Rangers Management, Players Agree 50% Wage Deferrals

[craig 5,199]

5 hours ago, gaspard said:

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.

I think the deferral is being read by many as being a wage "reduction".  The more savvy of us, i.e. Gersnetters realise that isn't the case - they will still get full wages.  However, before we give the players a hard time about it, because we ALL can be prone to jumping to conclusions.... we simply don't know whether they were even asked to take wage cuts or whether they were asked by the club to take deferrals.

 

Until and unless we have that information we don't know what they were asked to do.  Could they have offered a wage reduction voluntarily ?  Sure they could.  How many of us would do that, particularly voluntarily and without being asked, ourselves ?  It doesn't really matter the wealth they have (or not in some cases) but if they aren't asked they aren't at liberty to offer it up.  And, if they haven't been asked to take a wage reduction we have no idea if they would have accepted or not.

[gaspard 562]

29 minutes ago, craig said:

I think the deferral is being read by many as being a wage "reduction".  The more savvy of us, i.e. Gersnetters realise that isn't the case - they will still get full wages.  However, before we give the players a hard time about it, because we ALL can be prone to jumping to conclusions.... we simply don't know whether they were even asked to take wage cuts or whether they were asked by the club to take deferrals.

 

Until and unless we have that information we don't know what they were asked to do.  Could they have offered a wage reduction voluntarily ?  Sure they could.  How many of us would do that, particularly voluntarily and without being asked, ourselves ?  It doesn't really matter the wealth they have (or not in some cases) but if they aren't asked they aren't at liberty to offer it up.  And, if they haven't been asked to take a wage reduction we have no idea if they would have accepted or not.

If you read my post carefully I wasn't giving the players a hard time, neither was I speculating as to what they may or may not have been proposed. My point was that, as you correctly say, a deferral is not wage cut and will eventually have to be reimbursed. Good on them if it helps the club at this juncture but I won't be getting too excited about their grand gesture. 

[craig 5,199]

28 minutes ago, gaspard said:

If you read my post carefully I wasn't giving the players a hard time, neither was I speculating as to what they may or may not have been proposed. My point was that, as you correctly say, a deferral is not wage cut and will eventually have to be reimbursed. Good on them if it helps the club at this juncture but I won't be getting too excited about their grand gesture. 

Sorry bud, I wasn’t getting at you, despite the quote.  Was more the observation that people think it’s an altruistic gesture.  I agree with you on that part, was just quoting you to get the point across that many will see “deferral” as “reduction”.

[Bluedell 5,627]

1 hour ago, Stevie - 4lads Blog said:

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? 

A lot of people outside of the public sector are having to take pay reductions, but players in general seem to believe that they are above doing that.

 

Why should they? To help fund the shortfall in income that the club are suffering. Some of that shortfall is money that it's extremely unlikely the club will ever see. 

 

What have bankers got to do with Rangers? There's at least one bank where the CEO is waiving his salary and senior managers are taking a 25% pay cut, but it's not relevant to us. 

 

The players are lucky that they are in the position that it's extremely unlikely that they will be made redundant as they are financial assets and can be sold by the club and therefore they are in a position of power, hence their refusal to take cuts. The wage deferral is certainly better than nothing but the club will be missing income when it comes to them being reimbursed in July, which will presumably be funded out of next year's season ticket cash rather than the cash being used for next season.

 

It's good that the club are reducing costs by placing staff on furlough and it's reasonably good that the players are deferring part of their salaries, which does help the supporters if it does delay the renewals as you suggested.

 

However, ultimately it's at no real cost to themselves so any praise due is limited.

[Stevie - 4lads Blog 922]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

A lot of people outside of the public sector are having to take pay reductions, but players in general seem to believe that they are above doing that.

 

Why should they? To help fund the shortfall in income that the club are suffering. Some of that shortfall is money that it's extremely unlikely the club will ever see. 

 

What have bankers got to do with Rangers? There's at least one bank where the CEO is waiving his salary and senior managers are taking a 25% pay cut, but it's not relevant to us. 

 

The players are lucky that they are in the position that it's extremely unlikely that they will be made redundant as they are financial assets and can be sold by the club and therefore they are in a position of power, hence their refusal to take cuts. The wage deferral is certainly better than nothing but the club will be missing income when it comes to them being reimbursed in July, which will presumably be funded out of next year's season ticket cash rather than the cash being used for next season.

 

It's good that the club are reducing costs by placing staff on furlough and it's reasonably good that the players are deferring part of their salaries, which does help the supporters if it does delay the renewals as you suggested.

