Furloughed players (or non-furloughed as it turns out)

[Evening Echo]

SOUTHEND United chairman Ron Martin has revealed six Blues players have been placed on furlough leave.

More...

 

[kentblues]

So they were told the club intends to make up the difference to their contracts when able. And were fully paid up until furloughed. Seems reasonable.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I'm not familiar with furloughing, which is more of an American than an English concept but two things stand out to me.

a) It's backdated. How does that work when, according to that weird second paragraph, staff continued to work?

b) furloughed employees aren't allowed to undertake any other work. This is interesting on two counts. Firstly, I'd have thought the club employs a lot of part-time staff (and I'm not referring to Luke Hyam here). How many people say work in the ticket office on a Saturday in addition to main or other jobs? Secondly, how did this work with former high profile employees undertaking lots of paid media work if that is part of the club's terms and conditions?

So they were told the club intends to make up the difference to their contracts when able.

It doesn't say that. It says that "the hope would be for the Club to make up any shortfall when the season returns to some normality".

It's a hope. Not even an intention. It's not legally enforceable and he's left a massive get out by saying "when the season returns to some normality".

The season (a really strange choice of word, the more natural way to say this would be "when things/life/football return to normal" - whilst he has a touch of the Colin Murphys in his writing he chooses his words deliberately - in this case deliberately defining it more narrowly) won't return to normality. First of all there's a real possibility, some might say probability, that this season doesn't return at all. Secondly, even if it does it'll almost certainly be played behind closed doors and the sport and the country will be in recession.

Ron's far more truthful than his detractors give him credit for but he's given a non-binding wish that's defined so narrowly the circumstances that it would apply in are unlikely to ever arise.

 

[kentblues]

I'm not familiar with furloughing, which is more of an American than an English concept but two things stand out to me.

a) It's backdated. How does that work when, according to that weird second paragraph, staff continued to work?

b) furloughed employees aren't allowed to undertake any other work. This is interesting on two counts. Firstly, I'd have thought the club employs a lot of part-time staff (and I'm not referring to Luke Hyam here). How many people say work in the ticket office on a Saturday in addition to main or other jobs? Secondly, how did this work with former high profile employees undertaking lots of paid media work if that is part of the club's terms and conditions?



It doesn't say that. It says that "the hope would be for the Club to make up any shortfall when the season returns to some normality".

It's a hope. Not even an intention. It's not legally enforceable and he's left a massive get out by saying "when the season returns to some normality".

The season (a really strange choice of word, the more natural way to say this would be "when things/life/football return to normal" - whilst he has a touch of the Colin Murphys in his writing he chooses his words deliberately - in this case deliberately defining it more narrowly) won't return to normality. First of all there's a real possibility, some might say probability, that this season doesn't return at all. Secondly, even if it does it'll almost certainly be played behind closed doors and the sport and the country will be in recession.

Ron's far more truthful than his detractors give him credit for but he's given a non-binding wish that's defined so narrowly the circumstances that it would apply in are unlikely to ever arise.

I do think it is perhaps splitting hairs to argue the toss between "hope" and "intention". So I bow to the Cambridge Dictionary- seems pretty much the same thing so happy to go with hope as you report. Your point stands that its not guaranteed.


Hope= to want something to happen or to be true, and usually have a good reason to think that it might

Intention= something that you want and plan to do

 

[MK Shrimper]

The PFA attacks us for furloughing 6 players...

PFA 'disappointed' over Southend furlough

The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) says it is "extremely disappointed" by Southend United's handling of furloughing players.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[kentblues]

The PFA attacks us for furloughing 6 players...

PFA 'disappointed' over Southend furlough

The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) says it is "extremely disappointed" by Southend United's handling of furloughing players.

www.bbc.co.uk

They might be disappointed - but not as disappointed as everyone else is by the abject failure of both the PFA or EFL to provide any leadership whatsoever, or indeed come up with an alternative agreement despite weeks of dither and delay. Create a vacuum of leadership and the clubs will make their own decisions. They can attack the club publicly all they like, but when they get their toys back in the pram they may have to realise the Southend might in fact be one of the clubs that still exist to pay their members when next season starts (no thanks to them).

 

[jackj13]

That's an horrendous statement to be honest. Doesn't matter we're a football club, us like a number of other businesses have no income. Of course we're going to use the support that's available.

 

[kentblues]

That's an horrendous statement to be honest. Doesn't matter we're a football club, us like a number of other businesses have no income. Of course we're going to use the support that's available.

