Print Page | Close Window

Will we see players and coaches furlowed

Printed From: Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets
Category: RUGBY
Forum Name: SCARLETS GENERAL
Forum Description: Team News, Season Tickets, Next Match
URL: http://www.scarletfever.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45833
Printed Date: 04 July 2020 at 4:51pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Will we see players and coaches furlowed
Posted By: RR1972
Subject: Will we see players and coaches furlowed
Date Posted: 18 April 2020 at 10:46pm
Big rumors all regional players and coaches to be furlowed in the next week. What’s the verdict folks?



Replies:
Posted By: Rob o'r Bont
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 9:27am
Makes sense to me; surprised they haven't been furloughed already as they are not able to work and bring in money for their employers.

-------------
That's the Scarlets, its in their DNA.


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 9:37am
Under furlow your not supposed to work at all or use any business equipment such as work laptops , mobiles,  emails etc
 
I've commented on the best 23 thread about this, but it doesn't sit right with me that regions are furlowing staff and still continuing to sign players on big money contracts


Posted By: Rob o'r Bont
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 10:51am
As far as furloughed employees not being able to work is concerned, where do you draw the line.  Eating is part of a pro rugby players work yet we can all agree they must still eat.  Furloughed employees can also undertake training provided they don’t earn revenue for their employees. The way I see it, as long as they are not playing a game, they can be furloughed without any real problem. It’s all about applying common sense to the rules in an unusual situation.  

As for signing new players; I don’t think a new employee can be furloughed and besides, they won’t be able to join the region until lockdown and hence furloughing is over; so a non-problem really.



-------------
That's the Scarlets, its in their DNA.


Posted By: surfing-mtber
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 11:02am
Send the players to Pembs, they can pick all the spuds where the mitching school kids always used  find 'employment'!!


-------------
Joshua24:15


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 11:09am
Staff should be considered first and foremost. By that i mean the shop, marketing, finance people then the academy guys on low money. Players will have to suck it up and live like the rest of us for a while. 
Thats my view anyhow. 


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 11:24am
Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

Staff should be considered first and foremost. By that i mean the shop, marketing, finance people then the academy guys on low money. Players will have to suck it up and live like the rest of us for a while. 
Thats my view anyhow. 
 
100% agree


Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 11:26am
Players aren't immunized any more than anyone else from these impacts.

25% cuts for earners above 25k already in place, I'm not sure how they got to that number, probably should have been more.

Pretty ordinary commentary tbh.


Posted By: Rob o'r Bont
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 11:52am
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

Staff should be considered first and foremost. By that i mean the shop, marketing, finance people then the academy guys on low money. Players will have to suck it up and live like the rest of us for a while. 
Thats my view anyhow. 
 
100% agree
Not sure I understand the sentiments here. Have we moved on from a debate on whether the regions should be allowed to take advantage of the governments emergency package and furlough players in order to ease the burden on the business, to some sort of 'us and them' debate about how much hardship players should endure?  I'm lost.

-------------
That's the Scarlets, its in their DNA.


Posted By: stradeyscarlet72
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 11:57am
Wales online have published that halfpenny has re signed for us.  Outstanding!!  At last some real good news 


Posted By: Rob o'r Bont
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Players aren't immunized any more than anyone else from these impacts.

25% cuts for earners above 25k already in place, I'm not sure how they got to that number, probably should have been more.

Pretty ordinary commentary tbh.
Is that right Wil.  Also, I hadn't factored the £2,500 per month limit (mentioned on the other thread) into my thinking, which would be disastrous for high earners with short term but high mortgages to pay.  I think Patch mentioned this on another interview I saw.

The 25% cut suggests to me however that the regions won't be furloughing players if they are putting this measure in place. 

Edit: I had originally assumed that the region would pay the full wage and Government would contribute £2,500 per month.


-------------
That's the Scarlets, its in their DNA.


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

Staff should be considered first and foremost. By that i mean the shop, marketing, finance people then the academy guys on low money. Players will have to suck it up and live like the rest of us for a while. 
Thats my view anyhow. 
 
100% agree
Not sure I understand the sentiments here. Have we moved on from a debate on whether the regions should be allowed to take advantage of the governments emergency package and furlough players in order to ease the burden on the business, to some sort of 'us and them' debate about how much hardship players should endure?  I'm lost.
If the Scarlets keep the players on big money and furloughed or even let go all the behind the scenes staff would you feel that was justified. I’m saying that it wouldn’t be fair is all. 


