Players asked to take pay cuts!

[JP14]

I don't think the salary cap reduction is permanent, in my view a reduced salary cap next season is feasible to help clubs make ends meet, but why bother having this argument when the West Country Cartel have already vetoed it?

[johnthegriff]

Get rid of the Marquee player system, keep the cap as it is, inflation will reduce it's value, players have contracts which in the main are short term so negotiation at that time will reduce wages without legal challenge, of course fans will complain when a star (Johnny May?) refuses a reduced wage but maybe we could introduce a maximum wage limit to encourage teams to recruit a deep enough squad rather than paying too much to just a few players.
The club should do what it has to to ensure survival through these difficult times but it should discuss it's actions with those involved as a simple courtesy. Of course I presume players agents are affected if their clients earnings are reduced so they won't be happy.

[Alandrin75]

Worthless prima donnas - they will still have an income, I know people with much lower salaries who now have nothing they have been sacked. I used to be proud of tigers -member, season ticket holder avid fan but now the only thing I feel is ashamed - poor performances, friction against management and coaches and now suing the club. It makes me very ashamed. When this epidemic is over If not before they should sack the lot and start afresh.

YES, i COMPLETELY AGREE! No more to say.

From what I understand they have asked the players to take a pay cut not a deferment and the cut is until an open ended date which isnt clear and not training resumes. The biggest issue from what I understand was the players want full pay to resume when they start training which I believe to be only fair.

They aren't worthless prima donna's they are being, on the surface, shafted by the club who are breaking the law. No matter the situation you can't, as a business, go our and break law just because you feel like it.

[Cardiff Tig]

I don't think the salary cap reduction is permanent, in my view a reduced salary cap next season is feasible to help clubs make ends meet, but why bother having this argument when the West Country Cartel have already vetoed it?

Because I think people blindly attacking the players for essentially questioning blanket contract changes is unnecessary. Clearly the Club wanted a minimum of a 15-month reduction in salaries without consulting the players and hiding behind the governments short term furlough scheme. The fact it isn't happening is a good thing for individuals who aren't to blame for the long term issues throughout the league regarding business models.

Let me be clear, I have no issue with anyone being asked to take a short-term pay cut in times of need. I have a problem with clubs using the worldwide pandemic to effectively screw over lots of players that are mid-contract, having happily signed contracts with them that the club can't actually manage sustainably in the future from the start. We are a loss-making club and the board knew that perfectly well when they put this squad together. If the club knows it needs to save a lot of money then Peter Tom etc need to inform those players who are likely to be released so they can make future plans, or speak to the playing group as a whole about the true situation and they can all help each other.

I wouldn't be surprised if some clubs do go into administration from this and have to start again from the bottom of the leagues. But professional rugby has been digging this hole at least 5 years (when was the last time we made a profit?) and I don't think it should be down to the players to suffer and get the blame just so the same 12 teams are in the league next year.

[Scott1]

The share idea being turned down? Could it be that (hopefully!!!) we could be back up for sale once everything gets back to some kind of normality?

[sk 88]

Get rid of the Marquee player system, keep the cap as it is, inflation will reduce it's value, players have contracts which in the main are short term so negotiation at that time will reduce wages without legal challenge, of course fans will complain when a star (Johnny May?) refuses a reduced wage but maybe we could introduce a maximum wage limit to encourage teams to recruit a deep enough squad rather than paying too much to just a few players.
The club should do what it has to to ensure survival through these difficult times but it should discuss it's actions with those involved as a simple courtesy. Of course I presume players agents are affected if their clients earnings are reduced so they won't be happy.

100% agree John.

On the maximum wage/depth issue, if we instead mandated a minimum wage of £50k and a minimum squad size of 50 that would to some extent enforce depth and limit the differential to what the "star players" can earn compared to the rest.

You can fiddle with those number to get the balance you fancy but its the same idea without the tricky "maximum wage" problem.

[BigDan50]

What with the players in revolt and the board of directors being their usual incompetent selves this doesn’t set Leicester Tigers in a very good light.
We are not hearing or seeing other clubs behaving like this.
Will players want to join us with this kind of attitude prevailing at the club.
Only Saracens in a bigger mess than us, very disappointing news coming out it the club.

[JP14]

I think some of these people need to take a chill pill, puts the commenting section of Daily Mail into perspective...

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/spor ... us-4071865

[ourla]

I think some of these people need to take a chill pill, puts the commenting section of Daily Mail into perspective...

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/spor ... us-4071865

Not sure what you are reading but that doesn't sound very good at all.

Big disconnect between the board and the players.

[sapajo]

Every players worth is only dependant on what any employer is prepared to pay them. If that means that said employers will no longer be able or willing to pay them more than -25 % of their current wages then they can sue for the difference till contract expiration and then take a 25 % pay cut or ??????

[TigerBoy1880]

Worthless prima donnas - they will still have an income, I know people with much lower salaries who now have nothing they have been sacked. I used to be proud of tigers -member, season ticket holder avid fan but now the only thing I feel is ashamed - poor performances, friction against management and coaches and now suing the club. It makes me very ashamed. When this epidemic is over If not before they should sack the lot and start afresh.

YES, i COMPLETELY AGREE! No more to say.

From what I understand they have asked the players to take a pay cut not a deferment and the cut is until an open ended date which isnt clear and not training resumes. The biggest issue from what I understand was the players want full pay to resume when they start training which I believe to be only fair.

They aren't worthless prima donna's they are being, on the surface, shafted by the club who are breaking the law. No matter the situation you can't, as a business, go our and break law just because you feel like it.

The company I work for have said our wages may not increase back to normal when we return to work and haven’t put a date on when and if they would return to normal. I still have a job though and on a considerable lot less money than Tigers players.

[ourla]

Every players worth is only dependant on what any employer is prepared to pay them. If that means that said employers will no longer be able or willing to pay them more than -25 % of their current wages then they can sue for the difference till contract expiration and then take a 25 % pay cut or ??????

From reading that article the players think Tom and the club will try to pull a fast one by making the cut and not reversing it when things get back to normal.

There are plenty of times when a player turns out to be not as good as you thought he would and you feel you are overpaying. Equally some players turn out to be far better.

In either circumstance the other party has to suck it up until contract renewal time.

This to me is a whole different scenario.

With the worrying aspect that the players clearly think the board are shysters.

[ourla]

The company I work for have said our wages may not increase back to normal when we return to work and haven’t put a date on when and if they would return to normal.

And you are OK with that?

[Scott1]

Anyone know the legality? I'm all for cuts in wages during this time but when I go back and was told I'm still on 80% I'd be seeking immediate counsel too!

[Scott1]

YES, i COMPLETELY AGREE! No more to say.

From what I understand they have asked the players to take a pay cut not a deferment and the cut is until an open ended date which isnt clear and not training resumes. The biggest issue from what I understand was the players want full pay to resume when they start training which I believe to be only fair.

They aren't worthless prima donna's they are being, on the surface, shafted by the club who are breaking the law. No matter the situation you can't, as a business, go our and break law just because you feel like it.

The company I work for have said our wages may not increase back to normal when we return to work and haven’t put a date on when and if they would return to normal. I still have a job though and on a considerable lot less money than Tigers players.

I know what I'd be saying to my boss