100% correct- but remember the PFA like the EFL are living in their own fantasy - sadly they will probably only partially stir when clubs start going bust..

 

[southendkid]

b) furloughed employees aren't allowed to undertake any other work.

This is a misconception that's been going around. Staff are not allowed to do any other work for the employer furloughing them, they're still allowed to work for other employers in the meantime (unless their contract explicitly forbids it). I assume this is to prevent staff being 'furloughed' but then agreeing to do a suspiciously similar job on minimum wage for the employer, meaning the employer would get to keep their employee working but the government would be paying their salary.

 

[kentblues]

This is a misconception that's been going around. Staff are not allowed to do any other work for the employer furloughing them, they're still allowed to work for other employers in the meantime (unless their contract explicitly forbids it). I assume this is to prevent staff being 'furloughed' but then agreeing to do a suspiciously similar job on minimum wage for the employer, meaning the employer would get to keep their employee working but the government would be paying their salary.

You are correct I think- they can't do any work for the furloughing employer, they can for someone else, indeed even if their contract does not allow it as long as their employer agrees.
And of course part time workers with two jobs can carry on working for the one even if the other has furloughed them.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

100% correct- but remember the PFA like the EFL are living in their own fantasy - sadly they will probably only partially stir when clubs start going bust..

When you say start going bust you mean have winding up orders, not be able to pay staff etc

Oh wait that was us prior to lockdown impacting us and now Ron's using it as excuse to unilaterally amend contracts he couldn't afford to pay prior to lockdown.

This is a misconception that's been going around. Staff are not allowed to do any other work for the employer furloughing them, they're still allowed to work for other employers in the meantime (unless their contract explicitly forbids it). I assume this is to prevent staff being 'furloughed' but then agreeing to do a suspiciously similar job on minimum wage for the employer, meaning the employer would get to keep their employee working but the government would be paying their salary.

It was a direct quote from the letter Ron shared that he sent to the players.

 

[southendkid]

It was a direct quote from the letter Ron shared that he sent to the players.

The letter says they aren't allowed to work for other employers because it's in the terms and conditions of the employment contract they signed, it's not because of the furloughing itself. Unless normal staff members also have this in their contracts (I'd imagine only high up staff members would, part time members almost certainly wouldn't) they legally are free to seek other employment whilst furloughed and so should have received a different version of the letter that omits that line of the letter.

[Withdrawn] Check if you can claim for your employees' wages through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Find out if you’re eligible and how much you can claim to cover wages for employees on temporary leave ('furlough') due to coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

 

[kentblues]

When you say start going bust you mean have winding up orders, not be able to pay staff etc

Oh wait that was us prior to lockdown impacting us and now Ron's using it as excuse to unilaterally amend contracts he couldn't afford to pay prior to lockdown.

No as I expect you know I meant actually into administration (bust) and not being able to pay the players (not even late but at all).

You state Ron has "unilaterally amended contracts"? what evidence do you have for this? The players have agreed to go on furlough further to Ron saying he hopes/intends to pay the full amount when able. The PFA advise to the players was that they should reject any furlough with a permanent reduction and so either the club should make up the full contract amount now or defer the difference with a commitment to pay later. Ron has agreed the later with the players, who have then agreed to go Furlough in line with what the PFA advised them. Now the PFA after the event has thrown their toys out of the pram because they don't like what Ron has agreed with the players.

First well done to the players for seeking the advise and then coming to an agreement with Ron.

Regarding the PFA their performance is consistent and very much down to the level you would expect.

It fine to not like Ron and mostly everything he does might seem wrong but I do believe its unfair to criticise him for taking advantage of a scheme that has been taken advantage of by thousands of companies in a far better financial position than Southend United..

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

No as I expect you know I meant actually into administration (bust) and not being able to pay the players (not even late but at all).

Except not being able to pay your debts (ie wageroll) as and when they fall due is the literal definition of being insolvent (or as it's known more colloquially bust).

I also said going rather than gone. We still have a winding up order (pre-dating the effect of coronavirus) hanging over us which were unable to dismiss because of a lack of proof of funds, only defer.

You state Ron has "unilaterally amended contracts"? what evidence do you have for this?

The PFA accused him of this.

Of course that's only one side of the story, except Ron has actually published his letter (itself a strange move, unless you accept it's a PR move) which seeks to unilaterally amend their contracts.

The players have agreed to go on furlough further to Ron saying he hopes/intends to pay the full amount when able.

What choice did they actually have?
Ron won't pay them otherwise so at least this way they'll actually get £2,500 a month.