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Players aren't immunized any more than anyone else from these impacts.

25% cuts for earners above 25k already in place, I'm not sure how they got to that number, probably should have been more.

Pretty ordinary commentary tbh.
 
I'm sorry but at the top end of the game  they are , the test players who have been earning over 6 figures for a long period of time should have more than enough wealth behind them to see them through this period
 
25% pay cut for a few months  when your earning a 6 figure salary is a lot easier to handle than say someone earning 18 k a year who has to take a similar size % drop
 
I know that not all our players are on that sort of salary and this is not aimed at them and it's not a criticism of the players just of the whole situation
 
 


Posted By: Rob o'r Bont
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 12:20pm
Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

Staff should be considered first and foremost. By that i mean the shop, marketing, finance people then the academy guys on low money. Players will have to suck it up and live like the rest of us for a while. 
Thats my view anyhow. 
 
100% agree
Not sure I understand the sentiments here. Have we moved on from a debate on whether the regions should be allowed to take advantage of the governments emergency package and furlough players in order to ease the burden on the business, to some sort of 'us and them' debate about how much hardship players should endure?  I'm lost.
If the Scarlets keep the players on big money and furloughed or even let go all the behind the scenes staff would you feel that was justified. I’m saying that it wouldn’t be fair is all. 
What is your understanding of being furloughed?  Mine is that the business pays the staff's wages whilst they are unable to work and the government will pay back to the region, 80% of that wage up to a maximum of £2,500 per month.  I will ask you where is the unfairness in that?

I had originally thought at the start of the thread that the region would pay the full wages of players and furloughing would mean the government pay 80%. Actually, as Wil has pointed out, the players are having their wages cut by 25%, which makes them pretty big losers compared to the staff, who presumably will be on their full pay still.




-------------
That's the Scarlets, its in their DNA.


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 12:31pm
25% pay cut when your still on over 100k and in some cases 200k a year isn’t that bad. Players should be able to live with that. Furlough could mean a 20% pay cut for staff, its really up to the Scarlets they will only recieve 80% of the ‘normal wage’ up to that £2500 cap for each furloughed employee. 

The staff could be paid 80%. If your working in the Scarlets shop on close to the minimum wage or your the club sous chef etc thats going to hurt. 


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

Staff should be considered first and foremost. By that i mean the shop, marketing, finance people then the academy guys on low money. Players will have to suck it up and live like the rest of us for a while. 
Thats my view anyhow. 
 
100% agree
Not sure I understand the sentiments here. Have we moved on from a debate on whether the regions should be allowed to take advantage of the governments emergency package and furlough players in order to ease the burden on the business, to some sort of 'us and them' debate about how much hardship players should endure?  I'm lost.
If the Scarlets keep the players on big money and furloughed or even let go all the behind the scenes staff would you feel that was justified. I’m saying that it wouldn’t be fair is all. 
What is your understanding of being furloughed?  Mine is that the business pays the staff's wages whilst they are unable to work and the government will pay back to the region, 80% of that wage up to a maximum of £2,500 per month.  I will ask you where is the unfairness in that?

I had originally thought at the start of the thread that the region would pay the full wages of players and furloughing would mean the government pay 80%. Actually, as Wil has pointed out, the players are having their wages cut by 25%, which makes them pretty big losers compared to the staff, who presumably will be on their full pay still.


Employees can do second jobs if it doesn’t conflict with the core employment contract though ( if they can find work - some employees will I suspect)

-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: Rob o'r Bont
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 12:49pm
Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

25% pay cut when your still on over 100k and in some cases 200k a year isn’t that bad. Players should be able to live with that. Furlough could mean a 20% pay cut for staff, its really up to the Scarlets they will only recieve 80% of the ‘normal wage’ up to that £2500 cap for each furloughed employee. 

The staff could be paid 80%. If your working in the Scarlets shop on close to the minimum wage or your the club sous chef etc thats going to hurt. 
.......or they could be paid 100%?    

Whichever way you look at it, the 25% pay cut means that the players are still being hit relatively harder than any other member of staff. 




-------------
That's the Scarlets, its in their DNA.


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 1:03pm
Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

25% pay cut when your still on over 100k and in some cases 200k a year isn’t that bad. Players should be able to live with that. Furlough could mean a 20% pay cut for staff, its really up to the Scarlets they will only recieve 80% of the ‘normal wage’ up to that £2500 cap for each furloughed employee. 

