Rangers Management, Players Agree 50% Wage Deferrals

[Bluedell 5,627]

11 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

50% wage deferrals, so they are not dropping a single penny in wages, they will make it up at a later date.
 

Yes it helps cash flow in the short term, but I really don’t see this as much of a sacrifice from very rich and well paid  people. 
 

A 30% wage cut until this is over and full time training can restart would have been much better for our club in the bigger picture as it would actually reduce our biggest overhead significantly at a time where we have nothing coming in.  All the deferral does is add to our debt. 

Good to see we will be using the furlough system as well and topping it up to full pay for our support staff throughout the club. We are not in a position like a lot of the clubs elsewhere that can afford not to use this.

These are my feelings as well.

 

It's great if the club are able to defer season ticket renewals (shows that they read Gersnet ) and that they're using the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

 

However I'm underwhelmed at the wage deferral. As TB says, it's hardly a sacrifice and they're not really worse off.

 

If I was asked to take a 50% wage deferral for 3 months or a 10% wage cut for 3 months, I'd jump at the deferral.

[gaspard 562]

33 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

These are my feelings as well.

 

It's great if the club are able to defer season ticket renewals (shows that they read Gersnet ) and that they're using the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

 

However I'm underwhelmed at the wage deferral. As TB says, it's hardly a sacrifice and they're not really worse off.

 

If I was asked to take a 50% wage deferral for 3 months or a 10% wage cut for 3 months, I'd jump at the deferral.

I concur,  whilst any measure that helps the club through this period is welcome,  I get the impression that the deferral has been received by some as some sort of selfless altruistic gesture by the high earners, as you say it is nothing like that.

I wouldn't presume to suggest what anyone should do regarding their financial affairs,  but I do try to look at things realistically and a wage deferral for those that can afford to survive few months sitting on their bums watching netflix warrants no round of applause from me, it's what I would expect in these extraordinary times, nothing more.

[MacK1950 2,378]

Another question not brought is "would any player who took a wage drop automatically return to what their contract agreement?"

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

42 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

Another question not brought is "would any player who took a wage drop automatically return to what their contract agreement?"

I'd guess there would be a clause or amendment to the contract to ensure that.

[Tannochsidebear 2,420]

1 hour ago, MacK1950 said:

Another question not brought is "would any player who took a wage drop automatically return to what their contract agreement?"

If they had agreed a wage cut, it would/should only be for such times as they are not able to work. As soon as they are back in full group training/playing they would go back to their full contract value.

 

The players should be taking a hefty wage CUT for the duration of the period where they are unable to go to their work. A deferment is nowhere near good enough IMO. If it turned out that the club was not badly affected financially by this lockdown, i.e. we continue with the 19-20 season and fulfil our fixtures, then the players would get their wage cut back. But if the club is harmed financially by this lockdown and fixtures are not fulfilled, leading to reduced income streams, then the players should not be paid their full contract value, otherwise the club takes the full hit (when we know we cant afford it) and the players have contributed nothing to our predicament. I for one would not be very forgiving of them.

[Gonzo79 15,294]

Time will tell regarding the financial hit.  

 

Someone on £10k a week might have regular outgoings of £6k per week*, so taking an immediate 50% wage hike would certainly have a severe personal impact.

 

*Simplistic, I know.

[Bluedell 5,627]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

Time will tell regarding the financial hit.  

 

Someone on £10k a week might have regular outgoings of £6k per week*, so taking an immediate 50% wage hike would certainly have a severe personal impact.

 

*Simplistic, I know.

That could well be true, but in your example, they're just £1,000 out as they're getting £5K a week, so they could finance the £1,000 out of savings or take a short-term loan knowing that they are getting an additional £65,000 in July, which will top up their savings or pay off their loan.

 

Many people I know are taking a permanent hit of between 20%-40% over the next 3 months (at least) and they'll never get it back.

 

The players may be very proud of themselves, but I can't get too excited about it.

[Stevie - 4lads Blog 922]

56 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

That could well be true, but in your example, they're just £1,000 out as they're getting £5K a week, so they could finance the £1,000 out of savings or take a short-term loan knowing that they are getting an additional £65,000 in July, which will top up their savings or pay off their loan.

 

Many people I know are taking a permanent hit of between 20%-40% over the next 3 months (at least) and they'll never get it back.

 

The players may be very proud of themselves, but I can't get too excited about it.

You wanted this to happen last week mate

 

I get folk saying about taking cuts etc but why should they? Just because they earn more? What about the bankers etc

 

Players offered this and it secures all jobs and wages at 100% 

 

I didn’t want the furlough scheme being used tbf but I think this is decent compromise? 

[craig 5,199]

17 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

50% wage deferrals, so they are not dropping a single penny in wages, they will make it up at a later date.
 

Yes it helps cash flow in the short term, but I really don’t see this as much of a sacrifice from very rich and well paid  people. 
 

A 30% wage cut until this is over and full time training can restart would have been much better for our club in the bigger picture as it would actually reduce our biggest overhead significantly at a time where we have nothing coming in.  All the deferral does is add to our debt. 

Good to see we will be using the furlough system as well and topping it up to full pay for our support staff throughout the club. We are not in a position like a lot of the clubs elsewhere that can afford not to use this.

Not necessarily - I have seen it in a number of places that we don't actually make much, if any, profit from matchdays.  That being the case then we aren't adding to the debt - unless commercial partners also want their sponsorships to be pro-rated, which we just don't know about right now.

[Frankie 8,570]

I'd like to think players are rich enough to accept a short-term pay cut rather than a deferral but if my work asked me to do same I'd be less than happy so why should I expect the players to be happy with a pay cut?

 

At the end of the day, money is money and contracts are contracts.  I wish I was earning as much as our players but then again, I'm glad I'm not taxed as much as them also.

 

It's also well worth noting the deferral may well just be step one of moving towards a cut if the pandemic continues further into the year.