|
|
Post by seth on Jan 21, 2004 14:27:45 GMT
PFA not exactly being helpful here
"Players contracts are sacrosanct" says suit Mick McGwire.
In any other business, it wouldn't be a problem to ask for staff to take wage reductions to ensure the survivial of the business. What's so different about football. Better to get a portion of wages rather than nothing. If they do go tits up, wages will be the last part yo be paid off.
If they are not careful, they'll end up with bugger all, a la ITV digital and the Football League.
|
|
|
|
Post by stonetezza on Jan 21, 2004 14:50:37 GMT
a How many of the players are interested in the survival of the business. Won't they just go and play somewhere else ?
b In law aren't unpaid wages one of the first things that get paid out by a liquidator/receiver? Why should the players but themselves further back down the queue. Somebody must have agreed to pay them these wages.
Suggest Leeds problems are not to do with players not taking pay cuts
|
|
|
|
Post by seth on Jan 21, 2004 14:59:06 GMT
Not suggesting that players are the root of the problem - they are not. But the attitude of the PFA is pretty lousy.
I doubt the players will get much from an 83m debt. And even if they get new clubs, not many will be paying Leeds' comedy wages.
|
|
|
|
Post by romfordstokie on Jan 21, 2004 15:00:42 GMT
Its the last strong trade union in this country sticking up for its members.
|
|
|
|
Post by stonetezza on Jan 21, 2004 15:11:18 GMT
No they won't get paid out of a £83m debt but when the liquidator comes in he will sell Smith, Viduka, Robinson etc and the proceeds from that goes to the preferred creditors one of which is the unpaid wages.
Is Peter Ridsdale an honorary member of the PFA now ?
|
|
