Coronavirus and pro sport

TheBigBean

It would certainly be surprising if a player whose current contract expires in June who has little prospects of getting a new one, agreed to take a pay cut.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Be crazy to do it as something consistent between clubs. Why would a Chelsea or Manchester City player accept a pay cut?

Fair play rules.
No income, no spending. I imagine that includes wages as well as transfers. Then there’s the financial viability of the club. I will be most surprised if no clubs go under with a 3 month shutdown.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Be crazy to do it as something consistent between clubs. Why would a Chelsea or Manchester City player accept a pay cut?

Fair play rules.
No income, no spending. I imagine that includes wages as well as transfers. Then there’s the financial viability of the club. I will be most surprised if no clubs go under with a 3 month shutdown.

If it's because of a stated desire to abide by FFP rules, Manchester City players definitely shouldn't agree to a cut.

TheBigBean

Financial fair play rules have been suspended.

dish_dash

RichN95. said:

But the the media, owned by billionaire tax dodgers such as Viscount Rothmere, Richard Desmond and the Barclay brothers have successfully persuaded you that source of the country's ills is some working class kids made good and not them.

Minor correction here. Richard Desmond sold his all his papers including the Express and Start in 2018 to Reach Plc (which also owns the Mirror). Reach are busy furloughing journalists at the moment...

RichN95.

dish_dash said:

RichN95. said:

But the the media, owned by billionaire tax dodgers such as Viscount Rothmere, Richard Desmond and the Barclay brothers have successfully persuaded you that source of the country's ills is some working class kids made good and not them.

Minor correction here. Richard Desmond sold his all his papers including the Express and Start in 2018 to Reach Plc (which also owns the Mirror). Reach are busy furloughing journalists at the moment...

Fair enough. Has the editorial direction changed or do they still think Jean-Claude Junker is holding Madeline McCann hostage/.

dish_dash

RichN95. said:

dish_dash said:

RichN95. said:

But the the media, owned by billionaire tax dodgers such as Viscount Rothmere, Richard Desmond and the Barclay brothers have successfully persuaded you that source of the country's ills is some working class kids made good and not them.

Minor correction here. Richard Desmond sold his all his papers including the Express and Start in 2018 to Reach Plc (which also owns the Mirror). Reach are busy furloughing journalists at the moment...

Fair enough. Has the editorial direction changed or do they still think Jean-Claude Junker is holding Madeline McCann hostage/.

I'm not a regular reader, but I get the sense it has moderated somewhat. https://stopfundinghate.info/2018/07/27/stop-funding-hate-changes-its-stance-on-the-daily-express/

Reach just cares about the bottom line - so varying degrees of editorial/journo teams are being 'shared' across Mirror, Express, and Star...

blazing_saddles

The Open is cancelled altogether while the 3 US majors have been re-scheduled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/52135613

gsk82

blazing_saddles said:

The Open is cancelled altogether while the 3 US majors have been re-scheduled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/52135613

This is laughable. Who cares about the USPGA or to a lesser extent the US Open?

RichN95.

gsk82 said:

blazing_saddles said:

The Open is cancelled altogether while the 3 US majors have been re-scheduled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/52135613

This is laughable. Who cares about the USPGA or to a lesser extent the US Open?

Americans. And the golf industry, which is centred in America. Also the US Open is 40 years older than the Masters.
The Open is sort of like the Paris-Roubaix of golf. Played on links courses rather than the courses usually held. It's a bit of an anachronism.

RichN95.

I see that van der Poel is considering petitioning the Tour to give his team a wildcard now that his first choice of the Olympics MTB isn't available. He also says that the Olympics will be his first choice next year.

That's some major league arrogance.

bobmcstuff

UFC: Dana White says fights to go ahead on private island - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/mixed-martial-arts/52199255

ddraver

RichN95. said:

That's some major league arrogance.

In what way?

bobmcstuff said:

UFC: Dana White says fights to go ahead on private island - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/mixed-martial-arts/52199255

200 years ago Dana White would have made an excellent Pirate.... (the YaaarFC..?)

RichN95.

ddraver said:

RichN95. said:

That's some major league arrogance.

In what way?

