Forum topic

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthPort
NorthPort's picture






Brad_12345
Brad_12345's picture

Was actually meant to be the first 2 games but the players rejected it

paul

Apparently the proposal put to them was a 10% pay cut but that was a no goer.

Bearsman
Bearsman's picture

While this is obviously a proactive move to address income issues, I dont like that they are squeezing the players. You ony have to look at what happened at Frankston (several times) with mass player departures when there were player payment issues. These guys work hard for their money ....training, travelling and playing with risk of injury, so they are entitled to expect top dollar for their services. Anyone who has had to cop a pay cut in their job will tell you what a bad feeling it is.

I hope Port know what they are doing here....this could very easily come back to bite them.

 

 

Ron Burger
Ron Burger's picture

Completely agree that it's tough on players to have to take what looks like a 6% cut (1 of 17 games). However, the club is bigger than the individual and I trust players see the long term value of a vibrant, SOLVENT PMFC. If that mean expenditure has to be reined in due to revenue shortfalls, so be it.

This time - but don't let it become a habit! 

Bearsman
Bearsman's picture

Probably a good idea to do it early in the year.  Time heals......

paul

Correct Ron, few players will leave on the basis of something like this (when Frankston did something similar one season almost the entire list returned the next year) but if it becomes a repeat thing then they will understandably lose faith.

Pages