Action set for Dec 1 after talks break down. Suppose that's one way to halt the London jinx.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Answers

A Professional Footballers Association decision. What price a settlement before we hammer Charlton?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

So this could be a long drawn out negotiation phase then, eh?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Doesn't the proposed strike only apply to televised games? Please tell me the Charlton game isn't on tv this year, I'm not sure if I could face staying up until 4am to watch a repeat of last year's performance.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

It includes any match where cameras are present, whether for live transmission or taped highlights. So if they take the cameras out of the grounds, presumably the games would go on. Naturally that means we'll break the London jinx with hat tricks from Shearer and Bellamy and gorgeous Lolo and Nobby free kick goals for added measure. All of which will never be seen by anyone not at the match.

Hope some of you going to the match will be bringing your video cameras. ;-)

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Aye, you'd better take cameras along just in case. I for one will refuse to believe any of you who claim we won in London without some kind of evidence!

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

There is no indication at this stage that TV cameras would be taken out of any of the grounds, or switched off. They are, of course, now in place at all Premiership and Nationwide Div 1 games.

Next step is legal action by the Premier League to try and stop the strike.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

These are the Premiership games that weekend:

December 1 Aston Villa v Leicester Blackburn v Middlesbrough Charlton v Newcastle Derby v Liverpool Ipswich v Arsenal Manchester United v Chelsea Sunderland v West Ham December 2 Everton v Southampton Fulham v Leeds

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Got to feel Gordon Taylor is losing the plot .... Radio 5 last night

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

I thought he aquitted himself pretty well, he made more sense than that prat from Bradford City anyway. This strike looks like it's going to be a hoot doesn't it? Players huddled round the brazier outside the ground, riot police escorting scab players through the baying crowds, Sky TV broadcast vans in flames, baton charges, tear gas, be like the 80s all over again. Can't wait.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

I was amused at the Bradford chairman thinking the offer of £50m over three years was outrageous (up from £12m a year at present) only to be told his negotiators had increased it to £60m over three years without him knowing

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Latest from Sky News etc:

Television cameras will be at grounds on December 1 and 2 and players are obliged to play in front of them, according to Football League chief executive David Burns.

The Professional Footballers' Association last night called a strike for that weekend whereby no Premier League or Nationwide League matches would take place if cameras were present.

But Burns insists television companies will not be asked to stay away from stadia and players will be expected to ignore calls for a strike. Burns said: "Cameras will be at the football grounds that weekend. Players have an obligation to the clubs. They have a standard contract - if they are chosen and selected to play they are obligated to play. If they don't that will be a matter between them and their club."

Surely it's time to bring in Arthur Scargill to mediate?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Are foreign players members of the PFA?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

According to icDP, Barton says our players will strike if it comes to that, and he is pretty sure all our players voted for it. Also interesting to note that he was training with the bairns while the rest of the team had a day off.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

So the PFA are gonna get 50mil over three years, not bad that mind. With some proper investment and money management this would keep all the players in booze, drugs and female/male companions for ages. So if they all strike then it's gonna hurt the players in the lower leagues more than our overpayed pansies. So the players only pay a pound fifty a week in dues, it should be a percentage of their wages. If it was then all this would be sorted. But then again what would Warren do when he can't buy 100 cans of hairspray at a time. Maybe we the public should go on strike.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

If they're determined to strike and an injunction is taken out, what's to stop them compliying with the injunction, but getting onto the pitch and just sitting down or participating in some other non- football activity, for 90 minutes ?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Or alternativley getting on the pitch and swapping shirts with the opposition and playing a game thus nullyfying the result, this would surley break our london jinx.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

The numbers game is very confusing. £17 million sounds like a lot of dosh! But 5% does not sound unreasonable Apparently about £34 million. PFA will accept £27 million (about 4%) . I think the greedy Premier league/Nationwide etc should give this up. But the players should definately contribute proportionally to their wages...How many of them miss £1.50 per week? what a ridiculously low starting point.

The idea of Beckham picketing outside Old trafford is a nice thought.

Wonderful to see how well all these overpaid executives can negotiate. My Barristers bigger than yours???

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

participating in some other non- football activity, for 90 minutes ?

They must have started last Saturday then. ;-)

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

As late as last Saturday ? Seems longer to me.:-))

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Freddie Shepherd's words on the possible strike:

"Call me old fashioned, but the minute any Newcastle United player goes on strike is the minute we stop paying them.
Why should they be treated any differently from our supporters who have to work hard at their own jobs to pay their players' wages?
I can't understand why they think they have the right to go on strike. Newcastle United are not in dispute with the players over anything.
We pay them the best of wages - wages which some people may say are spiralling out of control - and we have honoured all our commitments to them from our side".

Difficult to argue with him imho.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Since when did FF care what we think

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Given that the first match which will effect us is away against Charlton and, taking into account how we've played in London for the past few years, can anybody give me any advice as to how we will be able to tell if our players are on strike that day or not?

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

It is easy to spout off when you have nothing to lose. SO by his stance he does not want players looked after then? Why not offer a solution instead of making meaningless statements.

Why not support his players and agree a deal with Charlton to ban the cameras?

Yes it is hard to disagree with what he has said, it is also hard to disagree with me when I say "I got up this morning".

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Hilarious, though, that some big names are apparently demanding another ballot now that the Chairmen are saying they will fine them if they strike. LOL. "Football isn't about "I'm all right, Jack". LOL. LOL. LOL.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Second ballot seems a bit pointless. Only means the yes vote will drop to 92% minus whatever percentage of the total is premiership players, assuming they now vote against. Can't see the rest changing their minds.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

How much would a Premiership player get if his career ended tomorrow and he had to retrain to be, say, a sheet metal worker ? Lets make the leap that says he'd have to have a years worth of training that would cost £20,000 to give to someone starting purely from scratch.