The staff could be paid 80%. If your working in the Scarlets shop on close to the minimum wage or your the club sous chef etc thats going to hurt. 
.......or they could be paid 100%?    

Whichever way you look at it, the 25% pay cut means that the players are still being hit relatively harder than any other member of staff. 



They could be. I do not agree with the relative point however. It’s not really relative when one persons earning just above minimum wage and the other earns 10x what they earn even with a pay cut, who still has more disposable income? 
Hopefully The pay cut to the players would probably cover those staff on the lower incomes wage in its entirety. 


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

25% pay cut when your still on over 100k and in some cases 200k a year isn’t that bad. Players should be able to live with that. Furlough could mean a 20% pay cut for staff, its really up to the Scarlets they will only recieve 80% of the ‘normal wage’ up to that £2500 cap for each furloughed employee. 

The staff could be paid 80%. If your working in the Scarlets shop on close to the minimum wage or your the club sous chef etc thats going to hurt. 
.......or they could be paid 100%?    

Whichever way you look at it, the 25% pay cut means that the players are still being hit relatively harder than any other member of staff. 


 
 
what you would rather have 75% of £250.000 k or 100% of £15,000
 
whichever you look at it the players with the bigger salary's are still miles better off than any other member of staff


Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 2:02pm
It's not a source of wonder nor amazement that one person earns more than another when doing a range of different jobs with different skills and rewards.

I'm unsure what it's got to do with Scarlets rugby though.

All I can see from this thread is simmering bitterness and resentment … and an unnamed source.

What's the value add in this dialogue?


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 2:18pm
Tbf I agree in that nearly all posts involving money / income and relative wealth tends to turn into moral outrage and finger pointing about “ them” cashing in whilst I still live in  a shoebox ( Monty Python credit there 😉) and live on sixpence! It never ends in unity and usually one or two fall out ... best avoided imo 

-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: Rob o'r Bont
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 2:33pm
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Originally posted by EJPT EJPT wrote:

25% pay cut when your still on over 100k and in some cases 200k a year isn’t that bad. Players should be able to live with that. Furlough could mean a 20% pay cut for staff, its really up to the Scarlets they will only recieve 80% of the ‘normal wage’ up to that £2500 cap for each furloughed employee. 

The staff could be paid 80%. If your working in the Scarlets shop on close to the minimum wage or your the club sous chef etc thats going to hurt. 
.......or they could be paid 100%?    

Whichever way you look at it, the 25% pay cut means that the players are still being hit relatively harder than any other member of staff. 


 
 
what you would rather have 75% of £250.000 k or 100% of £15,000
 
whichever you look at it the players with the bigger salary's are still miles better off than any other member of staff
Of course they are. Am I missing something here?



-------------
That's the Scarlets, its in their DNA.


Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 2:36pm
Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Tbf I agree in that nearly all posts involving money / income and relative wealth tends to turn into moral outrage and finger pointing about “ them” cashing in whilst I still live in  a shoebox ( Monty Python credit there 😉) and live on sixpence! It never ends in unity and usually one or two fall out ... best avoided imo 


It's like the Spanish inquisition.


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 2:51pm
Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

It's not a source of wonder nor amazement that one person earns more than another when doing a range of different jobs with different skills and rewards.

I'm unsure what it's got to do with Scarlets rugby though.

All I can see from this thread is simmering bitterness and resentment … and an unnamed source.

What's the value add in this dialogue?
 
 
I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't see any bitterness or resentment here , the unnamed source is wol and it is also all over social media
 
no one is abusing or  slating anyone  it's a civil debate on the topic
by all means let the mods move it to the general chat forum
 
 it's not a source of wonder nor amazement that people have different views on this matter, no offence is intended and apologises if any has been caused


Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

It's not a source of wonder nor amazement that one person earns more than another when doing a range of different jobs with different skills and rewards.

I'm unsure what it's got to do with Scarlets rugby though.

All I can see from this thread is simmering bitterness and resentment … and an unnamed source.

What's the value add in this dialogue?

 
 
I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't see any bitterness or resentment here , the unnamed source is wol and it is also all over social media
 
no one is abusing or  slating anyone  it's a civil debate on the topic
by all means let the mods move it to the general chat forum
 
 it's not a source of wonder nor amazement that people have different views on this matter, no offence is intended and apologises if any has been caused





Yes I saw he WoL article, but there's no source to back it up. In other words no quote from the Scarlets or the Professional rugby body etc.