Hi Tour de France, Matt here. I didn't want to bother with you this year, but my other plans have fallen through. Would you be so kind as to push one of those pokey little French teams aside so I can come in? No, it doesn't matter which one - the one with the double GT winner, the one with the double monument winner or the one with the former KOM. Best do it now because I won't be interested next year. I deserve this because my grandad was famous in the 60s.


In summary he seems to think that the Tour will just brush a team aside to accommodate him. The Tour managed just fine last year without Froome and Dumoulin. They'll manage without him.

ddraver

If I could work out how to insert polls in this new forum I'd make one along the lines of;

Who would you rather see in this year's tour?

A) Mathieu van der poel

'B) Cofidis

RichN95.

ddraver said:

If I could work out how to insert polls in this new forum I'd make one along the lines of;

Who would you rather see in this year's tour?

A) Mathieu van der poel

'B) Cofidis

It doesn't matter. Cofidis (who are WT team these days) wanted to be there, MVDP didn't. And he's not a A-list sprinter or an A-list GC rider so he won't add that much.

The Tour have turned down riders with much better palmares than him.

ddraver

I still reckon A) would win...

(i had no idea the tour was a 16 year old Mean Girl)

RichN95.

ddraver said:

I still reckon A) would win...

(i had no idea the tour was a 16 year old Mean Girl)

The Tour have picked their wild card teams. Don't you think that MVDP who has only only won two WT races at the age of 25, asking the Tour to dump one of them in favour of him is even a little bit arrogant?

blazing_saddles

Have to say that Mathieu van der Poel does come across a lot like Wayne Rooney recently.
Same sort of this is so unfair, attitude.

blazing_saddles

MS the latest team to significantly (possibly as high as 70%) cut riders salaries.

http://cycling.today/mitchelton-scott-riders-accept-salaries-cuts-to-keep-team-afloat/?fbclid=IwAR0PUNqDEX7gx4kPX4zOHsH4-2r4ej9KVJFwFpzEW7p66uB5CXoTsvWbxno

iainf72

Not cycling team, but an "interesting" move from EF

https://www.ft.com/content/bac8f316-5d37-4ea1-a85d-429cc16d0f38

dish_dash

ddraver said:

If I could work out how to insert polls in this new forum I'd make one along the lines of;

Who would you rather see in this year's tour?

A) Mathieu van der poel

'B) Cofidis

MvdP isn't a key ASO sponsor though is he? Cofidis is... he may attract some eyeballs but he's not putting cash into the kitty, and that's critical esp now!

kingstongraham

Another perspective on the premiership footballers: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/08/footballers-should-not-be-forced-to-take-pay-cuts-stijn-francis-agent-alderweireld-mertens

"A “regular” worker is able to leave his or her employer in exchange for limited compensation or a notice period. Also the employer can terminate the relationship with the worker at any time by respecting a period of notice or paying compensation. If clubs sign a player they take a risk by paying a transfer or signing-on fee and by paying substantial wages. In exchange for this risk, players cannot leave the club before the end of the contract except when all involved parties agree otherwise. Players also know that during the contractual term they can be sure the club will pay their salary."

"Clubs now asking to reduce player salaries undermine this principle of contractual stability. If clubs insist on a wage reduction, players should be put in the same situation as any regular worker. Clubs reducing their players’ wages should accept that the players can terminate their employment for free and these clubs should no longer be able to ask a transfer fee if the player would like to leave."

blazing_saddles

kingstongraham said:

Another perspective on the premiership footballers: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/08/footballers-should-not-be-forced-to-take-pay-cuts-stijn-francis-agent-alderweireld-mertens

"A “regular” worker is able to leave his or her employer in exchange for limited compensation or a notice period. Also the employer can terminate the relationship with the worker at any time by respecting a period of notice or paying compensation. If clubs sign a player they take a risk by paying a transfer or signing-on fee and by paying substantial wages. In exchange for this risk, players cannot leave the club before the end of the contract except when all involved parties agree otherwise. Players also know that during the contractual term they can be sure the club will pay their salary."