If said footballer loses a weeks wages and he is on a million a year then the that exactly equals the moeny he would have used for training.

Any longer than a week and he'd be completely out of pocket.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Don't know about the rest of you, but as an old fashioned leftie I was initially supportive of the proposed strike. There's no question that the PFA provide a safety net for all sorts of people in the football community - it's not about the millionaires, it's about the journeymen, the has-beens and the never-were's. But the more I think about it, the more annoyed I am about the PFA stance. Sure, the PFA represents a lot of poorly paid players, but come on! I'm struggling to think of another industry that pays it's employees as high a percentage of it's income, and it's not the fault of the employers that this income isn't distributed evenly. Whilst on first glance the demand for 5% of the cash seems reasonable, when put in context it's ridiculous. As far asI understnad it the 5% figure waa arrived at many years ago, and at the time may have represented a reasonable figure in the context of player wages. But the bottom line now is that the proportion of clubs income that goes to player salaries is way in excess of any other business that springs to mind. Given that this spreads all the way down to the bottom levels of football, it seems astonishing that the PFA are ready to strike even though they've been offered a fairly chunky sum. This 5% figure was set many years ago in a time when TV money was not especially significant. Given that professional footballers at all levels have benefitted from the increase in tv money through greatly increased wages, there is absolutely no reason why this figure should be adhered to. I'm really pissed off with both sides - the PFA for it's unreasonable demands, and the clubs for attempting to deny the good work the PFA does.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

"Said player" on £1M pa. Let's just assume he was asked to contribute 1% of his earnings (excluding endorsements/sponsorship) to the PFA. That's £10K pa. 20 teams in the PL, each with (say) 5 players on that sort of money makes 100 "player years" per season = £1M pa. I reckon that's low, as many squads are 35-40, and although all aren't on that money, even the McClens of the game (for example) must be on £250K pa and there's a lot of them.

So Mr Big of the PFA wants another £10M pa for his salary funds. Not too hard to see where a fair chunk of that could come from.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Every other union charges contributions for being a member so why not?

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

And to my knowledge no other employer contributes to the employees' union fund.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

Once again its us the fans who lose out. I tell you no lie if the strike goes ahead Ill not be renewing my season ticket because for me the game will have been destroyed by cash.

ken

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

The players pay rough;y £85 per year in subs. For your average Premiership player getting the average Premiership pay of £400,000 per year this is 0.02% of his income. There seems to be no discussion about increasing this amount, either % wise or absolutely.

The Premiership clubs on average pay about 64% of their turnover out to players.

If the PFA take 5% of the telly money then it is fair to say that the players have managed to get a nice little boost to their retirement funds.

As for the fans, well bugger us for being so stupid. If Newcastle are going to lose 5% of their telly revenue, and say that is £1m, then I pretty sure that'll £20 more on the price of a season ticket to make up the difference.

If the game at Charlton is postponed because of the players then the club should refuse to pay them and should then give that spare money to the fans who have bought tickets and have been either financially inconvenienced through non-cancellable train tickets, or just inconvenienced as they'll miss out on the 'highlight' of their week. Newcastle annual wage bill of ~£28m per year roughly equates to £500,000 for a week. No play, no pay, give it back to the fans.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

The answer to this mess is blindingly simple - it's called "a negotiated compromise".
It's about bloody time both the combatants in this nonsense realised that playtime is over, and arrive at the best settlement they can both achieve.
If they allow this to go to a strike - and I don't think they will - they should all be soundly thrashed with birch branches for killing the golden goose. Tossers!

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

I think the clubs will probably end up paying a bit more - say £20m pa and the shorfall in PFA "requirements" should be made up from an additional sliding-scale levy on the players themselves, who as has been rightly pointed out have gained far more over the last few years than any other party. That way, there's a bit of give on both sides. Talking of which, tosser extraordinaire Graham Taylor should pay 10% of his hugely-over-compensated salary to the fund as well.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

BTW - M@ster Bates has said that the PL and FL have applied for an injunction against the strike.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

..... oh well, that should solve the problem then!

-- Anonymous, November 22, 2001

I see the supporters group backs the strike , Im glad i didnt vote this bloke in...

off teamtwaddle:-

United Independent Supporters' Association chairman Frank Gilmour is flying in the face of Freddy Shepherd and backing the PFA strike plan. Shepherd's hard-line stance against the threatened players' strike has been condemned by United fans' representatives. The United supremo has threatened not to pay any player who heeds the PFA's strike call and accused PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor of talking "rubbish and propaganda". But Newcastle UISA chairman Gilmour is backing the players, saying: "They will know that once you withdraw your labour you don't get paid and I think most of the fans at Newcastle support them in their actions. "We all realise this is not about getting more money for themselves but looking after lower league players who aren't millionaires and the youngsters who don't make it in the game. "The only fans who won't support the players are the corporate fans. But, as we see at every home match, there are too many of those at Newcastle." Jane Duffy, who clashed with Shepherd over the Save Our Seats campaign two years ago, added: "The PFA are completely justified in their position and I think that Mr Shepherd's comments are off the mark."

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

proof that they don't represent us. I'll boo the bastards onto the pitch next time they play if they strike. Any one else reckon the fans should protest about the players? Stay silent for 90mins? They seem to do that at th SoShite for a while now

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

I fancy Mr Gilmour - whoever the hell he is - and Ms. Duffy must have been at the whacky-baccy!

Out of interest, does anyone know how someone like Gilmour is appointed to a position where can can spout off like this in the name of you and I?

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Nope but does anyone know his email address so i can ask him to stop representing ME.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Doesn't matter strike is off according to 5 live

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001