Daniel Levy - Chairman

[DubaiSpur]

That's a ridiculous guarantee and one they can't stand by if the future doesn't go as they predict.

Previously, you said...

That's a fudging ridiculous request. No person or business can make guarantees like that.

They just did. There are multiple other examples of clubs and businesses doing the same thing, whether they use the word 'guarantee' or no.

It's not unreasonable - some people just have a social conscience.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/spo...ws/stoke-city-staff-wages-coronavirus-3968798

'Stoke City match day staff have been told they will be paid despite games being postponed and full-time staff will have salaries guaranteed for the next five months.'

Not even June - all the way up until September.

Huh. Guess Peter Coates and Bet365 know more about what's going to happen than Levy does. Again, some chairman of ours.

I can keep finding examples,but it would be a waste of my time if you still think it's something insane to meekly request something that other clubs have been guaranteeing long before Levy decided to sink the club's PR down the Thames.

There are as many bad as good examples out there
We have 2 clubs just pushing the money back like Southampton and West Ham (loss making clubs)
Clubs like City and United saying nothing changes but neither pay tax of note as their loss making clubs
Leeds did something great with their players and do did Birmingham IIRC
i don’t really compare clubs like Leicester and stoke as their staff levels are a fraction of ours and their benefactor funded. Their literally don’t exist without that and would be bust in a month. But LCFCs owners have been great so far

 

[Glenda's Legs]

For that number of staff there's a minimum consultation period.

Either employees and reps knew about it some time ago, or the announcement was the start of the consultation period with the actions to follow.

30 days for redundancy for up to 100 and longer (45 days?) for more.

I think when you're reading a story about organizations, 'a source' is usually an employee that fears being sacked if they're identified.

Of course a lot of tabloids use 'a source' freely, and in football transfer rumours it means absolutely nothing, but it's still got its place for reputable papers. Which the Telegraph (just about) still is.

I think you're right in that the choices presented were simply 'agree to a wage cut' or 'be laid off'. Not much consultation there, I'm sure you'd agree.

No, no advance consultation. But with redundancies a company will announce it is making redundancies first (they would generally have to declare the intention to the DWP first, or at least that used to be the way it worked), then start the process.
There is reportedly a full month from the club's announcement until the April payroll so if any employee wanted to opt for redundancy I assume they would be able to put themselves forward.
But in this environment you would have to have a good reason for doing so I would have thought.

I do vaguely recollect someone on here (@Bedfordspurs?) mentioning an employee who said it had been explained to them that being furloughed meant they still retained a number of employment benefits so it seems there was some level of discussion or communication? Maybe initially in the email they received but I am sure there will have been follow-up conversations with HR.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Liverpool treat their fans as consumers just like we do
The difference is their starting form a lower base of fab economically hence the push against anything in £££
Hence the push their a socialist club
Fair play to their fans
But everyone of those fans would have still turned up if they won the league to celebrate it like nothing and changed
That’s the game now
And as for their staff they needed spit the dog and his mates to pipe up to change their mind... that would be like Sol Campbell commenting on us

They do. And their fans hold them to account a lot more than we do.

They're hypocrites, too, and their club tries to get away with acting like a soulless corporation a lot, too. I don't deny that. They tried to trademark 'Liverpool', for crying out loud.

But the dynamic between their fans and their reputation means they can be persuaded to act a bit more like they have a social conscience at times.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

They do. And their fans hold them to account a lot more than we do.

They're hypocrites, too, and their club tries to get away with acting like a soulless corporation a lot, too. I don't deny that. They tried to trademark 'Liverpool', for crying out loud.

But the dynamic between their fans and their reputation means they can be persuaded to act a bit more like they have a social conscience at times.