I'm not in the least offended by the way. No need to feel the need to apologize. Just given my verdict as requested.
I can't say I like the comments such as 'they can live like the rest of us' (which you agreed with 100%) - just seems unnecessary, and flawed.

Example.
They aren't like the majority of rest of us are they?
They are fixed short term contracted employees, as are coaches.

If you guaranteed a pro rugby player a permanent contact at a set wage with a severance package if you wanted to release them, then you'd be comparing apples with apples when talking furlough.

Not many players have a job horizon of more than 12 months, and at the end of that, possibly zip.

Maybe some people need to 'live like they do' to recognize the fragility of that existence.

So when your forfeiting 25% of your earnings for the next 3 months ( and I would have subscribed to it being a little more by the way)
that 25% could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different player.
For example, how about those with no contract come end May?
Those either planning or having to retire?

In essence most people align their outgoings to their incomes. You imply that the higher earners sit on some golden war chest that they can fall back on when times get hard. Totally flawed thinking.




Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 4:29pm
As said I don't want to get into an us vs them  debate but once a player retires , they enter the same world we all have to live in terms of getting a job etc
 
But the ones at the high end of the game are going into that world having earnt a v good wage and with the benefit of a high profile which is helpful in many jobs
 
These players must have agents or financial advisors who can ensure they have something set aside for retirement, don't the players association help in this respect
 
I don't begrudge players getting paid what they can as you say it's a short career and  , they give huge sacrifices to make it at the top level and no where on this thread have I said otherwise.
 
It's also none of my concern if they choose to spend what they earn it's their money they can do with it what they like
 
 


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

It's not a source of wonder nor amazement that one person earns more than another when doing a range of different jobs with different skills and rewards.

I'm unsure what it's got to do with Scarlets rugby though.

All I can see from this thread is simmering bitterness and resentment … and an unnamed source.

What's the value add in this dialogue?

 
 
I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't see any bitterness or resentment here , the unnamed source is wol and it is also all over social media
 
no one is abusing or  slating anyone  it's a civil debate on the topic
by all means let the mods move it to the general chat forum
 
 it's not a source of wonder nor amazement that people have different views on this matter, no offence is intended and apologises if any has been caused





Yes I saw he WoL article, but there's no source to back it up. In other words no quote from the Scarlets or the Professional rugby body etc.

I'm not in the least offen.ded by the way. Just give my verdict as requested.
I can't say I like the comments like 'they can live like the rest of us' (which you agreed with 100%) seems unnecessary, and flawed.

Example.
They aren't like the majority of rest of us are they?
They are fixed short term contracted employees.

If you guaranteed a pro rugby player a permanent contact at a set wage with a severance package if you wanted to release them, then you'd be comparing apples with apples when talking furlough.

Not many players have a job horizon of more than 12 months, and at the end of that, possibly zip.

Maybe some people need to 'live like they do' to recognize the fragility of that existence.

So when your forfeiting 25% of your earnings for the next 3 months ( and I would have subscribed to it being a little more by the way)
that 25% could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different player.
For example, how about those with no contract come end May?
Those either planning or having to retire?

In essence most people align their outgoings to their incomes. You imply that the higher earners sit on some golden war chest that they can fall back on when times get hard. Totally flawed thinking.


You don’t agree with the sentiment thats fair enough, it was a bit knee jerk from meBut the club is more than just the players. Retiring at 30-35 and is a luxury very few can afford and is a bit different to working until 60-75. I don't feel sorry for the players giving up some /a reasonable amount of their wages whilst not playing (with the exception of those academy players). Plenty of clubs have done this already and generally its been welcomed by the supporters. 

I’m not on 250-400k so I don’t know what its like, maybe if i was i’d have more empathy Wink

I do feel like it would be a stab in the back to those people who work for the club in those lower paid roles. I’m not saying its happening, just if it does happen along with the alleged announcement.


