ITS BACK
Re: ITS BACK
Hudgell owns the company but Phil Lowe has shares too.Tamworth Tiger wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 09:30Out of interest, who owns KR ?scottiger wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 08:59Sky will dictate where games are played . Rightly so imo .Spanishtiger wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 00:09 I know that it's not widely agreed with, but I would go with grounds owned by rl clubs. Leeds, Saints, Wire, Cas, Wakey. Not Hull, KR, Hudds, Wigan, Salford and obvs Toronto or Cats.
Audacter Et Sincere
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 7389
- Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 16:29
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
Thanks. I was just trying to understand why KR had been included in the grounds not owned by RL Clubs .
-
Verified
- Moderator
- Posts: 885
- Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
I am fairly sure that Hull KRs ground is owned by Hull City Council.
Re: ITS BACK
Scrums banned for the remainder of the 2020 season
-
lurcher Verified
- Super League Player
- Posts: 10676
- Joined: 19 Aug 2010, 23:25
- Location: bridlington
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
if big D is looking down i wonder what he'll make of that?
jo brand is eddie warings love child
Re: ITS BACK
I don’t think it is ‘back’ as yet.
Garreth Carvell of the players union reports widespread player unrest re salary payments.
Garreth Carvell of the players union reports widespread player unrest re salary payments.
Audacter Et Sincere
Re: ITS BACK
Cooper at Warrington saying only three teams have agreed terms with there players nine havnt so he doubts a re-start
I've sympathy with the players on a lot but I think some of them need to look at the bigger picture here
I've sympathy with the players on a lot but I think some of them need to look at the bigger picture here
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
Re: ITS BACK
Agree let's get the game back up and running get a bit of money coming in and then air you feelings. I don't think this is a time to pile more agony onto the club's at the moment. Because if it carries on much longer people might have to find another occupation. Sounds drastic I know but we're in unprecedented times. Let's just focus on getting up and running.
Re: ITS BACK
Unfortunately talking sense on here does very little indeed. Lots of players simply are incapable of thinking of anyone or anything other than themselves.
Audacter Et Sincere
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 7389
- Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 16:29
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
I agree. It’s got to be sorted or the the clubs will have to reimburse not just Sky, but 10s of thousands of season ticket holders
Re: ITS BACK
Some clubs going along with Carvells 15 % wage cut some clubs appear to be wanting 40 or 50 % cuts
There's also the lunatic idea that it's ok to spend money on a signing while others at a club are taking a cut in wages
One thing for sure the show as to go on or they all will be up a creek
There's also the lunatic idea that it's ok to spend money on a signing while others at a club are taking a cut in wages
One thing for sure the show as to go on or they all will be up a creek
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
Re: ITS BACK
I think 15% is very very favourable indeed towards the players personally
Audacter Et Sincere
-
Verified
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 15893
- Joined: 31 Jan 2009, 03:55
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
I believe they were wanting a model like Hull (think it was them in League Express) where a % is taken between each boundary a player earns
30k or under - nothing
Then staggered 15% for earnings between 30-50k, 20% for 50-100k and 25% for 100k+
It means someone on 100k would end up earning 87k
Someone on 30k wouldn't lose a thing
Someone on 50k would drop down to 47k.
Someone on 75k would drop to £67k
It seems rather sensible to me and protects young kids and those at the bottom end while those in the middle don't lose out significantly.
Only affects the high earners and I can understand why they dig their heels in.
But then my view of that is that if players don't want to play then leave them sat on furlough and play the kids if they don't want to cut, particularly if there is no relegation. I wouldn't support pay cuts for anyone in ordinary circumstances but these aren't ordinary circumstances. I wouldn't be happy to take a pay cut myself but if it came to a decision between taking a cut and keeping my job, or refusing and not having a job at all, I'd take the first option everytime. Everyone else is making sacrifices: sponsors are still putting in money, fans are not asking for refunds and buying more stuff to keep revenue coming in, and clubs are exploring all options to keep it afloat including directors putting in loans.
Players have to do their bit too. It isn't about shaming them but they have to look at a bigger picture. Many people in the towns they play in don't earn a quarter of what they do each year. Some will have lost their jobs. And if it comes to a player vs Doris the tea lady or Bob the Kit Man, then I'm on the side of those folks who have to work for years to make a living and save or even work long after they should have retired to make ends meet.
30k or under - nothing
Then staggered 15% for earnings between 30-50k, 20% for 50-100k and 25% for 100k+
It means someone on 100k would end up earning 87k
Someone on 30k wouldn't lose a thing
Someone on 50k would drop down to 47k.
Someone on 75k would drop to £67k
It seems rather sensible to me and protects young kids and those at the bottom end while those in the middle don't lose out significantly.
Only affects the high earners and I can understand why they dig their heels in.
But then my view of that is that if players don't want to play then leave them sat on furlough and play the kids if they don't want to cut, particularly if there is no relegation. I wouldn't support pay cuts for anyone in ordinary circumstances but these aren't ordinary circumstances. I wouldn't be happy to take a pay cut myself but if it came to a decision between taking a cut and keeping my job, or refusing and not having a job at all, I'd take the first option everytime. Everyone else is making sacrifices: sponsors are still putting in money, fans are not asking for refunds and buying more stuff to keep revenue coming in, and clubs are exploring all options to keep it afloat including directors putting in loans.
Players have to do their bit too. It isn't about shaming them but they have to look at a bigger picture. Many people in the towns they play in don't earn a quarter of what they do each year. Some will have lost their jobs. And if it comes to a player vs Doris the tea lady or Bob the Kit Man, then I'm on the side of those folks who have to work for years to make a living and save or even work long after they should have retired to make ends meet.
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
Club asks for supporters not to request refunds for season tickets, whilst players refuse to take staged pay cuts that protect the lowest earners.
It’s not a bigger picture they need to see, it’s what in front of their face.
It’s not a bigger picture they need to see, it’s what in front of their face.
Re: ITS BACK
All this should have been sorted theve had more meetings than God knows what and it just looks a mess now ,I got a bad feeling about what's going to happen in the next two months
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 23:21
- Location: CAS
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
got your numbers wrong there 15% of 50k is 7.5K 20% is 10k so anyone on 50k would end up with 40k / 42.5 k depending which bracket you put them in, same goes for 100k depends which bracket you put them 20% reduction leaves them with 80k and 25% reduction leaves 75kHuddsTigers wrote: ↑07 Jul 2020, 12:06 I believe they were wanting a model like Hull (think it was them in League Express) where a % is taken between each boundary a player earns
30k or under - nothing
Then staggered 15% for earnings between 30-50k, 20% for 50-100k and 25% for 100k+
It means someone on 100k would end up earning 87k
Someone on 30k wouldn't lose a thing
Someone on 50k would drop down to 47k.
Someone on 75k would drop to £67k
75k would reduce to 60k not 67
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2986
- Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
I thought the same with the numbers but I'm guessing that Hudds has taken into account the salary already paid at full pay prior to having to take the cuts?noxandrattles wrote: ↑07 Jul 2020, 13:59got your numbers wrong there 15% of 50k is 7.5K 20% is 10k so anyone on 50k would end up with 40k / 42.5 k depending which bracket you put them in, same goes for 100k depends which bracket you put them 20% reduction leaves them with 80k and 25% reduction leaves 75kHuddsTigers wrote: ↑07 Jul 2020, 12:06 I believe they were wanting a model like Hull (think it was them in League Express) where a % is taken between each boundary a player earns
30k or under - nothing
Then staggered 15% for earnings between 30-50k, 20% for 50-100k and 25% for 100k+
It means someone on 100k would end up earning 87k
Someone on 30k wouldn't lose a thing
Someone on 50k would drop down to 47k.
Someone on 75k would drop to £67k
75k would reduce to 60k not 67
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 23:21
- Location: CAS
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
but are they not asking them to take a cut in the years salary and not just the portion that is still to be paid?
- Flat Capper
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 15173
- Joined: 06 Jul 2006, 00:10
- Location: Where ever I lay my fat
- Contact:
Re: ITS BACK
I'm thinking like a tax advisor accountant and its 15% of the difference between 30k and 50k, ie 20K, which equals a 3k deduction and so onderbystiger wrote: ↑07 Jul 2020, 14:41I thought the same with the numbers but I'm guessing that Hudds has taken into account the salary already paid at full pay prior to having to take the cuts?noxandrattles wrote: ↑07 Jul 2020, 13:59got your numbers wrong there 15% of 50k is 7.5K 20% is 10k so anyone on 50k would end up with 40k / 42.5 k depending which bracket you put them in, same goes for 100k depends which bracket you put them 20% reduction leaves them with 80k and 25% reduction leaves 75kHuddsTigers wrote: ↑07 Jul 2020, 12:06 I believe they were wanting a model like Hull (think it was them in League Express) where a % is taken between each boundary a player earns
30k or under - nothing
Then staggered 15% for earnings between 30-50k, 20% for 50-100k and 25% for 100k+
It means someone on 100k would end up earning 87k
Someone on 30k wouldn't lose a thing
Someone on 50k would drop down to 47k.
Someone on 75k would drop to £67k
75k would reduce to 60k not 67
Spreading the Cas gene pool
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests