Where are those anal accountants?

[craig 5,199]

Well I'm willing to be convinced but why wouldn't I find saying "it's the law" a weak argument? To strengthen the argument you have to say why it's the law.

 

We've been calling the law an ass in other threads so what makes the fact something is law so compelling? Why don't we just accept certain songs are against the law?

 

"You mustn't sing the Famine song."

"Why?"

"Because it's the law."

"Oh, Ok then."

 

Substitute "people being jealous" for "people being offended" and you've got similar arguments.

 

Many laws have good reasoning behind them but no-one has yet explained this one much so far.

 

I'm not saying the law is wrong, it's just not yet very compelling.

 

Are you kidding me ?

 

Which part of it being a private contractual arrangement between employer and employee is not compelling ?

 

I am still to see your counter argument as to why this information SHOULD be disclosed, other than the fact that people could find out your salary. What is to say that it is YOUR employer that is wrong and not entities like Rangers ?

 

1. The law states certain requirements. It may not be as strong an argument as anyone would like but it is the only requirement set forth. As such, the club complies with the law.

2. It is quite likely that this type of debate has already previously arisen between interested parties including, but not limited to, bank lenders, institutional investors, creditors, accounting standard setters, the FSA, Companies House, HMRC. Funny that in all the years of having some of the sharpest minds in the country sit within these organisations that they have never seen the need to have that granular a detail required to be broadcast in the public domain. Indicative if you ask me.

3. An employment contract is a private arrangement between employer and employee. Therefore, should remain private. In fact, many many employment contracts are confidential to the extent that the employee could face disciplinary charges should they tell anyone what they are paid. Likewise, the employer could be open to legal dispute in the event that they disclose this information.

 

Whether you like the law or not, whether you think it is an ass or not, then it is there for a reason, for people to follow. You said yuorself in the STS thread Re UEFA that people "need rules to do what they are told to do" (paraphrasing, sorry). Is that not the law ?

 

The law doesnt require disclosure of individual salaries, so therefore we should abide by the law, correct ?

 

I am still not getting your "jealousy" argument. You are picking up on a very trivial element of what I am getting at. The jealousy argument was one very small piece, one which i wont respond to as it is hardly the thrust of what I am saying.

[craig 5,199]

I think it could benefit the fans knowing this information. I think we've shown on here that we'd like ALL the information on the finances so we know just what's going on.

 

We've been manipulated and mushroomed on many occasions and then told, "Well, you didn't complain at the time."

 

At least we now see the total wage bill and transfer fees and we do complain at the time.

 

How would it benefit the fans ? What can they do if armed with the information ?

 

Why should they know that Mendes gets 25k vs knowing we pay 30 mill a year in wages ? Just what benefit do they get in knowing who gets what and what benefit does the club get from that ?

[calscot 0]

Are you kidding me ?

 

Which part of it being a private contractual arrangement between employer and employee is not compelling ?

 

I am still to see your counter argument as to why this information SHOULD be disclosed, other than the fact that people could find out your salary. What is to say that it is YOUR employer that is wrong and not entities like Rangers ?

 

1. The law states certain requirements. It may not be as strong an argument as anyone would like but it is the only requirement set forth. As such, the club complies with the law.

2. It is quite likely that this type of debate has already previously arisen between interested parties including, but not limited to, bank lenders, institutional investors, creditors, accounting standard setters, the FSA, Companies House, HMRC. Funny that in all the years of having some of the sharpest minds in the country sit within these organisations that they have never seen the need to have that granular a detail required to be broadcast in the public domain. Indicative if you ask me.

3. An employment contract is a private arrangement between employer and employee. Therefore, should remain private. In fact, many many employment contracts are confidential to the extent that the employee could face disciplinary charges should they tell anyone what they are paid. Likewise, the employer could be open to legal dispute in the event that they disclose this information.

 

Whether you like the law or not, whether you think it is an ass or not, then it is there for a reason, for people to follow. You said yuorself in the STS thread Re UEFA that people "need rules to do what they are told to do" (paraphrasing, sorry). Is that not the law ?

 

The law doesnt require disclosure of individual salaries, so therefore we should abide by the law, correct ?

 

I am still not getting your "jealousy" argument. You are picking up on a very trivial element of what I am getting at. The jealousy argument was one very small piece, one which i wont respond to as it is hardly the thrust of what I am saying.

 

I get the fact it's the law, and get that we should definitely follow the law, I really thought I made that clear.

 

We do need rules and laws, I agree with that.

 

However, just repeating something is the law is not a moral argument in any sense. Not all laws are good, and you may not agree with them all, but it's good and interesting to understand them, and when you do, you are happier to obey them.

 

There are areas of business that are private and areas that are transparent, so what is wrong with me wanting to know compelling reasons as to what is which?

 

The more you keep telling me it's the law and that it should be follow without explaining the morality behind the law, the less compelling the law becomes.

 

Reasons behind a good law should be easier to explain. It seems to me that the law comes from the fact that richer people and people who pay them like their finances to be as private as possible so that they can bluff people about it one way or the other.

 

It even fits for the jealousy example higher paid players wages are bluffed to be lower so that lesser paid players don't get upset.

 

In the absence of any reasoning being forthcoming, I have to make up my own...

[Bluedell 5,612]

I don't think it matters how much you get paid. It should still be a basic right that individuals are allowed privacy as to how much they get paid.

 

Many business leaders have to forego that right (eg Martin Bain) due to the law but other than that, it generally shouldn't be known.

 

 

I remember the days when the accounts of companies listed what people get paid (over �£30K) in bands of �£5K.

 

In 1989, the Rangers accounts showed 8 people getting paid over �£100K for example, with the highest on �£200K-�£205K....although some of these may have been our basketball players.

[craig 5,199]

cal, despite all that you say in your last post you have not given ONE single compelling reason as to why the salaries of the players SHOULD be known by Joe public.

 

I have given at least two reasons why they shouldnt with 1 being the law and the other being the private natire of contracts.

 

Now give me one good reason why it should be publicly available information. If it is for nothing other than that you would like to know then the privacy of contracts will stump that every day of the week.

[calscot 0]

I never said it SHOULD be made public although that would be my preference. It's obviously information that is very interesting to the public and as such the media quote us their wages all the time - however, the accuracy is under question.

 

It would allow fans to better gauge whether players are offering value for money and to decide for themselves whether moving them on is beneficial.

 

I realise every wants a certain amount of privacy and it seems what is legal and what isn't is pretty arbitrary.

 

Those in the public eye, tend to sacrifice a large portion of their privacy in return for a lot of money and celebrity status.

 

I like the idea that BlueDell highlighted of employees earning over a certain amount being banded and published in the accounts. I think that would be very beneficial to shareholders and help prevent corruption.

 

The banks have shown that it is very risky to allow high paid employees salaries to be private and in that sense the legal argument becomes completely null and void if there is enough pressure for the law to be changed.

 

So the question is how much privacy should high earners have and should the law be changed?

 

From the debate in this thread, I really can't see why we should keep this law. When you consider the MP's expenses scandal, the collapse of the banks counterpointed by huge bonuses and pensions, and the bankruptcy/near bankruptcy of so many football clubs along with mass corruption in the game, I think a bit more transparency in the higher wages would be very compelling indeed.