"Clubs now asking to reduce player salaries undermine this principle of contractual stability. If clubs insist on a wage reduction, players should be put in the same situation as any regular worker. Clubs reducing their players’ wages should accept that the players can terminate their employment for free and these clubs should no longer be able to ask a transfer fee if the player would like to leave."

The counter point to that argument being they aren't worth nearly as much as they were before coronavirus, according to Transfermarkt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52221463

An estimated £1.6bn has been wiped off the value of Premier League squads.
Many clubs could be threatened by insolvency and transfer plans come to a standstill because of the many uncertainties. With the coronavirus crisis likely to cause a sharp drop in revenue and therefore put a lot of team’s transfer plans on hold, the site believes there will be a knock-on effect with transfer fees.

Pross

I'm not sure that the players quite understand the point that is being made about their clubs furloughing or making redundant non-playing staff whilst they continue to be paid. I won't criticise what they are getting together to do, raising money for the NHS frontline, as that's a positive thing but it doesn't really address the issue of the impact on non-playing staff at their clubs.

RichN95.

Pross said:

I'm not sure that the players quite understand the point that is being made about their clubs furloughing or making redundant non-playing staff whilst they continue to be paid. I won't criticise what they are getting together to do, raising money for the NHS frontline, as that's a positive thing but it doesn't really address the issue of the impact on non-playing staff at their clubs.

Only four of the twenty teams have gone down the furlough route though. The rest are still paying

kingstongraham

Pross said:

I'm not sure that the players quite understand the point that is being made about their clubs furloughing or making redundant non-playing staff whilst they continue to be paid. I won't criticise what they are getting together to do, raising money for the NHS frontline, as that's a positive thing but it doesn't really address the issue of the impact on non-playing staff at their clubs.

I think it's only Tottenham who are cutting wages for anyone. If they can realistically justify that on the basis that Spurs are going to risk going out of business without those cuts, I'll be amazed.

Pross

RichN95. said:

Pross said:

I'm not sure that the players quite understand the point that is being made about their clubs furloughing or making redundant non-playing staff whilst they continue to be paid. I won't criticise what they are getting together to do, raising money for the NHS frontline, as that's a positive thing but it doesn't really address the issue of the impact on non-playing staff at their clubs.

Only four of the twenty teams have gone down the furlough route though. The rest are still paying

I think that includes Liverpool and Spurs though doesn't it and the campaign seems to be led by Henderson and Kane. As I say, I think what they are doing is a good thing but it doesn't appear to address the reason they were getting criticised for in the first place.

RichN95.

Pross said:

RichN95. said:

Pross said:

I'm not sure that the players quite understand the point that is being made about their clubs furloughing or making redundant non-playing staff whilst they continue to be paid. I won't criticise what they are getting together to do, raising money for the NHS frontline, as that's a positive thing but it doesn't really address the issue of the impact on non-playing staff at their clubs.

Only four of the twenty teams have gone down the furlough route though. The rest are still paying

I think that includes Liverpool and Spurs though doesn't it and the campaign seems to be led by Henderson and Kane. As I say, I think what they are doing is a good thing but it doesn't appear to address the reason they were getting criticised for in the first place.

Liverpool changed their mind. Spurs, Newcastle, Norwich and Bournemouth. The latter two are in the relegation zone so may take a double financial hit.

kingstongraham

RichN95. said:

Pross said:

RichN95. said:

Pross said:

I'm not sure that the players quite understand the point that is being made about their clubs furloughing or making redundant non-playing staff whilst they continue to be paid. I won't criticise what they are getting together to do, raising money for the NHS frontline, as that's a positive thing but it doesn't really address the issue of the impact on non-playing staff at their clubs.

Only four of the twenty teams have gone down the furlough route though. The rest are still paying

I think that includes Liverpool and Spurs though doesn't it and the campaign seems to be led by Henderson and Kane. As I say, I think what they are doing is a good thing but it doesn't appear to address the reason they were getting criticised for in the first place.

Liverpool changed their mind. Spurs, Newcastle, Norwich and Bournemouth. The latter two are in the relegation zone so may take a double financial hit.

Only Spurs are paying less than 100% to anyone. The others are taking the furlough money, but continuing to top it up.

Spurs are the bad guys here, not the players.