I took a paycut of 20% in February 2009, which was subsequently reduced to a 10% paycut in September 2010 which is still in place. so i've now been on significantly reduced wages for over a year and without revealing my salary, it is a lot, lot less than any of our squad earn! As somebody pointed out earlier, I had little choice on this as it was basically that or be made redundant, but nonetheless I have been willing to do this and worked hard since it happened to try and help keep my company going during the recession - admittedly I am very fortunate in terms of having very loyal employers who I felt a duty to anyway (most other firms in the same industry shed loads of staff), and I know that once we start making more money again I will be rewarded.
I don't actually think there is much difference between my situation and the Charlton players in practice. Yes they have no obligation and might be out of a job in the summer if they don't get offered new contracts - but I also knew that I might be out of a job anyway a couple of months down the line if my firm continued to struggle (fortunately we have, touch wood, got through the worst of it). The fundamental difference obviously is that the players aren't in the "pay cut or redundant" situation, i.e. forced to be made redundant. But there is no reason why they shouldn't be obliged - my directors at work took pay cuts of up to 50% to try and keep us on, so the players should be willing to realise that a) there is a recession on at the moment which probably does have an effect on charlton's finances to a limited extent and b) that the club are in a football equivalent of a recession in a way - if a 10% paycut helped to aid promotion then they would all know that they are more likely to get renewed contracts and pay rises if we get that as we will obviously be way better off if we get back to the championship.
whilst i understand they have responsibilities and a short career span, at the end of the day it is the career path they have chosen and many / most people across all industries have had to make financial sacrifices over the last 2 years and i do not see why footballers should necessarily be immune from that. obviously those like bailey and sam who could potentially be on more money anyway with higher up clubs if they left are more difficult as they do not value their contract at cafc as much as, for example, burton who may struggle to find another club if we released him - but then for the same token they are in a better position for that reason anyway which makes it more viable for them. and at the end of the day they should be grateful /loyal to their employers in the same way i was - and indeed more grateful/loyal to the supporters.
understand that some may be wary of their wages being used to sign replacements for them, but it is more about increasing the squad depth anyway as obviously we are pretty thin on the ground, and the players should be wanting to be part of a winning side and determined to keep their place anyway rather than worrying about some new person coming in to jump above them in the pecking order.
Don't know if anyone's already mentioned this, but my first thought was that why should a player agree to a wage sacrifice to fund a player coming in who could potentially take his place in the team?
Would Grant Basey or Kelly Youga have agreed to fund Jackson's wages when he could easily be first choice left back next season?
Good idea in principal but in practical terms I don't think so.
[cite]Posted By: paulsturgess[/cite]The fundamental difference obviously is that the players aren't in the "pay cut or redundant" situation, i.e. forced to be made redundant. But there is no reason why they shouldn't be obliged
That's the key problem though. There is no obligation, and no threat of being made redundant. If the club was genuinely in a situation where they would go out of business and stop paying the players, then I wouldn't be surprised if some of the players would give a 10% reduction some serious thought. But there's not that threat, or at least any sense of that threat as yet.
Comments
I don't actually think there is much difference between my situation and the Charlton players in practice. Yes they have no obligation and might be out of a job in the summer if they don't get offered new contracts - but I also knew that I might be out of a job anyway a couple of months down the line if my firm continued to struggle (fortunately we have, touch wood, got through the worst of it). The fundamental difference obviously is that the players aren't in the "pay cut or redundant" situation, i.e. forced to be made redundant. But there is no reason why they shouldn't be obliged - my directors at work took pay cuts of up to 50% to try and keep us on, so the players should be willing to realise that a) there is a recession on at the moment which probably does have an effect on charlton's finances to a limited extent and b) that the club are in a football equivalent of a recession in a way - if a 10% paycut helped to aid promotion then they would all know that they are more likely to get renewed contracts and pay rises if we get that as we will obviously be way better off if we get back to the championship.
whilst i understand they have responsibilities and a short career span, at the end of the day it is the career path they have chosen and many / most people across all industries have had to make financial sacrifices over the last 2 years and i do not see why footballers should necessarily be immune from that. obviously those like bailey and sam who could potentially be on more money anyway with higher up clubs if they left are more difficult as they do not value their contract at cafc as much as, for example, burton who may struggle to find another club if we released him - but then for the same token they are in a better position for that reason anyway which makes it more viable for them. and at the end of the day they should be grateful /loyal to their employers in the same way i was - and indeed more grateful/loyal to the supporters.
understand that some may be wary of their wages being used to sign replacements for them, but it is more about increasing the squad depth anyway as obviously we are pretty thin on the ground, and the players should be wanting to be part of a winning side and determined to keep their place anyway rather than worrying about some new person coming in to jump above them in the pecking order.
Would Grant Basey or Kelly Youga have agreed to fund Jackson's wages when he could easily be first choice left back next season?
Good idea in principal but in practical terms I don't think so.
That's the key problem though. There is no obligation, and no threat of being made redundant. If the club was genuinely in a situation where they would go out of business and stop paying the players, then I wouldn't be surprised if some of the players would give a 10% reduction some serious thought. But there's not that threat, or at least any sense of that threat as yet.
Macdonalds! :-)
Just kidding. Work at sports betting consultancy.
They should try playing and living on the wages their predecessors got yonks ago or my wages even...
The price they pay for a loaf of bread is the same as mine, why do they need 100 grand a week more than me to pay for it...?
Greedy basterds the lot of them...