Coronavirus Discussion Thread

[Lord Duckhunter]

A lot of people would then deliberately try and infect themselves in order to gain freedom. Imagine holiday companies offering dirty cheap holidays to try and stimulate a bit of business but you need a stamp before you’re allowed to go...

 

I can’t see what the alternative is. It won’t be Boris Johnson announcing a sudden end to the lockdown and it’s all back to normal.

 

As you say, once there’s some sort of certification to say you’re back to normal you’ve got a golden ticket. Not just holidays or going to pubs, livelihoods will depend on it. Decorators & builders etc with the all clear certifications will be in demand, winning contracts over others stuck at home . The job market will be skewed in favour of certificate holders. Small independent shops where the owner has a certificate will open, whereas others can’t. The incentive for people to catch it would grow & grow. What happens to the people working at the moment who have never had it, will they be sent home. Both me & the snap dragon have continued to work, are we going to be told “thanks for working when most weren’t , but you’re not certified clear so home you go.” That’ll go down like a lead balloon if it’s just as the pubs are re opening.

 

I honestly don’t think the Government have thought it through and I certainly have no faith in them coming up with a sensible solution.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Batman]

MH is the least worse spokesperson but is still electioneering. To any pertinent question over the last 10 years we have been told that there are a record number of X or £x have been spent etc when the reality was that the numbers were well short and the £ were less due to inflation.The Tories have just employed another right wing Communication expert from NZ to gloss over Boris and his false promises. 40 new hospitals when only 1 is proposed and mainly because the present hospital site would be redeveloped ! None of the other 39 were going to be built , just looked into , another lie.

I remember Thatcher at the Tory conference declaring 800 new hospital beds but omitting to mention they had closed 1100 hospital beds.

The Tories did nothing about Coronavirus until it was too late , lack of testing , tracking Ill people , repatriating UK residents abroad , failing to act after the 3 day simulation exercise in 2017 for a pandemic that showed the NHS couldn’t cope and not spending money on relevant PPE equipment ready for a pandemic. This has all come back to haunt Us now .

The government spokespeople are still trotting out meaningless figures and promising undeliverable testing regimes while people in the NHS are dying for lack of basic PPE . The WHO told them they needed visors , coveralls etc but your government down graded the standards to apron , gloves and paper mask !

Just watch coverage from the Far East , their doctors and nurses are totally enclosed with full biohazard equipment not any bare skin or part of their body exposed at all . Boris and his cohorts are a total joke And totally out of their depth , wait for Brexit to start at the end of this year to put the. final nail in our collective coffin. We need food grown at home but have no one to harvest it and this government put up a bill on farming that didn’t mention food production.

You couldn’t make it up and if you did you would be slagged off by the very same people ie Boris & co .

 

You seem a right drip

[Lighthouse]

I can’t see what the alternative is. It won’t be Boris Johnson announcing a sudden end to the lockdown and it’s all back to normal.

 

As you say, once there’s some sort of certification to say you’re back to normal you’ve got a golden ticket. Not just holidays or going to pubs, livelihoods will depend on it. Decorators & builders etc with the all clear certifications will be in demand, winning contracts over others stuck at home . The job market will be skewed in favour of certificate holders. Small independent shops where the owner has a certificate will open, whereas others can’t. The incentive for people to catch it would grow & grow. What happens to the people working at the moment who have never had it, will they be sent home. Both me & the snap dragon have continued to work, are we going to be told “thanks for working when most weren’t , but you’re not certified clear so home you go.” That’ll go down like a lead balloon if it’s just as the pubs are re opening.

 

I honestly don’t think the Government have thought it through and I certainly have no faith in them coming up with a sensible solution.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I think the best approach is another month of lockdown, towards the end of which we will have to assess the trends in cases and fatalities and - more importantly - how close to capacity the NHS is operating. As crude and morbid as it sounds, if they’re are coping reasonably well and can handle a modest increase in patients, we can look at reopening certain businesses in strictly controlled and limited amounts.

 

If it were up to me I’d say, in order of priority:

- Shops and shopping centres, possibly with a requirement to wear PPE when inside.

- Self employed businesses. Sparkies, plumbers, hairdressers, etc.

- Banks, council buildings etc.

- Gymnasiums and sports centres.

- Bars, restaurants... basically anywhere food is prepared

- Sporting events, music gigs, religious ceremonies, weddings. Basically anything involving large gatherings of people.

- Air travel. As painful as it, it has to be the last thing to reopen. Nothing spreads a disease as far and wide as international air travel.

 

The whole immune passport thing is the worst thing we can do IMO. Far too many people will deliberately seek infection.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think the best approach is another month of lockdown, towards the end of which we will have to assess the trends in cases and fatalities and - more importantly - how close to capacity the NHS is operating. As crude and morbid as it sounds, if they’re are coping reasonably well and can handle a modest increase in patients, we can look at reopening certain businesses in strictly controlled and limited amounts.

 

 

The whole immune passport thing is the worst thing we can do IMO. Far too many people will deliberately seek infection.

 

I think they’re still following this herd immunity thing, but without trying to frighten the horses by admitting it. In the absence of a vaccine or keeping people in lockdown permanently , how else can we defeat it. I presume their endgame is a large population immune without the NHS falling over. Sir Max Hastings reckons it’ll end up with the old & underlying health condition people staying in lockdown and the rest of us avoiding them & taking our chances. The ones with a high chance of dying from it, shielded and the rest of society carrying on. As a country, I’m not sure we’ve got the stomach for that.

 

I thought the immune certificate as a good idea, but the more I think about it, the worse it seems.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Killers Knee]

So what's the end game here? The latest I hear is the government want to roll out testing, that shows if you've had the virus or not, and if you have then you get a "passport" to pick up your life and get back to normal. What happens to those that haven't had it? Do we just stay locked down until we either catch it (unlikely if we are stuck in our houses) or a vaccine becomes available?

