Burkie1203 wrote: » Munster are South Africa B Ulster would be South Africa C (+ Ruan Pienaar, who would still be lining out at 9 while collecting his pension)
awec wrote: » And he'd probably still be the best 9 in Ireland while enjoying that pension.
Bazzo wrote: » Suppose they have to keep Munster to have any hope of recuperating that debt on Thomond Park :pac:
Burkie1203 wrote: » IRFU seeking 20% cut on player salaries and other staff have agreed a 4 day weekhttps://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/irfu-looking-for-20-pay-cut-among-players-as-staff-agree-four-day-week-1.4277685?mode=amp
awec wrote: » Cutting backroom staff the same percentage as players. Giving players their deferred pay in October. All the while asking for charity from supporters. That's some joke.
Bazzo wrote: » I don't get it, why so?
awec wrote: » It’s a bit grotesque to cut the salaries of normal people on modest enough incomes, and then a few months later turn round and give players tens or hundreds of thousands of euro lump sums of backdated pay. The lump sum payments make a mockery of the charitable plea for donations. Obviously finances aren’t so tight that they can afford to make these huge payouts. The money the IRFU plan on giving to players in October should be used to avoid cutting the salaries of their non-rugby staff who aren’t earning big bucks.
Bazzo wrote: » Players earning potential is for a very short period of time. Obviously they're still very well compensated but a lot of the backroom staff are presumably in normal enough jobs without the same limitations. It's tough and I feel for anyone taking a wage cut/reduced working week(as is happening here, it's not a straight pay cut except to the players) but it's no different to what's happening in all industries at the moment. In many of them the high earners wouldn't also be swallowing a 20% pay cut.
awec wrote: » It's a lot different. How would you feel if your employer cut your income 20% in order to fund a huge lump sum payout to another employee on a salary that's likely many multiples of yours?
Former Former wrote: » They have to give them their deferred pay, that was the deal. They can't just go back on it. I don't see what else they could do apart from an across the board paycut.The charity is needed because income has collapsed. If none of the supporters contribute, the pay cuts will be even worse and layoffs will follow.
Buer wrote: » Very common for organisations to have to honour payments they committed to. Dozens of large companies were still giving one off payments to some staff whilst giving paycuts and redundancies to others in recent years. It ain't right but this is in no way a surprise. The rugby players have an exceptionally strong position in so far that their jobs cannot be performed by anyone else and the income of the organisation is completely dependent on them playing.
awec wrote: » The players work in an industry where income has completely collapsed globally, and where there is, at the time of writing, no plan on even getting back to anything close to previous income levels. Player salaries today are now completely unsustainable. A 20% cut in salaries of top earners seems like deck chairs on the titanic stuff. Players must surely realise this. There's a fraction of the money coming in, and the plan is to reduce costs by a fraction. Madness, IMO.
Buer wrote: » Again, absolutely nothing we haven't seen before in other industries. Keep in mind these are contracted players. Their contracts will be trimmed in line with the financial impact or not renewed at all. Just not immediately. I can understand why someone on a 2 year contract is slow to take a 20% pay cut when they know full well they're going to take that cut and more regardless next year at best. At worst they'll just be unemployed and told they need to emigrate if they want to continue to play rugby. Some players will have taken the cut already I'd imagine if they've signed new deals in the last 3 months.
errlloyd wrote: » I think it's a case that in the good times player salaries increase but admin salaries stay the same. David Humphreys might have been getting 150k at the peak of his career and Sexton probably 5 times that. But the salary of the person who answers the phone in Landsdown Road is probably still the same. I think if the players increase disproportionately with good times they should decrease disproportionately with bad times. Their salaries are all market inflated. There is no market now. It's a slightly separate discussion, but if a free market didn't exist. What do we think is a fair amount to pay a player? They risk injury and the career is short etc. You have to pay them some extra to compensate for the risk they take in the years they don't earn. But they usually get educated and there is little to stop them having a reasonable regular career after, D'Arcy is at investec, Eoin Reddan does aircraft leasing.
Former Former wrote: » It seems that "players' salaries" is being taken to mean to the 10% or so who are on a big wedge. The majority of players are on a lot less. If you've a provincial squad player on say 120k, asking him to take more of a hit is a big ask. You can probably do so knowing you have them over a barrel. So you say OK, we'll hit the biggest earners hardest. Except they're the guys who can say, screw this, I'll go elsewhere. This isn't an ideal situation but it's about as much as IRFU can do.
errlloyd wrote: » I think if the players increase disproportionately with good times they should decrease disproportionately with bad times. Their salaries are all market inflated. There is no market now.
Buer wrote: » That's simply not realistic at all though. It's ignoring the unique situation players are in i.e. they're not permanent employees, limited career and the entire organisation is dependent on a group of people who cannot be replaced. Playing budgets will be massively slashed just not in the same approach. Leinster will sign no new players and release several. New contracts will be negotiated in line with new budgets. It's not possible to just slash the salaries overnight of players for those reasons. It didn't happen in 2010 and it won't happen now.
awec wrote: » Yea? Where do you think they will go? Salaries are being cut everywhere. Of course it's a sliding scale by the way. The pay deferral was a sliding scale. Enormous difference saying you'll pay back the 10% you deferred from someone on 120k vs the 50% you deferred from someone on 500k.
Former Former wrote: » There will still be a market for the big names. It's the low to mid range guys who won't be able to move. Not paying the deferred salaries just isn't an option. IRFU wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
D14Rugby wrote: » Jesus Christ which player pissed in your cornflakes? Staff from all areas agreed to pay deferrals of varying degrees with those on more deferring a higher percentage. Now everyone is getting a pay cut of 20% and while for office staff that will come with a reduction in work for the players it will not.
People who had pay deferred are not getting it in one lump sum either, it will be slowly paid back bit by bit. Or would you rather the IRFU just decided not to fulfil its contractual obligations and open itself up to legal action.
Your "why should office staff take a pay cut to pay the deferred money owed to players" is bs too because players are also taking a pay cut and office staff are being paid back at some point too.
You're acting as if rugby players are on hundreds of thousands a week, when in reality those on central contracts range from 300-600k per year in pay from the IRFU, Sexton is in slightly more nut not substantially more from the IRFU. That accounts for about 15 players, so the other 200 or so players contracted to the IRFU in some form are on less than that. To add to that these players will have outgoings proportional to their contracted wages, mortgages, businesses, etc, you can't just act as if they're swimming in cash because they're professional (or semi pro for academy players) athletes. You might want to get that chip on your shoulder seen to because knowing IRFU backroom staff they're happy with how things are being handled so there's no need for you to get your knickers in a twist on their behalf.
awec wrote: » You mention this as if it makes any difference. Why do you think this makes a difference?
You appear to have inside knowledge that nobody here nor journalists have. Perhaps you can detail it out for all of us? Certainly, Gerry Thornley gave no such impression in his article.
I think you're failing to comprehend the issue here. The 20% cut being proposed is permanent.
Nope, I'm acting like they're on hundreds of thousands a year, which they are.
The rest of this post is such tone-deaf scutter that it doesn't even warrant a response. "These guys have businesses". Good grief, are we supposed to sympathise because some players second, third or maybe even fourth source of income is potentially going to dry up? Have a word with yourself.
You are bootlicking here. It's not a good look.
D14Rugby wrote: » "However, their deferred pay will be repaid between July and October of this year."
D14Rugby wrote: » How on earth did you get me not comprehending that its a 20% cut from what I said? I literally used the words deferred and cut specifically. More selective reading.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