100%
Said it before
I hate pool but If we had fans that believed in the club the way they do we would do better
It’s a cult, like Saudi Sportswashing Machine fans too
It’s why they wear the shirts all the time as fashion items. It’s a world of your one of us
It’s also why their the most hated team in the country because of it. But it works for them

 

[Bedfordspurs]

30 days for redundancy for up to 100 and longer (45 days?) for more.




No, no advance consultation. But with redundancies a company will announce it is making redundancies first (they would generally have to declare the intention to the DWP first, or at least that used to be the way it worked), then start the process.
There is reportedly a full month from the club's announcement until the April payroll so if any employee wanted to opt for redundancy I assume they would be able to put themselves forward.
But in this environment you would have to have a good reason for doing so I would have thought.

I do vaguely recollect someone on here (@Bedfordspurs?) mentioning an employee who said it had been explained to them that being furloughed meant they still retained a number of employment benefits so it seems there was some level of discussion or communication? Maybe initially in the email they received but I am sure there will have been follow-up conversations with HR.

Yeah that was a guy on Twitter who also said he was being topped up (clearly not the case according to the trust)
But it protected employment rights, pensions etc...

 

[Baleforce]

The consultation is a legal requirement in UK (possibly EU?) employment law.

Nobody actually uses it to consult, it's just a restriction that lobbyists for trades unions insisted on. In reality, what happens is that the employer gives a letter to staff inviting them to consult, lowering morale for the rest of the staff weeks before they needed to and then makes them redundant anyway having paid them a few weeks wages and making everyone else's jobs less secure.

Having been through it myself I assumed it was a heads up to go and get another job and that I wouldn’t be held to my contracted notice period.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I do vaguely recollect someone on here (@Bedfordspurs?) mentioning an employee who said it had been explained to them that being furloughed meant they still retained a number of employment benefits so it seems there was some level of discussion or communication? Maybe initially in the email they received but I am sure there will have been follow-up conversations with HR.

I'm sure there was - HR will likely have laid out the changes after the announcement, since you can't just tell staff 'we're furloughing you' without explaining what that means. The article itself mentions that furloughed staff have been asked not to answer work phones or check work emails, which entails at least a couple of emails with HR.

But that's going into the weeds a bit - the point is, staff are unhappy too, and feel they haven't been consulted and are being treated badly compared to their own counterparts at other clubs.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

@DubaiSpur what we’re seeing here are the different type of owners in the game
vanity project owners like city and Leicester who own a club as a play thing as their main means of income is elsewhere (oil and modern slavery for City and Retail for LCFC). And you can add Neverton to that now who do course have the shady ownership of the Russian behind them too
Then you have people who buy a club cos they could and don’t really have a plan with it so will do the minimum they can get away with like Southampton and West Ham...
Then you get owners form
Investment organisations who are companies that make their money through.... investment. That’s us and pool in this league. We’re owned by investment companies that were set up years ago to invest in companies. Their source of income is just that... profit in investments
And then you have the exploration owners like united and arsenal who take the money out to pay for other things like a new stadium in the USA (kronke ) or to cover for their real estate problems (Glazers) and in their case saddle the club with debt too
You get clubs like Burnley and Norwich who I feel sorry for as their genuinely invested in their communities in relatively small geographical areas and are run properly too

 

[DubaiSpur]

400%
Said it before
I hate pool but If we had fans that believed in the club the way they do we would do better
It’s a cult, like Saudi Sportswashing Machine fans too
It’s why they wear the shirts all the time as fashion items. It’s a world of your one of us
It’s also why their the most hated team in the country because of it. But it works for them

Agreed.
This is just my opinion, but I believe there's a correlation between the deprivation in the city and the support for the team.
Poorer area = fiercer support. And, when there's enough passion combined with belief and a baseline level of financial stability, my opinion is that those teams outperform richer ones with more expensive seats, fewer working-class supporters and quieter stadiums.

It's one small part of the reason I would like to see quixotic things like fan ownership, lower ticket prices, giving back to the community and taking care of our staff - in my eyes, anything that gets an ordinary Spurs supporter into the stadium and proud of the team is something which helps build passion and (by extension), a supporters' culture based around belief. Which can change our essential nature over time. It's one of the longest-run ways (in my opinion) to counter the indefinable, imperceptible aura of Spursiness that hovers, unspoken, behind every setback and failure of ours.

I recognize it's a quixotic dream, though - and that football has left me behind.

 

[DubaiSpur]

@DubaiSpur what we’re seeing here are the different type of owners in the game
vanity project owners like city and Leicester who own a club as a play thing as their main means of income is elsewhere (oil and modern slavery for City and Retail for LCFC). And you can add Neverton to that now who do course have the shady ownership of the Russian behind them too
Then you have people who buy a club cos they could and don’t really have a plan with it so will do the minimum they can get away with like Southampton and West Ham...
Then you get owners form
Investment organisations who are companies that make their money through.... investment. That’s us and pool in this league. We’re owned by investment companies that were set up years ago to invest in companies. Their source of income is just that... profit in investments
And then you have the exploration owners like united and arsenal who take the money out to pay for other things like a new stadium in the USA (kronke ) or to cover for their real estate problems (Glazers) and in their case saddle the club with debt too
You get clubs like Burnley and Norwich who I feel sorry for as their genuinely invested in their communities in relatively small geographical areas and are run properly too

I get that. But clubs all across the spectrum - all different types of owners - have committed to doing the right thing.

From Burnley and Stoke to City and Leicester. Even the ones with amoral investment companies at the helm, as Liverpool have now shown.

We're nearly alone in our rage-inducing decision here. There's still time to change it, and the Trust is begging the club at this point to do the right thing, for it's own sake if nothing else - I hope, pray they do.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Agreed.
This is just my opinion, but I believe there's a correlation between the deprivation in the city and the support for the team.
Poorer area = fiercer support. And, when there's enough passion combined with belief and a baseline level of financial stability, my opinion is that those teams outperform richer ones with more expensive seats, fewer working-class supporters and quieter stadiums.

It's one small part of the reason I would like to see quixotic things like fan ownership, lower ticket prices, giving back to the community and taking care of our staff - in my eyes, anything that gets an ordinary Spurs supporter into the stadium and proud of the team is something which helps build passion and (by extension), a supporters' culture based around belief. Which can change our essential nature over time. It's one of the longest-run ways (in my opinion) to counter the indefinable, imperceptible aura of Spursiness that hovers, unspoken, behind every setback and failure of ours.

I recognize it's a quixotic dream, though - and that football has left me behind.

Fan ownership would work at a club like ours where we have a string financial footprint of the debt is managed (in normal circumstances)

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I get that. But clubs all across the spectrum - all different types of owners - have committed to doing the right thing.

From Burnley and Stoke to City and Leicester. Even the ones with amoral investment companies at the helm, as Liverpool have now shown.

We're nearly alone in our rage-inducing decision here. There's still time to change it, and the Trust is begging the club at this point to do the right thing, for it's own sake if nothing else - I hope, pray they do.

But what does the club gain in changing its mind now and who actually n owns the real state of the clubs finances? I don’t know them for sure but I can speculate like most people

 

[scaramanga]

Due to the numbers involved (over 99) we have to give a minimum 90 days notice of change in terms normally
I don’t know if this counts but it could explain why people arent getting paid Furlough until end of June when organisations will claim back what they have paid
I should say this is NOT my area of expertise at all before someone jumps on to correct me

It's 45 days but your point stands.

Either staff have known about it for consultation purposes for 45 days, or they will not have their contracts altered for 45 days from the announcement. The stuff in the press is just bull

 

[scaramanga]

Previously, you said...



They just did. There are multiple other examples of clubs and businesses doing the same thing, whether they use the word 'guarantee' or no.

It's not unreasonable - some people just have a social conscience.

Actually they've just spoken some words - if they don't have the money to pay they won't make good on their guarantee.

Anyone making a guarantee that could be rendered impossible by events out of their control is either a fool or doesn't care for the trust of those they're making the promises to.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

It's 45 days but your point stands.

Either staff have known about it for consultation purposes for 45 days, or they will not have their contracts altered for 45 days from the announcement. The stuff in the press is just bull

I was thinking of TUPE rules and assumed they would apply here

 

[DubaiSpur]

But what does the club gain in changing its mind now and who actually n owns the real state of the clubs finances? I don’t know them for sure but I can speculate like most people

At the very least, the club salvages PR - in time, this crisis will pass, but the memory of those who took care of their staff and who didn't will stay. If nothing else, because football is an adversarial industry by nature (being a sport), and bad PR will survive longer than it will elsewhere.

The staff are angry. The fans are angry. The media is angry. The players are angry. The government is angry.

Enough of that will spook the sponsors - and, more importantly, the potential sponsors we're hoping to bring in for the stadium and future kit deals.

Okay, the club has zero social conscience in a time of crisis. But at least think on PR lines - what is it worth to top up the wages of 220 ordinary people who keep the club running for a couple months, versus the snowballing PR effect that is underway?

I don't believe the club expected the reaction to its statement - Levy was using it to shoot all over the place, after all, from pressuring the players to announcing the furlough to pre-emptively getting his excuses in as to why he won't spend a dime in the summer.

That one line in it was going to generate this sort of PR wasn't something he was counting on, I expect.

But there's still time to rectify it. In fact, if you spin it right - listened to the fans, listened to our Trust, etc. - you may come out ahead.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Actually they've just spoken some words - if they don't have the money to pay they won't make good on their guarantee.

Anyone making a guarantee that could be rendered impossible by events out of their control is either a fool or doesn't care for the trust of those they're making the promises to.

Right. So let me get this straight - if someone doesn't use the word 'guarantee', they haven't guaranteed anything. And if they use the word 'guarantee', they've 'just spoken some words'.

When this crisis passes and clubs actually have stuck to their words and paid their staff despite the crisis, what will you say next?

That it 'could theoretically have been rendered impossible in some alternate timeline, so they're still wrong to provide guarantees'?

People have made guarantees to do the right thing. Something that you apparently believe no person or business could ever contemplate doing.

I repeat - they have a social conscience, or at least, the know what society thinks of shirking your responsibilities in a time of crisis.

The chairman of Tottenham Hotspur, on the other hand...

 

[scaramanga]

400%
Said it before
I hate pool but If we had fans that believed in the club the way they do we would do better
It’s a cult, like Saudi Sportswashing Machine fans too
It’s why they wear the shirts all the time as fashion items. It’s a world of your one of us
It’s also why their the most hated team in the country because of it. But it works for them

That and not having to go to work.

 

[scaramanga]

Right. So let me get this straight - if someone doesn't use the word 'guarantee', they haven't guaranteed anything. And if they use the word 'guarantee', they've 'just spoken some words'.

When this crisis passes and clubs actually have stuck to their words and paid their staff despite the crisis, what will you say next?

That it 'could theoretically have been rendered impossible in some alternate timeline, so they're still wrong to provide guarantees'?

People have made guarantees to do the right thing. Something that you apparently believe no person or business could ever contemplate doing.

I repeat - they have a social conscience, or at least, the know what society thinks of shirking your responsibilities in a time of crisis.

The chairman of Tottenham Hotspur, on the other hand...

A guarantee is something the guarantor can back - they can't make a conditionless guarantee like this because it might be out of their hands.

If, for example, in a month the govt announces a 80% tax on betting firms (including witholding taxes) to pay for the costs of this pandemic, they won't be able to make good on their guarantee. Which means it isn't a guarantee, it's empty words.

That's why sensible people running sensible businesses use phrases like "the company will endeavour to...." Or "all attempts will be made...."