Covid-19: Are the players taking pay cuts?

[thirtynil]

Have any of the Leinster setup taken pay cuts? Or any of the other provinces?

I'm guessing it would need input from the IRFU and Rugby Players Ireland. I'd be disappointed if there hasn't been progress on this yet.

[Xanthippe]

The IRFU, Connacht, Leinster, Munster and Ulster Rugby, in agreement and partnership with Rugby Players Ireland and its members, have today agreed a payment deferral model for all employees.

These deferrals, based on an equitable sliding scale which ranges from 10% – 50%, will be effective from April, and beyond if required, but will remain subject to constant review of the financial circumstances of the IRFU and Provinces.

The IRFU hopes to return to full pay, and repay any deferrals, as soon as possible.


https://www.irishrugby.ie/2020/03/20/ir ... deferrals/

[thirtynil]

Thanks!

[Logorrhea]

I'd be disappointed if there hasn't been progress on this yet.

Why? Not getting at you, just curious.

[Dave Cahill]

Whats important is that people with media profiles are seen to be wearing sackcloth and ashes. That it means nothing and can be, as in the case of premier league footballers for example, damaging to the health service, as long as we see people from the telly 'setting an example, mar dhea (especially if they're working class) then its a good thing.

In other completely unrelated to the ability to pay for essential services news, tax exiles are having their 'incountry' stays extended without penalty

[Flash Gordon]

Whats important is that people with media profiles are seen to be wearing sackcloth and ashes. That it means nothing and can be, as in the case of premier league footballers for example, damaging to the health service, as long as we see people from the telly 'setting an example, mar dhea (especially if they're working class) then its a good thing.

In other completely unrelated to the ability to pay for essential services news, tax exiles are having their 'incountry' stays extended without penalty

I think it goes a bit deeper than that, it's about how we value contributions to society. The massive inequality between the likes of footballers, celebrities, tax exiles and people who make significant contributions to society is seen by many as wrong and unfair. There's also the issue of decency and doing the right thing, A footballer giving up part of their wage to help people will not solve issues in the NHS but it sets the right tone and starts the right conversation in my opinion.

[Dave Cahill]

I think it goes a bit deeper than that, it's about how we value contributions to society. The massive inequality between the likes of footballers, celebrities, tax exiles and people who make significant contributions to society is seen by many as wrong and unfair. There's also the issue of decency and doing the right thing, A footballer giving up part of their wage to help people will not solve issues in the NHS but it sets the right tone and starts the right conversation in my opinion.

It doesn't. We don't actually value their contributions to society. If there weren't a pandemic no one would give healthcare workers the clap, never mind a clap. And a month after all this is over, it'll be back to normal complaining about nurses and teachers and guards and whoever and their unions and their cushy jobs whilst gluing our f%~king eyeballs to the latest series of Celebrity c**ts.

[riocard911]

I think it goes a bit deeper than that, it's about how we value contributions to society. The massive inequality between the likes of footballers, celebrities, tax exiles and people who make significant contributions to society is seen by many as wrong and unfair. There's also the issue of decency and doing the right thing, A footballer giving up part of their wage to help people will not solve issues in the NHS but it sets the right tone and starts the right conversation in my opinion.

It doesn't. We don't actually value their contributions to society. If there weren't a pandemic no one would give healthcare workers the clap, never mind a clap. And a month after all this is over, it'll be back to normal complaining about nurses and teachers and guards and whoever and their unions and their cushy jobs whilst gluing our f%~king eyeballs to the latest series of Celebrity c**ts.

An-mhaith, Dave!

Normality will for me not have returned until Blues Talk TV resumes service!!!!

[Twist]

I think it goes a bit deeper than that, it's about how we value contributions to society. The massive inequality between the likes of footballers, celebrities, tax exiles and people who make significant contributions to society is seen by many as wrong and unfair. There's also the issue of decency and doing the right thing, A footballer giving up part of their wage to help people will not solve issues in the NHS but it sets the right tone and starts the right conversation in my opinion.

It doesn't. We don't actually value their contributions to society. If there weren't a pandemic no one would give healthcare workers the clap, never mind a clap. And a month after all this is over, it'll be back to normal complaining about nurses and teachers and guards and whoever and their unions and their cushy jobs whilst gluing our f%~king eyeballs to the latest series of Celebrity c**ts.

An-mhaith, Dave!

Normality will for me not have returned until Blues Talk TV resumes service!!!!

How does that poem go again?

"God and the soldier, we all adore
In times of trouble, and then no more
But when war it over and all things righted,
God is forgotten and the old soldiers slighted."

[ronk]

The pay cuts are to protect their employers.

There's no benefit to most players if all the clubs go bankrupt together and dont pay wages at all and they have to go get real jobs.

The footballers have taken a spectacular approach: paying us less means we pay less tax and that would be damaging to the state.

[The Doc]

The pay cuts are to protect their employers.

There's no benefit to most players if all the clubs go bankrupt together and dont pay wages at all and they have to go get real jobs.

The footballers have taken a spectacular approach: paying us less means we pay less tax and that would be damaging to the state.

The odd thing is why the PFA don't point out that pay cuts effectively benefit the club owners. It might make sense to help a business on the edge of surviving but I'm not sure some of the premiership owners would get much sympathy.

