Quantcast
Go fuck yourselves FSG - Page 178 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Neil G

Go fuck yourselves FSG

Recommended Posts

I don't think it's a good look at at all and they will rightfully go back on it but football clubs in general don't make much profit so this was always going to be exploited. They seem to be held to a higher standard than other businesses and it's fairly ridiculous that they get more shit than others. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Code said:

 

The state of this is hilarious. If you don’t understand politics or ism’s then stay out of it, it’s like listening to a six year old.

You cheeky fucking cunt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What companies are furloughing employees?

Virgin Atlantic was one of the first companies to take advantage of the government scheme, cutting flights by 80 per cent and requiring staff to take eight weeks of unpaid furlough, with the cost spread across six months’ salary. Budget airline easyJet followed suit: of its 9,000 workers, 4,000 are now on furlough (but under the government scheme).

Earlier this week, troubled retailer Mothercare furloughed 430 employees who were working in Boots ahead of a franchise deal. Pret a Manger opted in to the scheme to “keep paying all of 8,000 employees, despite the fact that our UK shops are not currently open”, according to chief executive Pano Christou. Pub chain Greene King confirmed pay and furlough arrangements for its 38,000 members while its establishments remain shut. 

Outsourcing firm Capita slashed £25 million from planned capital spending in response to the “unprecedented” situation, furloughed a number of its 40,000 UK employees, closed offices and temporarily cut the salaries of management and the board.

Hundreds of workers at EDF’s Hinkley Point C nuclear plant are being furloughed after the firm decided to cut the number of workers on site by more than half. And Aston Martin announced plans to furlough some workers after the coronavirus forced it to close factories in Gaydon and St Athan. 

It’s not just traditional businesses who are forcing their employees to take a pay cut in order to rescue their bottom lines. Newcastle United became the first Premier League club to put its staff on furlough, in a move to ensure the club’s survival ahead of a potential £345m takeover by the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund. Tottenham Hotspur have followed suit, cutting all non-playing staff wages by 20 per cent and placing them on furlough “where appropriate” to cope with the financial crisis caused by the pandemic.

The business panic has even affected fintech unicorns. On Tuesday, challenger bank Monzo said that it would furlough up to 295 employees as it sought to manage costs during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a TechCrunch report. Starling Bank has put 41 staff on furlough and is topping up their salaries to make it 100 per cent.

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-furlough-scheme-job-protection

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dick move and, unfortunately, shows that the FSG of old were always bubbling under the surface. Why I’ve always maintained that you don’t trust them. You don’t trust any club owners.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Code said:


My argument is that the state/government should take care of furloughed and unemployed workers from any business. (Democratic socialism)

That's no form of socialism. Except for something approaching a Soviet variety. In which case, it's not remotely democratic.

 

The state should - by diktat - cover the costs of corporations who can comfortably afford to cover their own?

 

The individuals in question are not unemployed. Nor were they threatened with unemployment. They were furloughed for a period by a profitable and wealthy employer during which that employer remains viable and even intends to return to profitable activity (even if that activity occurs behind closed doors). At the taxpayers' expense.

 

It's obscene from a socialist and a democratic perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Code said:


It depends how the contracts are set up. If you are furloughed and get another job offer you can take that job as a normal employee, in fact you should take it if not you could lose unemployment money..
 

Imagine if the club furloughed Salah, Van Dijk, Mane etc and another club came in and offered them a job, they could take that job and we lose £500m.

 

They could furlough Lallana and other out of contract players (from 1st of June.) without any risk, unless there is something in their contract that specifically say we cant.

I might be wrong here but the golden rule is to cut back on your biggest debts first. If you rent a small house and own an expensive car and are paying for it on a monthly loan with a huge interest rate (and the repayment on this is 20 times higher than your rent) does it make sense to rent a smaller house first or to sell the car, pay off a huge slice of the loan and buy a cheap car for the time being?

 

Liverpool seem to have cut their rent expenses first leaving their huge expenses to slice their finances apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Josef Svejk said:

That's no form of socialism. Except for something approaching a Soviet variety. In which case, it's not remotely democratic.

 

The state should - by diktat - cover the costs of corporations who can comfortably afford to cover their own?

 

The individuals in question are not unemployed. Nor were they threatened with unemployment. They were furloughed for a period by a profitable and wealthy employer during which that employer remains viable and even intends to return to profitable activity (even if that activity occurs behind closed doors). At the taxpayers' expense.

 

It's obscene from a socialist and a democratic perspective.


They are obviously threatened by unemployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

I might be wrong here but the golden rule is to cut back on your biggest debts first. If you rent a small house and own an expensive car and are paying for it on a monthly loan with a huge interest rate (and the repayment on this is 20 times higher than your rent) does it make sense to rent a smaller house first or to sell the car, pay off a huge slice of the loan and buy a cheap car for the time being?

 

Liverpool seem to have cut their rent expenses first leaving their huge expenses to slice their finances apart.


The players are assets, they have a combined worth of €1.4billion (£1.27bn), you dont put yourself in a position where they disappear for free.

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-squad-worth-more-man-17933316

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Code, despite a lot of differences Ive always liked you. You seem a genuine fella, all 72 of you but you are so wildly off the mark with this stance its unreal.

 

Watch a few Bill Shankly videos on YouTube and you might , just might understand why people are so pissed off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Josef Svejk said:

The state should - by diktat - cover the costs of corporations who can comfortably afford to cover their own?

..

It's obscene from a socialist and a democratic perspective.

And yet if you would suggest that the state should cover corporations who cannot comfortably afford to cover their own, then you are most likely punishing profitable organisations that feed tax money & sustainable jobs back into the system, and rewarding loss-making organisations that deprive the system of tax money. Times like these should be taken to reward frugal/savvy/self-sustaining businesses and not those who over-leveraged themselves to a fault.

 

LFC is a unique case because football is in the business of emotion/sentiment & there is probably not another club in the whole world where emotion is wound as tightly as with LFC, whereas easyJet/Virgin etc. are entirely utilitarian businesses with a price-based value. But the point I think Code is trying to make is that a rule be applied universally, and not only to companies outside of the direct public eye/mind, which is a sound one. People are fooling themselves if they do not think some major clubs will not be a great financial risk through this crisis - esp. if players continue to push back on pay-cuts (with some wage bills taking up to 65% of club revenues).

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they are topping up the last 20%, but they can fuck off treating "lower" level staff like this. Unfortunately the big rich bastards can get away with it. Over here Denmarks and one of the worlds richest men sacked 750 and send home 2500 on goverment pay. He refused to pay rent in 2000 of his stores. Luckily he's gotten into a shitstorm of epic proportions and have now at least agreed to pay rent for the next month so far.

 

I know he ain't making any Jack & Jones money or all his other Bestseller stores, but he is involved in all kind of others things that makes alot of money atm, especially a home delivery service. The fucker owns half of Scotland as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the expectation that businesses (read fellas) who have in many cases gone to great lengths to create financial loopholes and at the least, in most every case, have taken advantage of every loophole available, are suddenly going to change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Code, despite a lot of differences Ive always liked you. You seem a genuine fella, all 72 of you but you are so wildly off the mark with this stance its unreal.

 

Watch a few Bill Shankly videos on YouTube and you might , just might understand why people are so pissed off. 


I notice Barry Wom have made a lot of the same points as me in another thread. That makes me think Im not really that wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Code said:


I notice Barry Wom have made a lot of the same points as me in another thread. That makes me think Im not really that wrong.

Next best thing to Gary Neville agreeing with you about football...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Code said:


I notice Barry Wom have made a lot of the same points as me in another thread. That makes me think Im not really that wrong.

I did not cum on her to be Womd at 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John102 said:

I see City have chosen today to announce they wont be doing the same as us.

 

The ongoing battle between the clubs continues.

Once City seen the shit reaction FSG got it was an easy decision for them to make.

id have thought Peter Moore and Tony Barrett would be pushing the owners to reverse the decision - be interesting to see if the club backtracks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Code said:


They are obviously threatened by unemployment.

