they are doing something that a minority seem to be doing.

Wasps forced a pay cut and then put people on 80% for 3 months. Not to mention the other staff who won't see a bean.

You can see the difference, right? Just by using simple facts. If somebody independent can't see the difference then it's worrying.
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
What is "furlough"? Another bloody Yank word we seem to have adopted all of a sudden. Come on, let's face it. Who actually used the word before all this shit happened? When I was working it was either "paid leave" or "unpaid leave". Can we fuck off with the yank terms!?

The term is common in the US and in the UK is generally referred to as 'laid off'.
However the reason behind 'furlough' is because laid off can mean temporary, but can become permanent.
Whereas furloughed means the workers status can not change and furlough means the worker is returning to work. Hence the government used this terminology.
To draw analogy, it was used in the 1800's in the military, you may have heard Admiral Nelson asking "to furlough the crew number 1" so they did not disappear or obtain crew jobs elsewhere.
Hope that helps...
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
Can someone make head or tail of this please? OSB once again to the rescue?
League one players average is 2k a week. Roughly 100k a year or 8k a month.
The job retention scheme cap is 2500/month. That's well short if you are on 8k a month?
So unless our players are on less than 600 quid a week they are losing big time.
Am I missing something?
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Yes because ccfc are paying the difference so nobody is losing out financially and they are doing something that a minority seem to be doing.

Wasps forced a pay cut and then put people on 80% for 3 months. Not to mention the other staff who won't see a bean.

You can see the difference, right? Just by using simple facts. If somebody independent can't see the difference then it's worrying.

Read the first line. I mention all those things and the difference in reporting.

But you can't tell me that the standard response on here to any Wasps story wouldn't be to look at it in the most negative way possible. Like certain papers do with Sterling and other footballers or Kate/Meghan? And by so doing when deserved criticism (such as the response to this crisis) is put forward people will dismiss it because they know what the take on it will be. Just like others do on here for Gilbert or Reid - you know the angle they'll be pushing so you just largely ignore it.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Can someone make head or tail of this please? OSB once again to the rescue?
League one players average is 2k a week. Roughly 100k a year or 8k a month.
The job retention scheme cap is 2500/month. That's well short if you are on 8k a month?
So unless our players are on less than 600 quid a week they are losing big time.
Am I missing something?

That's why the big clubs are furloughing non-playing staff but not players. Wouldn't cover the time it takes to lace up their boots. And claiming £2.5k a month on a salary of half a million a month would look churlish and a PR disaster. Not that furloughing non-playing staff isn't. If you can pay the multi-million pound monthly salaries of the footballers you can afford the few hundred grand a month of other staff.
 

steve cooper

Well-Known Member
Can someone make head or tail of this please? OSB once again to the rescue?
League one players average is 2k a week. Roughly 100k a year or 8k a month.
The job retention scheme cap is 2500/month. That's well short if you are on 8k a month?
So unless our players are on less than 600 quid a week they are losing big time.
Am I missing something?
My understanding of the statement was that no player would lose out, I thought that meant that players would receive 80% of their pay up to £2500 and the difference would be covered by the club. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought this is what was meant.
 

Nick

Administrator
Read the first line. I mention all those things and the difference in reporting.

But you can't tell me that the standard response on here to any Wasps story wouldn't be to look at it in the most negative way possible. Like certain papers do with Sterling and other footballers or Kate/Meghan? And by so doing when deserved criticism (such as the response to this crisis) is put forward people will dismiss it because they know what the take on it will be. Just like others do on here for Gilbert or Reid - you know the angle they'll be pushing so you just largely ignore it.
We are city fans, of course we will be bias to ccfc.

Bit different to the press doing it and actively working against ccfc.
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
My understanding of the statement was that no player would lose out, I thought that meant that players would receive 80% of their pay up to £2500 and the difference would be covered by the club. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought this is what was meant.

Yeah not clear is it becuase the scheme has a cap.
 

steve cooper

Well-Known Member
Yeah not clear is it becuase the scheme has a cap.
Employee earns £2000 per week, government pays 80% (£1600) company pays either £0 or can make up to normal salary by paying employee a further £400 pw. Employee earns £5000 per week government pays £2500 and company can pay either £0 or can make up to normal salary by paying a further £2500. I think the maximum of government payment of £2500 applies whatever the salary,
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
To be fair the CT coverage of it does look very biased towards Wasps.

But if we're honest how many if the shoe had been on the other foot and it'd been Wasps taking advantage of the furlough scheme and City laying off people it'd be "Wasps cunts taking more state aid and taxpayer money to prop themselves up. Bet they don't even need to and Eastwood is just taking the cash. Bastards" and with Cov it'd be "it's regrettable they have to lay people off it but understandable as there's no money coming in"

What are you on about?
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Employee earns £2000 per week, government pays 80% (£1600) company pays either £0 or can make up to normal salary by paying employee a further £400 pw. Employee earns £5000 per week government pays £2500 and company can pay either £0 or can make up to normal salary by paying a further £2500. I think the maximum of government payment of £2500 applies whatever the salary,
It’s per month not week
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
My point is 2500 per month set against a players average salary of 8000 per month leaves the club making up a lot of gap?
If the club makes up the other 5,500 then plaudits to them. But I question if this is so?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top