mark82
Super 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.
You never have to wait long
No bonuses will be paid while players aren't playing. The same applies when a player is injuredYeah 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.
Yep that’s what I think tooNo 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
Jesus Christ, it's like propaganda.
It does suggest that our players salaries aren’t huge doesn’t it?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.
We are in league one, they won't be (in Football terms)It does suggest that our players salaries aren’t huge doesn’t it?
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 are using the scheme?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"
Are they? I thought they'd just cut their employees wages? Are you saying they've cut their wages and put them on furlough anywayWasps are using the scheme?
I don't get your point.
Yes, they have put them on it for 3 months on 80%.Are they? I thought they'd just cut their employees wages? Are you saying they've cut their wages and put them on furlough anyway
It was reported that they'd cut their wages by 25%, didn't read the story mind youYes, they have put them on it for 3 months on 80%.
Yeah cut all players by 25% and staff on the government 80% for 3 months.It was reported that they'd cut their wages by 25%, didn't read the story mind you
Too rightWhat 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!?
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.
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!?
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.
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.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.
We are city fans, of course we will be bias to ccfc.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.
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.
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,Yeah not clear is it becuase the scheme has a cap.
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"
It’s per month not weekEmployee 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,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?