 

From a footballing point of view if next season starts will teams only be allowed to field players who tests have shown have had the virus already?

 

Yes, that is the plan but the problem is no reliable test exists to date (https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-antibody-test-g7-leaders-accuracy-covid-19-immunity-passports-2020-4?r=US&IR=T) and when it is available it will not be cheap and there will be a bloody long queue with the worlds wealthy and then major trading blocks in front of us. By the time the UK get it on the NHS, it should have all blown over anyhow.

[verlaine1979]

Precisely.

 

Moreover, I think concert promoters are required to refund cancelled gigs & tours.

[Whitey Grandad]

When people at the bottom get assistance they are scroungers, when people a the top get assistance its called business.

 

It’s those who are furloughed that get the money, not the people at the top.

[East Kent Saint]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52148695

 

UEFA stir the pot !

[East Kent Saint]

Saints featured on BBC news , providing meals for the needy etc via the StMarys catering team and the Saints Foundation . Well done ! . I see at WHL are using their underground car park as a food distribution centre .

[CB Fry]

Saints featured on BBC news , providing meals for the needy etc via the StMarys catering team and the Saints Foundation . Well done ! . I see at WHL are using their underground car park as a food distribution centre .

Just watched that BBC report about what our catering team are doing with Saints Foundation. Excellent stuff and exactly the kind of thing the club should be doing.

[whelk]

It’s those who are furloughed that get the money, not the people at the top.

 

Levy makes more money furloughing staff.

[Whitey Grandad]

Levy makes more money furloughing staff.

 

Do you mean ‘loses less money’?

[whelk]

Do you mean ‘loses less money’?

 

Do you actually welcome what Spurs have done?

[wild-saint]

Saints are furloughing a load if their staff as of yesterday I heard.

[Chewy]

Do you mean ‘loses less money’?

 

I believe he 'earnt' £7 million quid last year.

 

I'm really struggling with some of the views on here (and that's not including some of the politically charged rants). Some arguing footballers are great because they've visited a hospital, it's the rock stars who are the enemy. People saying clubs are right to be acting this way because the government provided a fund for this, to save the poor unfortunate low paid workers.

 

People with those views are missing a few simple points.

1) this is not directed at footballers in the sense that we think they are all evil. Many do indeed perform many community actions. However, their leadership via clubs and/or PFA have got he balance massively wrong in terms of performing their duty in protecting their members /prized employees, versus acting fairly in the wider (global) community

2) in terms of rock Stars etc., 2 wrongs don't make a right. If you're rich you should be doing your bit

3) the accountancy argument is utterly wrong and misses the point. If someone could point out the following to Andros Townsend it would be appreciated:

 

Normal times you have income and outgoings. Most outgoings are on staff, and almost uniquely in football, they are massively skewed in favour of a few elite performers. These people are arguably some of the most privileged people on the planet. I'd remember that fact.

The income is being impacted. It could be about to get a whole lot worse depending in to revenue, but at present its just essentially gate receipts and over priced burgers, not insignificant but not the main revenue stream either, at least at PL level.

 

Elsewhere, there are companies that have lost their entire revenue stream, and have no means to pay their staff, most of whom are on relatively low wages.

 

In order to prevent total social breakdown, the government I troduced a scheme to help pay these people. The bill will be picked up by the tax payer. Worth noting the tax payer is not a mysterious man with a funny name, but is you and I, earning our average salary of 20 -30k

 

Now here's where it gets to decision time for football clubs, and where they are basically acting like ****s. Like all companies, they have to rebalance their outgoings with income over this strange period which will last for an unknown time. They can either reduce their outgoings by getting their lower paid staff to be paid by the government, or ask their highest paid staff (some of the most privileged in society) to reduce their wages instead.

 

One action means that the taxpayer (you and I) helps pay for these staff at companies we have no interest in for years to come in higher taxes, the other sees highly privileged people help pay for people they work with and rely on every single day of their current working lives.

 

Of course, from an accounting point of view, it makes sense for a company to take the gre money option. And you can argue that in a progressive tax system, we are all paying, and the rich are paying more than the poor.

 

In the real world, however, the rich don't pay more tax, the clubs at the top end of the PL are so awash with money they dump millions at the feet of agents, call girls and god knows what else every year, and the players are enormously well-paid and privileged. And the staff being furloughed are people they work with every day at their own clubs!!!

 

I fail to see how anyone doesn't find this morally abhorrent. There are accountancy arguments, progressive taxation arguments, and discussions about where to draw the line in terms of first team v youth team players, how far down the football pyramid we're talking etc., but for (and I'm sure Harry Kane is a charitable Saint) the England captain at a champions league club on millions a year to be taking no pay cut while his fellow club staff (the club he's famously supported all his life) get laid off at the governments cost, to be paid for by me through my tax, when he's got nothing to do (not his fault) and people all around him in his city, country and world are being laid off in droves, losing businesses they've spent years building, losing loved ones and not being able to attend funerals, and risking lives helping people who are dying in underfunded hospitals because you and I can't really afford any more tax already is 4UCKING DISGUSTING.

 

It is not Harry Kane's fault. He hasn't made this decsision, and might be opposed to it for all we know. But that is the context. He's on millions, and expects me to pay for his masseuse at his boyhood club who he works with every day through my tax because he doesn't want a pay cut. While his boss picks up a £3 million bonus for delivering a late stadium and will no doubt get another bonus for safely navigating Spurs through coronavirus through his brilliant accounting decisions.

 

Utter c4nts.

[Chewy]

Do you mean ