More Trouble At Leeds

[jim mk2]

The greed of footballers knows no bounds.

The Leeds players tonight told the board that they would rather the club sold one of the players rather than them all having to take a 30 per cent pay cut.

[LeChuck]

The greed of footballers knows no bounds.

The Leeds players tonight told the board that they would rather the club sold one of the players rather than them all having to take a 30 per cent pay cut.

I don't really blame the players for not taking a pay cut.  This isn't a Leicester-type situation where the players are responsible for the clubs financial problems due to bad performances getting them relegated.

The Leeds board (or ex-board) are entirely to blame for the mess the club are in.  They've even got 6 or 7 foreign loan players in the reserves who haven't figured since Eddie Gray took charge (Roque Junior, Camara, Olembe, Chapuis, Camara, Sakho), god knows how much they're costing per week.

[92er]

i thought it was a salary deferrment until the end of the season to avoid the club going into administration.

[American]

The greed of footballers knows no bounds.

The Leeds players tonight told the board that they would rather the club sold one of the players rather than them all having to take a 30 per cent pay cut.

Tell you what Jim, why don't you do your job for 30 percent less?

[Alan75]

The greed of footballers knows no bounds.

The Leeds players tonight told the board that they would rather the club sold one of the players rather than them all having to take a 30 per cent pay cut.

Dont want to be a I told you so, but look what time this was posted.

Posted: Jan. 20 2004, 12:29    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....and the latest from Leeds........players arent prepared to accept a 30% deferred wages cut to save the club the required £5million.

[American]

The greed of footballers knows no bounds.

The Leeds players tonight told the board that they would rather the club sold one of the players rather than them all having to take a 30 per cent pay cut.

Dont want to be a I told you so, but look what time this was posted.

Posted: Jan. 20 2004, 12:29    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....and the latest from Leeds........players arent prepared to accept a 30% deferred wages cut to save the club the required £5million.

Players to accept wage cut - click me

Though the crux of the article gives no details about what the players are willing to do, just that they are willing to help out, the headline says they WILL accept the pay deferral.

[jim mk2]

The greed of footballers knows no bounds.

The Leeds players tonight told the board that they would rather the club sold one of the players rather than them all having to take a 30 per cent pay cut.

Tell you what Jim, why don't you do your job for 30 percent less?

I am.

[jim mk2]

The greed of footballers knows no bounds.

The Leeds players tonight told the board that they would rather the club sold one of the players rather than them all having to take a 30 per cent pay cut.

Dont want to be a I told you so, but look what time this was posted.

Posted: Jan. 20 2004, 12:29    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....and the latest from Leeds........players arent prepared to accept a 30% deferred wages cut to save the club the required £5million.

Players to accept wage cut - click me

Though the crux of the article gives no details about what the players are willing to do, just that they are willing to help out, the headline says they WILL accept the pay deferral.

Wrong.

They are refusing to take a pay cut - point blank - because they fear they will never see the money again and insist that the club sells players first.

In other words, stuff the club, we're looking after ourselves thanks very much.

[broadsword]

Tell you what Jim, why don't you do your job for 30 percent less?

I don't think journalists get paid 40k per week to come in and train how to write stories twice a week and actually write an actual story on a Saturday.

Footballers salaries are obscene and are proportionate to the Nation's never-ceasing hunger for wall-to-wall televised football, it has nothing to do with a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

They seem to be so far removed from reality that they'd rather their employer went to the wall than they take a (gasp!) 30% paycut. How thick can they be?

[Alan75]

Taken from a press release by

PFA deputy chief executive Mick McGuire

"The players are offering some form of financial support should it be required, when all other avenues have been explored.

"It is a constantly changing situation, we will keep monitoring it and when we know exactly what the club may need to make up the shortfall then a decision will be made.

"The players are very mindful of the need to stay in the Premiership as that would stabilise the club."

McGuire stressed that there was no possibility of the players agreeing to a wage cut.

[RevidgeBlue]

Taken from a press release by

PFA deputy chief executive Mick McGuire

"The players are offering some form of financial support should it be required, when all other avenues have been explored.

"It is a constantly changing situation, we will keep monitoring it and when we know exactly what the club may need to make up the shortfall then a decision will be made.

"The players are very mindful of the need to stay in the Premiership as that would stabilise the club."

McGuire stressed that there was no possibility of the players agreeing to a wage cut.

Which roughly translated out of jargonese and into plain English means

"We're greedy barstewards who'd prefer not to take any cut in wages if there is any possibility at all of the Club raising the money through sales, but we're not totally stupid either, we'll agree to the deferment if there is absolutely no alternative."

There was an interesting comment from someone at the Leeds Business School today who said that the situation could cause a huge rift in the dressing room and on the pitch between players like Smith and Matteo who immediately came out publically and said they would do whatever they could  to help, and others who should we say are less charitable in nature.

[American]

Tell you what Jim, why don't you do your job for 30 percent less?

I don't think journalists get paid 40k per week to come in and train how to write stories twice a week and actually write an actual story on a Saturday.

Footballers salaries are obscene and are proportionate to the Nation's never-ceasing hunger for wall-to-wall televised football, it has nothing to do with a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

They seem to be so far removed from reality that they'd rather their employer went to the wall than they take a (gasp!) 30% paycut. How thick can they be?

And if everyone could do what footballers are able to do, at the same skill level, they wouldn't make so much. Add in the fact that journalists have a lot longer window in which they can make a living, plus less risk involved in sustaining an injury which makes them unable to work. Supply and demand is why they make so much.

They didn't stick a gun to the club's figurative head and force them to pay them that much. They weren't the ones to financially mismanage the club. Yes their high salaries are why the company isn't doing well, but they would have been able to make those salaries at other clubs when they were on the market. They had a market value and Leeds was dumb enough to pay too many of them that market value. Now the club is suffering. Why ask them to take a pay cut when they know that they will be able to go to another club and make the same, if not more?

[broadsword]

Trust an American to be a free-marketeer!

I don't want to get mired in a big argument about free-market economics, but I do think given Leeds current problems, it wouldn't be much for them to forego 30% of their earnings to potentially save a football club. This is an industry where even bit-part players can be set up for life by their mid-twenties.

How much money do they need FFS?

[stuwilky]

I think there needs to be some clarification here.

According to most reports I have read the players are being asked to take a deferral of their wages, not a pay cut.  ie they will be paid the amount owing in the future (at an agreed date usually)

Would I agree to my employer owing me a large sum of money if there was a high probability of them going bankrupt and me just being added to the bottom of a long list of creditors?  probably not.

WOuld I agree to it as a short term measure to try and ensure the survival in the one league were they have a chance of sorting their solvency out?  maybe?

Or would it be a tactical gamble to put themselves back int he hsop window for the next 4 months to try and get out of the place?

[colin]

Here's a quick summary for the easily bewildered

leedsuniteddonothaveapaddle

The good news is one of the missing millions has re-appeared. Probably found it in the tea caddy.

[blue phil]

it wouldn't be much for them to forego 30% of their earnings to potentially save a football club. This is an industry where even bit-part players can be set up for life by their mid-twenties.

How much money do they need FFS?

The main word there is "potentially" . Potentially it could also just delay the inevitable for a while and the wages just go into the black hole. The players aren't responsible for this mess - why should pay for the megalomania of Ridsdale and his cronies? They are no different from workers in any other industry . They can't be expected to pay for bad management - especially when their skills are in demand elsewhere.

[Paul]

Here's a quick summary for the easily bewildered

leedsuniteddonothaveapaddle

The good news is one of the missing millions has re-appeared. Probably found it in the tea caddy.

Good link colin, thanks. can anyone explain this extract from The Guardian article:

"But when a football club enters administration players, staff, transfer fees and other "football debts" need to be paid before even the Inland Revenue gets its share"

I believed the bank, revenue and C&E were always first in line. Why is it different in football.

[BRFC4EVA]

Leeds are rather Buggered, to put it bluntly. To sell £100 mill worth of players and still be 80mill in debt is very poor

[Scotty]

They've just reported on 5 Live that all the players at Leeds are up for sale - including Smith.  Newcastle are thought to be favourites to get him.

If this is true then it confirms the players stance against the proposed wage refferal, at least for the time being.  

So, fire sale at Leeds, all stock must go, hurry, hurry...

[StaffordRover]

Radio 5 reporting Leeds have confirmed they are prepared to sell Alan Smith. Decision taken in light of players' refusal to accept 35% pay deferral and the need to find the estimated £5 million to keep the club operating to the end of the season. Inference is Smith (and any other Leeds player for that matter) is very much available on the cheap.

[StaffordRover]

Beat me to it Scotty!  

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Shame we are seemingly led to believe our club cant afford a pot to @#/? in at the moment...never mind make a bid for Alan Smith!!

**sigh**

[roversWASmylife]

Smith would be a great buy for anyone, whoever can put the cash up front to Leeds.

But what if Smith doesn`t want to leave Leeds?

Bridges maybe.

Worst run club in history what has gone on, O`Leary has said that he wants to fins out what really happened.

[Jan]

I know this will be unpopular, but in the light of our dearth of left-footed players, why don't we just get Jason Wilcox back for the rest of the season.  He wouldn't cost much and DEFINITELY wouldn't be worse than the rubbish that's played there this season (Thompson, Emerton, Reid)- not that they're necessarily rubbish overall- all of them, just rubbish on the left!

[Nuclearsox]

I know this will be unpopular, but in the light of our dearth of left-footed players, why don't we just get Jason Wilcox back for the rest of the season.  He wouldn't cost much and DEFINITELY wouldn't be worse than the rubbish that's played there this season (Thompson, Emerton, Reid)- not that they're necessarily rubbish overall- all of them, just rubbish on the left!

I'm one of the minority of people (in fact there may only be me) that liked Wilcox. He laid on a lot of goals for Shearer and he was a competent finisher himself.

I'm not sure he's the answer now though. He may not be worse than what we've had on the left this season but I'm not sure he'd be any better either - and he'd have the crowd on his back before he'd kicked a ball.