Posted By: John
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 6:11pm
It's the players at the beginning and end of their careers that this will hit the hardest.  Will will be able to answer this but is it possible for a player coming back from injury to have the same level of physio sessions and assistance as before. If not, it is going to be very hard for say Foxy to get back. And for someone like AWJ, just the lack of intense training may bring his career to an end. Meanwhile, those coming out of U20s are going to find it difficult to get that first contract. No money means fewer contracts for unproven players. I understand what Will is saying about the level of outgoings matching the salary but for an established regional player in the middle 80% of their career they will survive, return to their previous level of play and salary and at the end of their career be negligibly worse off.


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 6:17pm
I’d like to put some context on retiring at 35, or thereabouts.

Few players build up sufficient wealth to be able not to work for the rest of their life.

Most struggle to have a mortgage-free property with the rest of their life in order, post-playing.

Few are well prepared for life after playing without a significant pay cut.

RPA and WRPA messages are consistent on this and continue to make strides in the right direction.

Many of our posters will have closer knowledge on some individual situations that can either reinforce these general observations or fly in their face.

Pain is being shared everywhere and few are exempt.

Tough times undeniably and hope the mechanics of the support schemes to individuals and businesses do deliver.


-------------
Any offence taken on board is only a literate/cy consequence. Every attempt at humour is just that. No personal insult intended. Standards lowered for trolls.


Posted By: John
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 6:24pm
Quite so. There will be very few umcapped Welsh players for the regions on more than 100 k. They will have to work for decades after the end of their rugby careers. 


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 6:30pm
try being self employed,5 months of rain and then this virus strikes,i won't get anything until june at the earliest and yes I could go to work because I work on my own but you can't get the materials to do the work.

-------------
30th june 1986- 30th june 2011.25 years roofing,i wouldn't call that dodgy.


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 6:33pm
Originally posted by John John wrote:

Quite so. There will be very few umcapped Welsh players for the regions on more than 100 k. They will have to work for decades after the end of their rugby careers. 
I think you will find that the majority of people have to work for decades,i left school and started working at 16 (14 if you include my Saturday and evening jobs) and I've got to work till i'm 67.


-------------
30th june 1986- 30th june 2011.25 years roofing,i wouldn't call that dodgy.


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 6:36pm
Originally posted by ladram ladram wrote:

try being self employed,5 months of rain and then this virus strikes,i won't get anything until june at the earliest and yes I could go to work because I work on my own but you can't get the materials to do the work.
i agree with ladram here  with due respect 99per cent of the population of the uk don’t get to retire at 35. Anyhow ive made my position clear and don’t want to comment further. Have a good evening folks


Posted By: Wil Chips
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 7:36pm
'Retire' means retire from rugby by the way, sorry I thought that was obvious.

I've not heard of a rugby player who's been able to retire in the context of never having to work again when his rugby career ends.


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

'Retire' means retire from rugby by the way, sorry I thought that was obvious.

I've not heard of a rugby player who's been able to retire in the context of never having to work again when his rugby career ends.
In times gone by, my first job include writing the rules for special pension schemes for professional sportsmen.

In the mid 70s, it was possible for pro sports folk to have large contributions put into pension plans with a special retirement age of 35. These contributions were tax deductible and had to be arranged with the club. 

Let’s say the sportsman was prepared to live on half his earnings and have the other half put into the pension. If they started early enough and had a decent career, they could retire on a very nice income. It was possible then, with higher (double digit) interest rates and annuity rates.

This all stopped in 2006.


-------------
Any offence taken on board is only a literate/cy consequence. Every attempt at humour is just that. No personal insult intended. Standards lowered for trolls.


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 20 April 2020 at 7:59pm
The likes of dan carter and willkinson will surely never  have To work again. Neither should the likes of foxy awj and halfpenny once they eventually call it quits? These guys must have eArnt into the millions over the course of their careers (pre tax i mean) don’t they have people investing it for them into say a property portfilio?Of course the regional level players will but anything over £50k per annum is big money in our area. As i said i have no issues with any one earning what they can.


Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 21 April 2020 at 8:27am
Originally posted by Rob o'r Bont Rob o'r Bont wrote:

Not sure I understand the sentiments here. Have we moved on from a debate on whether the regions should be allowed to take advantage of the governments emergency package and furlough players in order to ease the burden on the business, to some sort of 'us and them' debate about how much hardship players should endure?  I'm lost.


I'm with you here Rob, not sure what debate we're having.


