Its not the fact that Barrow have furloughed personnel, more so that they have used the scheme to overhaul their squad IMO - tactically so to speak. Had Barrow not furloughed their players that are now seemingly surplus to requirements, surely they would've had to:
A). Paid for the existing players under contract in addition to that of the new players - 9 of them, including Jamie Devitt. Surely that is not feasible at a League Two club(?).
B). Loan out or sell the the existing players to make way for new additions (I have sympathies here - as there isn't currently a market for this, with most leagues below the EFL not operating effectively).
C). Settle the contracts of the existing players to make room in their playing budget for new additions.
As it stands, effectively the government is contributing towards the severance of these unwanted players - who will no doubt be released at the end of their current contracts. I don't think there is technically anything illegal in doing this, but surely it is not morally right to bring in new employees whilst you still have personnel on furlough? I don't think this is what the scheme was intended for, although like most government policy it seems to lean heavily upon individual interpretation.
I've no doubt other teams are using the scheme as a way of cutting costs (Chesterfield are a good example, and now Dover) - perhaps we have/are already doing this.... hence the 'confidential reasons' behind recent player absences? For example, Ajay Leitch-Smith hasn't featured in a squad since January 10th. I know he is injured more than isn't, which is a shame because when fit he is probably one of the most talented players in the squad, but if he isn't injured - he's surely good enough to make the bench?