 

However, ultimately it's at no real cost to themselves so any praise due is limited.

So because they earn more they should be punished by cuts? They have contracts 
 

last week you wanted staff furloughed 

 

You know I would love players to cut wages but ultimately they owe us nothing, they may be in a good position but sacrifice for that and would argue they work hard for it all their lives 

 

Easy to criticise 

 

Also we don’t know if this is first part of any strategy the club have, who is to say players won’t wave it in three months 

 

Instead of instantly thinking negative I’m inclined to offer it as a positive even though I understand your points

 

Sometimes life isn’t as easy as that though, would cuts affect contracts, sale values etc? 
 

 

 

 

[MacK1950 2,378]

It is an unforgivable situation right now thanks to that Chinese lot and many cuts and sacrifices have to be made. 

Therefore although footballers pay ranges from the extremes of outrageous, at the very top,to the modest at the bottom they are all as a result of negotiated contracts/agreements and have to be honoured,so any help,in whatever way,from the higher end earners should be recognised.

With government aid available in the furlough system it is right to be used but in saying that clubs with multi billionaire owners should be able to see this through,as many of these own their club as a hobby and should not be assisted for having a hobby.

 

Anyway having followed our team since the early sixties and managing to get a season ticket,for the first time,at the start of the "journey"I have no reason to give it up although it can be a struggle to pay it.

[rbr 1,256]

I don’t get the “ they have contracts “ point , the vast majority of people on furlough have contracts , as a club that has been where we have been due to poor management and also as a club that runs currently at a loss , the health if the club should be paramount .

 

Asking millionaires to take a cut fir a few months is not in my book a major ask , where will this leave us in our journey if the rebuilding of the squad has to be scaled back even for 6 months .

 

I could be totally wrong in this but I just don’t get it .

[Bluedell 5,627]

14 hours ago, Stevie - 4lads Blog said:

So because they earn more they should be punished by cuts? They have contracts 
 

last week you wanted staff furloughed 

 

You know I would love players to cut wages but ultimately they owe us nothing, they may be in a good position but sacrifice for that and would argue they work hard for it all their lives 

 

Easy to criticise 

 

I haven't said that because they earn more they should be taking cuts and I don't believe I've criticised them.

 

As rbr points out, we've (a generic 'we') all got contracts and have taken pay cuts and reduced hours, irrespective of salary. I'm not sure I see the relevance of them having a contract or the amount that they are paid as to why they can't do it when millions around the country are doing it. 

 

Yes, I wanted staff furloughed and the club have seen the economic sense behind that, agreed with my logic and taken action. Last week you didn't want staff furloughed but you still haven't explained why, as the staff are no worse off and the club are better off.

 

If they are taking the attitude of owing us nothing then it's understandable, but it's certainly not commendable.

 

As I've said, they have done a reasonably good thing, but their actions are underwhelming, unlike the many who are making real sacrifices to ensure that their employer has a future.

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[Stevie - 4lads Blog 922]

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

I haven't said that because they earn more they should be taking cuts and I don't believe I've criticised them.

 

As rbr points out, we've (a generic 'we') all got contracts and have taken pay cuts and reduced hours, irrespective of salary. I'm not sure I see the relevance of them having a contract or the amount that they are paid as to why they can't do it when millions around the country are doing it. 

 

Yes, I wanted staff furloughed and the club have seen the economic sense behind that, agreed with my logic and taken action. Last week you didn't want staff furloughed but you still haven't explained why, as the staff are no worse off and the club are better off.

 

If they are taking the attitude of owing us nothing then it's understandable, but it's certainly not commendable.

 

As I've said, they have done a reasonably good thing, but their actions are underwhelming, unlike the many who are making real sacrifices to ensure that their employer has a future.

The club have clarified cuts make changes to there T&Cs of their contracts, this is best and protects everyone 

 

I don’t see any relevance to players having to take cuts just because others are, end of the day they are unique in jobs & different to ours. As I said it would be great if they take cuts etc but turns out that it isn’t apparently as easy as that 

 

I didn’t want our staff losing out on furlough but given they are getting 100% (which was unknown in my stance last week) then I can deal with it even if I don’t like it. My reasoning last week was I didn’t want the club doing that to staff, people losing out. My reasoning now is I’d obviously love the club to be self sustaining but obviously a fantasy in current times.  You came over as if you didn’t care about their 20% which was why I didn’t want it. Just my own view and no issues with what you are saying tbf whether I agree or not