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 21 April 2020 at 11:14am
A few well thumbed phrases come to mind on all this :

- The politics of envy
- Greed is good 
- Ignorance is a bliss
- A little knowledge is a dangerous thing 
- Tall Poppy syndrome 
- Sorry , I haven’t  a clue 
- Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn

Why not try to  mix and match folks to sum up your feelings! 😂 

For me it’s the last one . 😂

Ps - I was born in a shoebox!


-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: crj89
Date Posted: 21 April 2020 at 1:56pm
The top 5% of players will never have to worry about money post rugby career, I’m sure we can all agree on that, players like Biggar, Piatau, Itoje, Farrell are on 600k+ a year without sponsorship, appearances etc. It would take most of us 20 odd years to achieve that.

I dont think it’s right to furlough rugby players as it’s treating them all equal, I think it would be on a player by player basis unfortunately. 

Its the players who are at the bottom end of the scale that will pay the price, players who are on the verge of a pro/development contract will be furloughed and then released, as I believe only the best will be kept on. 

Think we’ve seen that already with local companies, the people who have been kept on are the highest earners and the people who have been furloughed are the lowest earners regardless of the cost to the company. Big earners have more say/influence and more to lose unfortunately.






Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 21 April 2020 at 3:19pm
I don't think there's any point in looking at this (if we're discussing rugby) from the view of what other companies and industries are doing as they'll furlough staff based on their needs, it may be high earners or low earners depending on who's needed.

In terms of a rugby club regardless of the role of the employee the purpose of their employment is ultimately to contribute towards rugby results so any furlough would theoretically be based on what's best for ensuring supporters have team to follow in a few months and that those team are successful.

Ignoring any moral argument based on wages I don't think there's any question at all that if rugby clubs don't either use the furlough scheme or have support from elsewhere (unions, World Rugby etc.) then their employees are almost certainly going to have to be made redundant. The scheme is there to prevent this so rugby clubs are entitled to use it.

I'm not really sure what the debate is here? Rugby clubs are companies, as far as I can see they're fully entitled to use the scheme, so yeah they'll probably use it.



Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 21 April 2020 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

I don't think there's any point in looking at this (if we're discussing rugby) from the view of what other companies and industries are doing as they'll furlough staff based on their needs, it may be high earners or low earners depending on who's needed.

In terms of a rugby club regardless of the role of the employee the purpose of their employment is ultimately to contribute towards rugby results so any furlough would theoretically be based on what's best for ensuring supporters have team to follow in a few months and that those team are successful.

Ignoring any moral argument based on wages I don't think there's any question at all that if rugby clubs don't either use the furlough scheme or have support from elsewhere (unions, World Rugby etc.) then their employees are almost certainly going to have to be made redundant. The scheme is there to prevent this so rugby clubs are entitled to use it.

I'm not really sure what the debate is here? Rugby clubs are companies, as far as I can see they're fully entitled to use the scheme, so yeah they'll probably use it.

 
 
The debate was or rather was meant to be , is it right that businesses are using this to help pay some of the wages of some employees who are earning  six figure salaries
 
It was not meant to be an attack on any  player or to be jealous of anyone's wealth or to have an indepth debate how much players will have tucked away  at the end of their careers (that is their business and no one else's) which is how some posters appear to have taken it
 
Neither was it meant to generate any friction on here, I'm sure we all have far bigger things to worry about at the moment
 
If the mods want to move /lock the thread that maybe the best thing
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: John
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 8:48am
How are we going to come out of this situation?  The government in London is apparently talking to sports governing bodies this week. However, the pro 14 is spread across ?6? different countries in terms of setting  the rules for emergence from lockdown. Not as simple as the premiere league or premiership. And then in our particular situation, bits of our ground are currently a field hospital, including the training facility which will be needed before the league recommences. 


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 10:17am
I suspect mergers may well be back on the agenda at this rate with the huge sums of money being lost . 

-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 11:06am
The CVC investment is key if that doesn't happen then mergers will


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 11:53am
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

The CVC investment is key if that doesn't happen then mergers will
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the WRU offices/ Zoom meetings, as they must be paralysed at present. There is also that proposed hotel complex they ha bought adjacent to the ground at big cost. Nightmare for the game. Ditto the regions as the cash cow is the WRU . 😕 Yes mergers may well be back on the agenda! 😟

-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: stradeyscarlet72
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 12:05pm
There’s been articles saying about an English break away of six clubs and forming an Anglo welsh league ?  Whatever the outcome , this is what we need 


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 12:09pm
Originally posted by stradeyscarlet72 stradeyscarlet72 wrote:

