Liverpool had not intended to announce plans to furlough some non-playing staff amid the coronavirus crisis and make us of the government’s Job Retention Scheme when they did, but it has been claimed their ‘hand was ‘forced’ by a Premier League rival allegedly leaking details.
With the government offering businesses affected by the coronavirus crisis the opportunity to claim 80% of each employee’s wages up to a maximum of £2,500 per month, Liverpool went public with their plans on Saturday, only for an immediate backlash of fierce criticism.
Many critics suggested the move being diametrically opposed to many of the club’s longstanding values, while others pointed to healthy Anfield finances as a reason why the scheme was never intended to support a profitable football club that turned over £500m last season.
According to The Athletic, Liverpool’s public announcement was rushed. It was originally planned for a few days later, after all affected employees had been personally informed in writing. Yet it is claimed that the Reds hierarchy believe the plan was leaked by another Premier League side after what they thought had been private discussions over how clubs were handling the crisis.
But even though it was announced sooner than planned, The Athletic also reveals that Liverpool chief John W. Henry and Mike Gordon had not envisaged the furious response, which included criticism from Anfield legend Jamie Carragher and a number of pro-Liverpool journalists.
Jurgen Klopp showed compassion for all at the start of this pandemic, senior players heavily involved in @premierleague players taking wage cuts. Then all that respect & goodwill is lost, poor this @LFC https://t.co/9bE8Rw1veE
— Jamie Carragher (@Carra23) April 4, 2020
The American businessmen are said to have been ‘shocked’ by the backlash and considered the accusations of greed that were levelled at them to be ‘unfair’.
Perhaps naively, top executives, many of whom The Athletic believes to have already taken a 25% pay cut of their own, thought Liverpool wouldn’t be tarred with the same brush as Newcastle or Tottenham for opting into the scheme because they were still planning to top up the final 20% of non-playing salaries to ensure their staff were not going to be left short.
The Athletic even adds that because the response was so toxic, in some cases undoing many years of very favourable public perception in one afternoon, other Premier League sides considering similar action decided against following suit precisely because of Liverpool’s experience.
Just two days later, Liverpool reversed their decision and pledged to find another way, with chief executive Peter Moore apologising for the misjudgement in an open letter to fans.
“We believe we came to the wrong conclusion last week to announce that we intended to apply to the Coronavirus Retention Scheme and furlough staff due to the suspension of the Premier League football calendar, and are truly sorry for that,” Moore said.
“Our intentions were, and still are, to ensure the entire workforce is given as much protection as possible from redundancy and/or loss of earnings during this unprecedented period.
“We are therefore committed to finding alternative ways to operate while there are no football matches being played that ensures we are not applying for the government relief scheme.”
For more from Jamie Spencer, follow him on Twitter and Facebook!
Source : 90min