Players asked to take pay cuts!

[johnthegriff]

Probably you will do what I did back in the eighties, the company I worked for had not given a proper rise for a few years as they were using profits to pay increased dividends to the beneficiaries of deceased major shareholders in an attempt to reduce the share price to a level that enabled the M.D to purchase the shares. I was offered a job elsewhere with a substantial increase in salary, I took it, and within two years was made redundant and discovered that being in your 40's was considered old and getting back on the ladder very difficult.

[strawclearer]

I suspect that 'security of tenure' is at least as dodgy at Tigers as it is elsewhere. In fact..................'nuff said.

[TigerBoy1880]

I hope players realise they’re lucky to have a job, a very well paid job, even if they are having to be on a lower wage. Some people are less fortunate.

Cutting your cloth accordingly is something a fair amount of people are not used to nowadays. Maybe it’s time some people sorted their priorities out and do exactly that.

I doubt that the players are any less sensitive to the situation of others than the rest of us. I think it's more straightforward though...

If your current employer chooses to demand a 25% wage cut of you (and does so in a very autocratic way, I might add) and a prospective employer offers you a 25% increase - what are you going to do?

The answer you’re looking for is to jump ship to the other employer. However, I’m not giving you that answer. The grass isn’t always greener. How does the other company look after its staff? How does the other company compare in job security? These have to be weighed up.

[Tiglon]

I hope players realise they’re lucky to have a job, a very well paid job, even if they are having to be on a lower wage. Some people are less fortunate.

Cutting your cloth accordingly is something a fair amount of people are not used to nowadays. Maybe it’s time some people sorted their priorities out and do exactly that.

I doubt that the players are any less sensitive to the situation of others than the rest of us. I think it's more straightforward though...

If your current employer chooses to demand a 25% wage cut of you (and does so in a very autocratic way, I might add) and a prospective employer offers you a 25% increase - what are you going to do?

The answer you’re looking for is to jump ship to the other employer. However, I’m not giving you that answer. The grass isn’t always greener. How does the other company look after its staff? How does the other company compare in job security? These have to be weighed up.

I'd jump ship. But yes, only after weighing up those kind of questions and if I was confident I wasn't sacrificing security, treatment etc for the money.

Either way, if my employer said permanent pay cut, I'd be instantly looking at what other options I had and that's probably what a lot of players are doing right now.

[Old Hob]

Probably you will do what I did back in the eighties, the company I worked for had not given a proper rise for a few years as they were using profits to pay increased dividends to the beneficiaries of deceased major shareholders in an attempt to reduce the share price to a level that enabled the M.D to purchase the shares. I was offered a job elsewhere with a substantial increase in salary, I took it, and within two years was made redundant and discovered that being in your 40's was considered old and getting back on the ladder very difficult.

Forgive me, I know it's not strictly on topic but I'm intrigued to know how paying increased dividends reduces share price. I would have thought the opposite.

[h's dad]

Probably you will do what I did back in the eighties, the company I worked for had not given a proper rise for a few years as they were using profits to pay increased dividends to the beneficiaries of deceased major shareholders in an attempt to reduce the share price to a level that enabled the M.D to purchase the shares. I was offered a job elsewhere with a substantial increase in salary, I took it, and within two years was made redundant and discovered that being in your 40's was considered old and getting back on the ladder very difficult.

Forgive me, I know it's not strictly on topic but I'm intrigued to know how paying increased dividends reduces share price. I would have thought the opposite.

As a general rule the value of a company falls by the amount of dividend issued. The attraction of a high yield would be negated by the reduction of capital available to reinvest and hence increase future profits.

[johnthegriff]

Small company, shares were valued at about £14 each, 75% of the shares were held by widows of past Directors who had been paid a pension in return for which it was naively expected that on their death the shares would return to the company at par. Unfortunately the beneficiaries of the ladies having paid inheritance tax on the full value did not wish to part with the shares for just £1 each, so it was decided that for a few years during which wages were held down the company paid a 22% annual dividend, the shareholders were made aware of the extra paid and set it against a future sale eventually agreeing to sell the shares to the M.D for about half the true value. I only learned of the subterfuge when a competitor company considering head hunting me informed me. Upto that time whilst I knew my little department was doing very well I believed the rest of the business was struggling, actually that is what they told me when I asked for a rise., you can see why I left them after being happy for 19 years.

[Old Hob]

Thank you. Although under-capitalisation doesn't seem to bother hedge funds who like high dividends and funding through loans - but enough.

[sapajo]

Can someone please explain to me If the players all accept a 25% pay cut how can Tigers still be spending upto the salary cap ?

Surely if Tigers are still spending upto the salary cap, in theory they now have 25% of their original player wage bill to spend on new players in order to still spend upto the cap?

[RagingBull]

Can someone please explain to me If the players all accept a 25% pay cut how can Tigers still be spending upto the salary cap ?

Surely if Tigers are still spending upto the salary cap, in theory they now have 25% of their original player wage bill to spend on new players in order to still spend upto the cap?

It's going down....

[Tiglon]

Have Tigers actually asked all players to take a permanent 25% pay cut? I haven't seen it specifically confirmed anywhere, only reports of players being asked to go on furlough and having temporary pay cuts.

[h's dad]

Thank you. Although under-capitalisation doesn't seem to bother hedge funds who like high dividends and funding through loans - but enough.

Now you’re making it complicated, and very different to discrete companies. I don’t know about the dividend policy although a hedge fund might want more liquidity than, say, a private equity fund because of access – not at all sure about that though. It’s good to borrow when it is cheaper than sharing with other investors, and if it isn't cheaper a hedge fund is unlikely to be interested. Of course it all depends on whether you’re going long or short. I’m happy but this may be more than enough for most of our fellows.

[Chobbsy]

This is not good news if correct

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/53221780

[Roadsweeper]

If they don't sign to agree to a variation of employment contract, they essentially the next step is for the club to continue paying their full salary or make them "redundant". If they don't receive full salary the club is in breach of contract and the players can walk away. It's a way of getting out of a contract if you wish to as Isaac Rodda did in Aussie.

The catch as far as the players go is can they get better terms elsewhere; France or Japan; or risk being unemployed, with English clubs having full playing staff and spent up to the new cap?

It's essentially a game of chicken.

[mol2]

The problem for Tigers is that the law is normall that you are making the post redundant not the individual so might get into tribunal territory if they make a prop redundant and hire a cheaper one.