There’s been articles saying about an English break away of six clubs and forming an Anglo welsh league ?  Whatever the outcome , this is what we need 
That sort of thing will surely need the sanction of the WRU which they have not been keen to give especially if it loses power v the RFU 
🤔 


-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 12:16pm
there won't be any breakaway leagues , the English clubs don't need it and the  wru/rfu and then the IRB won't allow it
 
Listeneing to talk sport today, re football matches being played in empty stadiums
 
They still reckon there will be around 400 people there with groundstaff , tv camera people,  medics, ball boys etc etc
 
Everyone would need to be tested every week
 
Same would need to apply to rugby, are we really at a stage where we can do 400 tests a week on people just to get a sports match played?
 
I very much doubt it tbh
 


Posted By: Dai38
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 12:42pm
I think we will have to wait and see ho the new chairman will be before wondering if there will be a British League.

It appears that both candidates want a structured season, where internationals are played without interfering with club/regional rugby.  

It is a crucial state in rugby, if it does not change then I fear the game will disappear into also rans of sport. 




-------------
Be careful when you pick up the stick.........IT MAY BE THE WRONG END!!!!!!!!!!


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 12:56pm
what do we make to summer rugby? I'm not opposed to it but that means no games until well into next year can we survive until then?


Posted By: scarletnut
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 1:15pm
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

what do we make to summer rugby? I'm not opposed to it but that means no games until well into next year can we survive until then?
I’m all for it in the long run. Rugby union is too loyal to tradition and it’s holding it back.

-------------
I still wake up late at night and think of what might have been when tim stimpson hit that jammy penalty1


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 1:24pm
Ian McGeechan, a sensible commentator on the game I think most would agree, has called for a unified structured rugby season of 9 months playing with 3 x 1 month rest periods giving space for 10 Internationals & 30 club/regional games. 


Posted By: stradeyscarlet72
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 1:26pm
Rugby league went to summer a few yrs back and I regularly watch super league and I don’t think it’s harmed them - to the contrary they appear to be thriving 


Posted By: Mugwuffin
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 8:53pm
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

there won't be any breakaway leagues , the English clubs don't need it and the  wru/rfu and then the IRB won't allow it
 
Listeneing to talk sport today, re football matches being played in empty stadiums
 
They still reckon there will be around 400 people there with groundstaff , tv camera people,  medics, ball boys etc etc
 
Everyone would need to be tested every week
 
Same would need to apply to rugby, are we really at a stage where we can do 400 tests a week on people just to get a sports match played?
 
I very much doubt it tbh
 
400 people?! That seems a tad high seeing as stewards, ticket sellers, turnstile operators, bar staff etc won’t be there. 

I doubt the people involved in making and filming live TV shows are getting tested every week. Why would it be different for people broadcasting live sport? 

NHS capacity is probably more of a pressing issue than tests. Before a green light is given to pro rugby we would need to be sure that injuries, particularly serious ones, could be treated as quickly and as well as pre-lockdown. 


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 9:58pm
The guy being interviewed was the sporting director of a top flight bundesliga club. I think he knows what he is talking about tbh 👍👍


Posted By: crj89
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 11:14pm
On the topic of what should be done to save regional rugby, I think we should follow that of what they do for American Football, as I understand the games are played solely on Sundays, this would allow all fans, including grass roots players to attend the matches, not just a few games here and there, but every game.


Posted By: ScarletBear
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 11:20pm
Originally posted by crj89 crj89 wrote:

On the topic of what should be done to save regional rugby, I think we should follow that of what they do for American Football, as I understand the games are played solely on Sundays, this would allow all fans, including grass roots players to attend the matches, not just a few games here and there, but every game.

The NFL has Thursday night games, and started a few Friday as well as the regular (majority of games) Sunday and also Monday. The only reason they don't do Saturdays is because of College Football and their numbers would half. 


-------------
Scarlets before Wales


Posted By: EJPT
Date Posted: 27 April 2020 at 11:37pm
Yep Friday is High school, saturday college and sunday NFL. No chance of that with our league games need to be played at obscure times for tv purposes. Saturday is premier league football if you can put some other sport at times where people are not watching that then its easier to sell to the tv channels, thats why one game is at 5.30 and another at 7.45 if on saturday.  
I would love consistent saturday 1 pm kickoffs, but i doubt thats going to happen. 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net