If the aim is to assist the health or other public service then the mechanism would be an emergency tax on high earners. If they made that point, they would also be highlighting other high earners which the UK government aren't talking about.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Morf]

The laughable thing is to imagine that players are paying anything close to the prescribed rate of tax for their earnings.

The same for anyone of those means who has a good accountant.

40% of the pay cut being absent from money for 'our NHS' is as ludicrous as politicians using them as straw men.

[Dave Cahill]

The laughable thing is to imagine that players are paying anything close to the prescribed rate of tax for their earnings.

Actually, for the last few years, tax compliance is the new black for British and Spanish players (in particular) after the Celebrity Tax Avoision scandal in the UK and both Messi and Ronaldo being targeted in Spain.

But even if they were paying as little tax as possible, you're still talking about an astronomical sum - nevermind 40%, a 25% return is still over £200,000,000

[The Doc]

The laughable thing is to imagine that players are paying anything close to the prescribed rate of tax for their earnings.

Actually, for the last few years, tax compliance is the new black for British and Spanish players (in particular) after the Celebrity Tax Avoision scandal in the UK and both Messi and Ronaldo being targeted in Spain.

But even if they were paying as little tax as possible, you're still talking about an astronomical sum - nevermind 40%, a 25% return is still over £200,000,000

Which makes me wonder why, alongside the various subsidy schemes, governments haven't put in place a temporary tax e.g. 10% on earnings over €100k or €200k. It raises revenue on people who are still earning (by definition) but also redistributes discretionary income which people can't actually spend at the moment.

Solves the ultra high earner "contributing in a crisis" point as well. Obviously longer term the debate about whether it should be an end state is a separate one - which is why it should be linked to the ongoing subsidy schemes. Have the longer term debate afterwards

[Dave Cahill]

I don't wonder why

[The Doc]

I don't wonder why

It's going to have to happen at some point - would be politically easier now, during the crisis, rather than next year when it's a memory

[joooooe]

The laughable thing is to imagine that players are paying anything close to the prescribed rate of tax for their earnings.

Actually, for the last few years, tax compliance is the new black for British and Spanish players (in particular) after the Celebrity Tax Avoision scandal in the UK and both Messi and Ronaldo being targeted in Spain.

But even if they were paying as little tax as possible, you're still talking about an astronomical sum - nevermind 40%, a 25% return is still over £200,000,000

Which makes me wonder why, alongside the various subsidy schemes, governments haven't put in place a temporary tax e.g. 10% on earnings over €100k or €200k. It raises revenue on people who are still earning (by definition) but also redistributes discretionary income which people can't actually spend at the moment.

Solves the ultra high earner "contributing in a crisis" point as well. Obviously longer term the debate about whether it should be an end state is a separate one - which is why it should be linked to the ongoing subsidy schemes. Have the longer term debate afterwards

You are confusing income and wealth. Plenty of very wealthy people could claim to have a low income. 10% on earnings over 200k? Grand, redistribute the property portfolio so each family member earns a dividend of exactly 200k. Taxing wealth is what would really hurt Wayne Rooney. Problem is, there are a lot of people in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s living in 5 bedroom houses in Sandycove, Sandymount, Clontarf and Howth. By taxing their wealth (which is high) and not their income (which is the OAP) you are effectively kicking them out of their homes. There would be huge benefits to housing policy and the redistribution of wealth to the most productive parts of the economy (land is a low productivity asset, unless it is developed) but no politician would go near it so, as the lad above says, it's not going to happen. You might put a high tax on high income, but by doing so you are taxing the MOST productive part of the economy (working people) while wealthy people will likely pay nothing extra. I am not a supporter of any political party btw, just good economics.

[Flash Gordon]

I think it goes a bit deeper than that, it's about how we value contributions to society. The massive inequality between the likes of footballers, celebrities, tax exiles and people who make significant contributions to society is seen by many as wrong and unfair. There's also the issue of decency and doing the right thing, A footballer giving up part of their wage to help people will not solve issues in the NHS but it sets the right tone and starts the right conversation in my opinion.

It doesn't. We don't actually value their contributions to society. If there weren't a pandemic no one would give healthcare workers the clap, never mind a clap. And a month after all this is over, it'll be back to normal complaining about nurses and teachers and guards and whoever and their unions and their cushy jobs whilst gluing our f%~king eyeballs to the latest series of Celebrity c**ts.

You're right we definitely didn't value their contributions but let's see what happens after this. Also let's see what happens in terms of a fairer society. Things do change in society and legislation. I think many people would agree that the last government didn't do enough to address inequality and got panned at the election as a consequence. Similarly, post 2008 every railed at the banks but things did change, senior executives had pay and incentives cut dramatically and if you talked to the bank the danger of eviction because of loan default was extremely low on government orders.

Whatever the moral conundrum, and I appreciate people have different views on this, cable TV, season tickets and merchandise cost money and people will have a lot less money. Sport will need new models for revenue generation and for cost control.

[Morf]

I don't wonder why

It's going to have to happen at some point - would be politically easier now, during the crisis, rather than next year when it's a memory

I'm not sure banks and venture capital have departed too far from the mindset that bad for everyone else is an opportune time for growth like no other.