Not yet agreed terms : Sun Jul 12, 2020 6:50 pm  

According to this http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1038862369?-43 ... t_read_top (And I know it’s a tabloid) we have not yet agreed terms with the players. Is anyone else concerned by this? Does anyone know the reasons why. With the return to training imminent it needs to be sorted.

According to this http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1038862369?-43 ... t_read_top (And I know it’s a tabloid) we have not yet agreed terms with the players. Is anyone else concerned by this? Does anyone know the reasons why. With the return to training imminent it needs to be sorted.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:58 pm  

well I've read that at least one club owner has told the players it's a take it or on your bike offer,it could be interesting what the player market will look like soon

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:17 pm  

I would assume that given the signing of Bateman (albeit for next year) and the stated interest in buying Latics from a consortium involving IL that the players have taken the view that the proposed wage cuts are too large for their liking, given that it seems there could be a pot of money available to pay for those things but not for a proportion of their contracted wages that they are happy with.

Hopefully it can be sorted to the satisfaction of all parties asap.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:39 am  

Batemans salary NEXT YEAR will be easily covered by the departing players, the likes of Escare, Burgess, Flower, O'Loughlin, Leuluai and possibly Greenwood. Lenagans involvement in the Latics bid is irrelevant.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:47 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Batemans salary NEXT YEAR will be easily covered by the departing players, the likes of Escare, Burgess, Flower, O'Loughlin, Leuluai and possibly Greenwood. Lenagans involvement in the Latics bid is irrelevant.

Spot on about the irrelevance of the Latics bid. The key issue is what the business is able to afford with its current income streams; the other business interests of the majority shareholder has not relevance whatsoever. Following that logic, players could complain if they found out that IL had used his money to buy a new sofa.

Notwithstanding, Lenagan has put an extra £500k of his own money into the club anyhow.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:32 pm  

I am only offering an opinion as to why I think agreement may not have have been reached. You don't have to agree with it but neither is there need for a condescending tone to any response. I am well aware that Bateman's deal begins next year. It is not beyond the realms of possibility for someone facing a wage cut to take the view that money being allocated to spend next year could be being taken at least in part from savings being made now by effecting said cuts.

Even a small percentage share in the costs of buying a football club is going to be a damn site more expensive than something like a sofa. I was only putting forward an opinion that those facing wage cuts (who don't seem to be happy enough to agree to whatever terms were offered as yet) may view such considerations of expenditure from the club owner as more relevant to their situation than you do.

Do either of you have any thoughts as to reasons why our club do not seem to have settled the issue?

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:42 pm  

Why should players take rage cuts? They are employed and if the clubs want them off furlow they need to pay their contracted wage.
End of

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:57 pm  

Shabino wrote:

Why should players take rage cuts? They are employed and if the clubs want them off furlow they need to pay their contracted wage.
End of

It’s not that simple though and I think the players are aware of that. Do they want full pay and risk the club/sports existence? Or can they agree to a pay cut and safeguard the clubs/sports long term future, in turn making it more likely they’ll have the option to continue their profession as a pro rugby player.

It may not be that serious at all clubs but I’m pretty sure there will be a number of clubs where if the players push for and get full pay, their very existence may be in doubt. The top 20% of players would be fine, they’d get a gig for an NRL club or in Rugby Union but there’s many who’d need to go and find a new career. It would probably be full time graft on less pay in many cases.

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:32 pm  

wiganermike wrote:

I am only offering an opinion as to why I think agreement may not have have been reached. You don't have to agree with it but neither is there need for a condescending tone to any response. I am well aware that Bateman's deal begins next year. It is not beyond the realms of possibility for someone facing a wage cut to take the view that money being allocated to spend next year could be being taken at least in part from savings being made now by effecting said cuts.

Even a small percentage share in the costs of buying a football club is going to be a damn site more expensive than something like a sofa. I was only putting forward an opinion that those facing wage cuts (who don't seem to be happy enough to agree to whatever terms were offered as yet) may view such considerations of expenditure from the club owner as more relevant to their situation than you do.

Do either of you have any thoughts as to reasons why our club do not seem to have settled the issue?

I think the six clubs who are due to play on that 1st day (2nd August) were the ones under most pressure to get the deals sorted quickly. As for Bateman as I said that money will be from players leaving at the end of this season so any wage cuts are irrelevant imo of course.

Then of course we have the Leeds situation whereby they are claiming it is unfair for them to have to travel to Catalan because they are allowed to have a crowd (up to 5,000 I believe) in attendance which according to GH will put Leeds at a disadvantage and they would rather Catalan travel to the U.K. and play the game behind closed doors at a neutral venue?

Re: Not yet agreed terms : Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:12 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I think the six clubs who are due to play on that 1st day (2nd August) were the ones under most pressure to get the deals sorted quickly. As for Bateman as I said that money will be from players leaving at the end of this season so any wage cuts are irrelevant imo of course.

Then of course we have the Leeds situation whereby they are claiming it is unfair for them to have to travel to Catalan because they are allowed to have a crowd (up to 5,000 I believe) in attendance which according to GH will put Leeds at a disadvantage and they would rather Catalan travel to the U.K. and play the game behind closed doors at a neutral venue?

While it would make sense that time pressure to get sorted and resume training would drive clubs to seek to complete negotiations quickly (and could have led to some clubs agreeing on smaller cuts than they would have preferred due to time pressure) the split hasn't worked out totally along those lines. According to press reports Hull KR are one of those not in agreement (said to be pretty far from agreement in media reports when 3 clubs were said to have agreed) and they play on August 2nd while Hull FC who don't (and the owner of whom was frequently speaking to the press about financial strain during the suspension) were one of if not the first to come to agreement with their squad. For whatever reason exactly some clubs haven't reached agreement I imagine the financial position of clubs and players and the opinions of players as to how equitably the proposed terms treat them is a factor.