Ron saying he hopes to pay them when the season returns to normal is worth less than the paper it's written on, which would at least have value if rolled up and sold as toilet roll.

The PFA advise to the players was that they should reject any furlough with a permanent reduction and so either the club should make up the full contract amount now or defer the difference with a commitment to pay later. Ron has agreed the later with the players, who have then agreed to go Furlough in line with what the PFA advised them. Now the PFA after the event has thrown their toys out of the pram because they don't like what Ron has agreed with the players.

If we're playing the evidence game, what's your evidence, other than Ron (whose version of events is being publicly questioned by the PFA - in itself an extraordinary development - what other clubs have the PFA publicly called out over this?) that the players have agreed to furlough?

First well done to the players for seeking the advise and then coming to an agreement with Ron.

Regarding the PFA their performance is consistent and very much down to the level you would expect.

It fine to not like Ron and mostly everything he does might seem wrong but I do believe its unfair to criticise him for taking advantage of a scheme that has been taken advantage of by thousands of companies in a far better financial position than Southend United..

I'm neither hostile to Ron nor have my tongue up his backside. I take each action/inaction on it's merits so you can find plenty of posts of mine defending him when he's unfairly getting stick and plenty of mine criticising him when he's screwed up.

I don't have an issue with him seeking to take advantage of the government scheme more the way he's gone about doing so. We've only heard part of the story which some people have lapped up uncritically, whereas the PFA's extraordinary response casts a little more light on what has been going on.

 

[kentblues]

Except not being able to pay your debts (ie wageroll) as and when they fall due is the literal definition of being insolvent (or as it's known more colloquially bust).

I also said going rather than gone. We still have a winding up order (pre-dating the effect of coronavirus) hanging over us which were unable to dismiss because of a lack of proof of funds, only defer.



The PFA accused him of this.

Of course that's only one side of the story, except Ron has actually published his letter (itself a strange move, unless you accept it's a PR move) which seeks to unilaterally amend their contracts.



What choice did they actually have?
Ron won't pay them otherwise so at least this way they'll actually get £2,500 a month.

Ron saying he hopes to pay them when the season returns to normal is worth less than the paper it's written on, which would at least have value if rolled up and sold as toilet roll.



If we're playing the evidence game, what's your evidence, other than Ron (whose version of events is being publicly questioned by the PFA - in itself an extraordinary development - what other clubs have the PFA publicly called out over this?) that the players have agreed to furlough?



I'm neither hostile to Ron nor have my tongue up his backside. I take each action/inaction on it's merits so you can find plenty of posts of mine defending him when he's unfairly getting stick and plenty of mine criticising him when he's screwed up.

I don't have an issue with him seeking to take advantage of the government scheme more the way he's gone about doing so. We've only heard part of the story which some people have lapped up uncritically, whereas the PFA's extraordinary response casts a little more light on what has been going on.

Except not being able to pay your debts (ie wageroll) as and when they fall due is the literal definition of being insolvent (or as it's known more colloquially bust).

I also said going rather than gone. We still have a winding up order (pre-dating the effect of coronavirus) hanging over us which were unable to dismiss because of a lack of proof of funds, only defer.



The PFA accused him of this.

Of course that's only one side of the story, except Ron has actually published his letter (itself a strange move, unless you accept it's a PR move) which seeks to unilaterally amend their contracts.



What choice did they actually have?
Ron won't pay them otherwise so at least this way they'll actually get £2,500 a month.

Ron saying he hopes to pay them when the season returns to normal is worth less than the paper it's written on, which would at least have value if rolled up and sold as toilet roll.



If we're playing the evidence game, what's your evidence, other than Ron (whose version of events is being publicly questioned by the PFA - in itself an extraordinary development - what other clubs have the PFA publicly called out over this?) that the players have agreed to furlough?



I'm neither hostile to Ron nor have my tongue up his backside. I take each action/inaction on it's merits so you can find plenty of posts of mine defending him when he's unfairly getting stick and plenty of mine criticising him when he's screwed up.

I don't have an issue with him seeking to take advantage of the government scheme more the way he's gone about doing so. We've only heard part of the story which some people have lapped up uncritically, whereas the PFA's extraordinary response casts a little more light on what has been going on.

I can see nothing in the PFA statement that accuses Ron of unilaterally changing their contracts for example. Sorry if I have missed it or perhaps their is another source? I apologise if so.

PFA 'disappointed' over Southend furlough

The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) says it is "extremely disappointed" by Southend United's handling of furloughing players.

www.bbc.co.uk

The letter to the players is absolutely clear. It is the proposal to the players (they can accept or not). Ron cannot unilaterally change their contracts unless the players agree which they have. And at that point their contracts are varied by mutual consent which is what happened. This is why the players have to agree and sign at the bottom of the letter to agree the temporary change to their contract terms? Sorry again if I'm missing something?

In my view the PFA are just annoyed that having given advise to the players not to sign without certain guarantees they have gone ahead and done so (all be it actually with a statement of intent regarding making up the pay as opposed to the guarantee). In the end I am personally far more unimpressed by the PFA's approach than Ron's but that's just my personal no doubt highly inconsequential view..

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I can see nothing in the PFA statement that accuses Ron of unilaterally changing their contracts for example. Sorry if I have missed it or perhaps their is another source? I apologise if so.

PFA 'disappointed' over Southend furlough

The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) says it is "extremely disappointed" by Southend United's handling of furloughing players.

www.bbc.co.uk

"The furlough letter published in the public domain by the Chairman makes clear that the club expects players to accept a ‘contractual variation to the terms and conditions’ of their contract.... As the players’ union, we understand the financial pressures the clubs are under, but believe solutions should be mutually agreed."

The letter to the players is absolutely clear. It is the proposal to the players (they can accept or not). Ron cannot unilaterally change their contracts unless the players agree which they have. And at that point their contracts are varied by mutual consent which is what happened. This is why the players have to agree and sign at the bottom of the letter to agree the temporary change to their contract terms? Sorry again if I'm missing something?

To the extent there's a choice there it's Hobson's choice.

In my view the PFA are just annoyed that having given advise to the players not to sign without certain guarantees they have gone ahead and done so (all be it actually with a statement of intent regarding making up the pay as opposed to the guarantee). In the end I am personally far more unimpressed by the PFA's approach than Ron's but that's just my personal no doubt highly inconsequential view..

I think the PFA are annoyed as this is the 4th consecutive month when they've had to deal with non-payment of wages from Southend.

Have they made statements about any other clubs furloughing?
Why us?

 

[Westcliff DGS]

"The furlough letter published in the public domain by the Chairman makes clear that the club expects players to accept a ‘contractual variation to the terms and conditions’ of their contract.... As the players’ union, we understand the financial pressures the clubs are under, but believe solutions should be mutually agreed."



To the extent there's a choice there it's Hobson's choice.



I think the PFA are annoyed as this is the 4th consecutive month when they've had to deal with non-payment of wages from Southend.

Have they made statements about any other clubs furloughing?
Why us?

Sorry but how many people (represented by a union or not) have been furloughed and didnt have the choice? My wife for one, so why should footballers be treated differently?

I didnt agree with the media singling out footballers but they shouldnt be treated any differently

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Sorry but how many people (represented by a union or not) have been furloughed and didnt have the choice? My wife for one, so why should footballers be treated differently?

I didnt agree with the media singling out footballers but they shouldnt be treated any differently

The difference here is that footballers are on fixed term contracts. They are accepting less money and then will be out of a job when their contract expire without a job to return to. Most people are on continuous employment contracts where they take a pay cut so they have a job to return to at full pay afterwards.

I expect your wife's employer didn't conduct this through the media either. Publishing the letter was part of trying to single out footballers.

 

[Westcliff DGS]

The difference here is that footballers are on fixed term contracts. They are accepting less money and then will be out of a job when their contract expire without a job to return to. Most people are on continuous employment contracts where they take a pay cut so they have a job to return to at full pay afterwards.

I expect your wife's employer didn't conduct this through the media either. Publishing the letter was part of trying to single out footballers.

My wife is on a fixed term contract of 18 months.

no not in the media but if the PFA reply in the media that is just as bad as the initial actions. I am not sure when Ron made the first attempt to furlough them and if that was before or after the PFSA’s first general rhetoric in the media against the media for picking on them (which was wrong by the media)

but again being on fixed term could also be seen as self employed, and they are not being treated any different either.

 

[kentblues]

The difference here is that footballers are on fixed term contracts. They are accepting less money and then will be out of a job when their contract expire without a job to return to. Most people are on continuous employment contracts where they take a pay cut so they have a job to return to at full pay afterwards.

I expect your wife's employer didn't conduct this through the media either. Publishing the letter was part of trying to single out footballers.

Let’s leave it there- we very much disagree. Ron has robustly defended himself and shared some home truths I hope the PFA and EFL will take note of and is spot on in my view- and you are entirely entitled to take an opposite view..