Non home grown

[Özim]

Gunnersaurus was made redundant, not sacked, there is a difference. Are you privy to the redundancy pay out he got? I am certainly not and it's why I have not joined in with the "Arsenal are so mean getting rid of people like this", moreover, they have released him temporarily until the COVID situation is sorted out...

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/11/paul-...urus-13403985/

The decision isn't ridiculous and why you and others are comparing us temporarily relieving the club mascot against signing a new player is beyond me. What do you suggest we do? Not invest in the team? Would you be happy with that if it meant we kept on certain staff paying them wages to sit at home? I don't even understand why they are linked...it makes no sense.

The point I was making about Arteta is admiring the work he has done so far given the difficult circumstances that have surrounded him taking on his first ever managerial job, money again has nothing to do with it. It's the personal circumstances and decisions he has made that I admire.

I don't admire the financial side of football at all so I get where you are coming from with that, but I also don't admire the financial side of many things these days so I term it as a problem with society, capitalism, everything has a price.

Yes naturally because he did nothing wrong, that may be true but we do also know Arsenal are not exactly generous when it comes to money, it's now a ruthless business that seems to care about one thing, not the fans, not what happens on the pitch, just how much money can be made, so I personally doubt he got anything more than he was entitled to, certainly not the 2 years you mention, especially as they're clearly trying to cut costs

Treating your employees and being successful are not mutually exclusive, you can do both and certainly for someone who has worked here for 27 years it's morally the right thing to do, as for bringing him back, well I think that only came out once Ozil offered to pay his wages and made Arsenal look even worse than they did so for me it's an afterthought.

As for the money spent on transfers, it's all the same, if we have 45 million for transfers we certainly have 30k or whatever it is to suppose a long standing employee who has been loyal. As I said we're owned by a billionaire and it's a drop in the ocean for him, the damage he's done to him and the club is far worse than the salary they've saved, a mere tiny fraction of what the playing staff and manager etc earn.

You can look at it however you like, but IMO, it's plain wrong and just reflects terribly on the club, a club that many fans already think has just one focus.

[Mac76]

Yes naturally because he did nothing wrong, that may be true but we do also know Arsenal are not exactly generous when it comes to money, it's now a ruthless business that seems to care about one thing, not the fans, not what happens on the pitch, just how much money can be made, so I personally doubt he got anything more than he was entitled to, certainly not the 2 years you mention, especially as they're clearly trying to cut costs

Treating your employees and being successful are not mutually exclusive, you can do both and certainly for someone who has worked here for 27 years it's morally the right thing to do, as for bringing him back, well I think that only came out once Ozil offered to pay his wages and made Arsenal look even worse than they did so for me it's an afterthought.

As for the money spent on transfers, it's all the same, if we have 45 million for transfers we certainly have 30k or whatever it is to suppose a long standing employee who has been loyal. As I said we're owned by a billionaire and it's a drop in the ocean for him, the damage he's done to him and the club is far worse than the salary they've saved, a mere tiny fraction of what the playing staff and manager etc earn.

You can look at it however you like, but IMO, it's plain wrong and just reflects terribly on the club, a club that many fans already think has just one focus.

[selassie]

Yes naturally because he did nothing wrong, that may be true but we do also know Arsenal are not exactly generous when it comes to money, it's now a ruthless business that seems to care about one thing, not the fans, not what happens on the pitch, just how much money can be made, so I personally doubt he got anything more than he was entitled to, certainly not the 2 years you mention, especially as they're clearly trying to cut costs

Treating your employees and being successful are not mutually exclusive, you can do both and certainly for someone who has worked here for 27 years it's morally the right thing to do, as for bringing him back, well I think that only came out once Ozil offered to pay his wages and made Arsenal look even worse than they did so for me it's an afterthought.

As for the money spent on transfers, it's all the same, if we have 45 million for transfers we certainly have 30k or whatever it is to suppose a long standing employee who has been loyal. As I said we're owned by a billionaire and it's a drop in the ocean for him, the damage he's done to him and the club is far worse than the salary they've saved, a mere tiny fraction of what the playing staff and manager etc earn.

You can look at it however you like, but IMO, it's plain wrong and just reflects terribly on the club, a club that many fans already think has just one focus.

We know nothing of Arsenal's finances and what they do or do not give their staff, if you know please share the facts?

As I said in response to Letters's post we do not know what kind of financial severance package Gunnersaurus was given! All you are doing is speculating and you do not have one bit of factual evidence to support what you are stating.

You use the example of the transfer and then state about 30k for Gunnersaurus, for all we know Arsenal may have paid him off 100K! We don't know...so to complain from the rooftops about a situation you are not privy to is plain weird!

It's quite telling how quiet Gunnersaurus has been, maybe he his happy with his severance package considering Arsenal stated that he will be re-employed once things are back to normal!

My point about Gunnersaurus is based around the fact that certain posters on here and people in the media are jumping up and down about a redundancy, temporary one at that without knowing the true facts at hand. Does anybody know what kind of financial severance package Gunnersaurus was given? I certainly don't and without these facts I think it's ignorant to jump up and down and point fingers.


The reason I have said the above is because a few of my friends were made redundant through COVID 19 but were given financial severance packages that equated to almost 2 years salaries with the maximum allowed tax free lump sum. I am not saying Arsenal did this with Gunnersaurus, but we just don't know, it's ignorant to start spouting without the details. The redundancy severance package he was given may well have been way above any furlough payment he would receive if he was kept on!


Not only that, but most of the articles relating to Arsenal temporarily relieving him of his duties, have been reported as that he was Sacked! He wasn't sacked! How ignorant can some people be, read the articles from the Athletic or the Guardian and it clearly states the situation in detail regarding relieving him of his duties. Arsenal have even said that it's a temporary measure and he will be back when things get back to normal...whatever normal will be in the future.


Also furlough scheme is not really an option for players at premier league clubs due to their high wages, see article below;


https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/can-...h13l9hy1zmbk6n


I think the optics of making Gunnersaurus redundant on the same day as activating Partey's release clause for the reasons i've given above are not linked and are irrelevant given nobody knows what kind of severance package Gunnersaurs was given. Gunnersaurus may actually be finanically better off now! So all this talk of disillusionment may be a waste of time given we do not know the financials behind the redundancies!


I also think Mesut Ozil's pathetic cheap shot at the club via Instagram regarding offering to pay Gunnersaurus's wages exposed Mesut for the complete tosser he is. This is a man who refused to take a paycut when all the other members of the team did, most of the other team members are on a quarter or less than what he earns. Not only that, but he happily picked up his 8million bonus in the midst of sitting at home doing sweet FA. Yet people still fell hook line and sinker for it, Ozil is a thief, a conman, he is the one we should be disillusioned with!

[Özim]

We know nothing of Arsenal's finances and what they do or do not give their staff, if you know please share the facts?

As I said in response to Letters's post we do not know what kind of financial severance package Gunnersaurus was given! All you are doing is speculating and you do not have one bit of factual evidence to support what you are stating.

You use the example of the transfer and then state about 30k for Gunnersaurus, for all we know Arsenal may have paid him off 100K! We don't know...so to complain from the rooftops about a situation you are not privy to is plain weird!

It's quite telling how quiet Gunnersaurus has been, maybe he his happy with his severance package considering Arsenal stated that he will be re-employed once things are back to normal!

We can get a decent idea based on their previous behaviour, the way they conduct business and the fact they decided to make staff redundant when they didn't have to during a pandemic.

Ignoring that however, getting rid of someone who has worked for you for 27 years and then spending 45 million + fees and wages is just plain wrong, there's no defending it.

As for Gunnersaurus, well not everybody shouts it from the rooftops when they get made redundant, that's more something that happens in modern culture, so that's a moot point.

[selassie]

We can get a decent idea based on their previous behaviour, the way they conduct business and the fact they decided to make staff redundant when they didn't have to during a pandemic.

Ignoring that however, getting rid of someone who has worked for you for 27 years and then spending 45 million + fees and wages is just plain wrong, there's no defending it.

As for Gunnersaurus, well not everybody shouts it from the rooftops when they get made redundant, that's more something that happens in modern culture, so that's a moot point.

What previous behaviour?

Have you ever thought to consider the redundancy pay offs may have been much better than furlough offerings?

You do realize that Redundancy payouts can sometimes benefit people, especially redundancy payouts from corporate firms such as Arsenal.

Some people are actually better off if they are paid off with a full 12 months salary, with 30k of that salary being tax free!

Moreover, Gunnersaurus hasn't been permanently made redundant!

[Özim]

What previous behaviour?

Have you ever thought to consider the redundancy pay offs may have been much better than furlough offerings?

You do realize that Redundancy payouts can sometimes benefit people, especially redundancy payouts from corporate firms such as Arsenal.

Some people are actually better off if they are paid off with a full 12 months salary, with 30k of that salary being tax free!

Moreover, Gunnersaurus hasn't been permanently made redundant!

The thing is though they didn't need to furlough him, they have enough money as demonstrated by the 45 million they spent.

I would hardly call redundancy a benefit, yes some people accept voluntary redundancy, perhaps realising their days are numbered and they'd better take what they can get, or perhaps they are ready to retire or to have a change, but what happens if you take the money then 2 years later you still haven't found a new job? It also creates uncertainty in your life because you don't have a regular income, you won't find too many people who will paint redundancy as beneficial to be honest, most people will class redundancy as a negative (there's always anomalies but that's generally the case).

Well he has now that Ozil offered to pay his salary, but if they are paying him handsomely and he'll be back in a year why make him redundant at all, it would surely cost they more in the scenario you painted?

I suspect the club are saving a fair amount and he probably didn't get a lot.