Obviously. Because the club's on its knees. These employees are a major financial drain. And firing them and rehiring them (or replacements) in three months makes huge financial sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Code said:


Is she cooking meals after traning now? Why should the club pay wages to people who are not working? It makes no sense at all. Its simply not how real life works, this is one of the reasons people and companies pay tax.

I liked this by mistake as I type like Im wearing mittens. Somebody neg me for fucks sake.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This Means More"

 

I was genuinely thrilled by that video. It pulled at my heartstrings.

 

At the moment, it just sounds like a corporate mission statement, and as someone who has been made redundant 3 times from big companies who had mission statements, I know they mean Fuck All.

 

I am genuinely sick at this. Please, LFC, you are better than this. Knock this fucking shit off, right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Josef Svejk said:

Obviously. Because the club's on its knees. These employees are a major financial drain. And firing them and rehiring them (or replacements) in three months makes huge financial sense.


Two questions.

 

1. How do the club get income?

 

2. Do the club have running costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Code said:


Two questions.

 

1. How do the club get income?

 

2. Do the club have running costs?

3. Does the club have assets kicking around that could be realised to fund short term working capital?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • One of my favourite comedy movie teams.
    • John Barnes says he does believe Liverpool will regret missing out on the signature of Timo Werner because he was not fully committed to the joining them.

      Chelsea have agreed a deal to sign the RB Leipzig striker, despite the widely held view that the Reds were in prime position to seal the transfer.
        The news may have come as a shock as well as some disappointment to Liverpool fans who were looking forward to have another class forward joining the ranks.

      But it seems the only set of individuals not surprised were the club hierarchy themselves who were not rushed into reacting and engage in a bidding war with the West London club.

      John Barnes believes there is a clear reason for that as he explained to BonusCodeBets(via The Mirror).

      “Liverpool want players that want to play for Liverpool. I'm sure a lot of people were after [Virgil] van Dijk, but he wanted to come to Liverpool.

      "If they don't get a move on and Manchester City, Arsenal or Chelsea come in for him and he decides to go there, that's not the sort of player you want anyway.

      "Because he'll just go where they're going to pay him more money or he wasn't that committed to wanting to come to play for Jurgen Klopp at Liverpool.

      Jürgen Klopp does things in a very measured and strategic way, almost testing the nerve of the player regarding how much he wants to play for the club.

      Patience is the key and when they do sign on the dotted line, Klopp doesn’t just throw them to the wolves, instead he waits for the right time to bed them into the lineup.

      It could be the case that Klopp believed that Werner would grow impatient with that type of process, and therefore he was not the right man for the club.  

      Barnes believes that Werner may have failed the Klopp test and cited recent examples of World Class talents who were more than willing to join the Reds.

      "I don't think they have to get a move on, they didn't get a move on with Van Dijk or Alisson and a lot of people wanted them to, it's because they wanted to come. 

      “This is a test to see if he really wants to come and play for Jurgen Klopp at Liverpool.

      “Considering how things have panned out it seems Werner didn't pass Klopp's test, but at the same time Liverpool - who didn't meet the deadline - failed the forward's too.”

      Former Liverpool captain Jamie Redknapp agreed with his former club not purchasing Werner and questioned where he would fit in the lineup.

      “Who is going to replace. He’s a really good player, but we don’t know right now, is he better than Mane, Firmino, Salah?

      “It’s one of the best front three in the world right now so he doesn’t want to go somewhere and be a number two or a sub.

      “Will they regret it? You don’t know but that is what he has got to do. He has got to make Liverpool regret that decision, or at least make them think ‘I wish we had signed him.

      “For Liverpool, they have got to look at it and think, if you bring someone like him in it could upset the balance of them and maybe they might think, ‘would it be worth the risk to bring in another player.

      “They have three top-class players who don’t get many injuries, why risk upsetting balance.”



       
      View full article
    • He like Pulisic can play left or right... They will let go of Willian and Pedro I reckon. 
    • I wonder if catcher et al are fully paid up members of qAnon? 
    • Positives - Covid immunity (allegedly) Negatives - Rapey (allegedly)   Bringing him in would be instead of Werner - so why buy him? Bench?      
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

  • Football Betting Site Betway
  • Footstock
  • Online Bingo
×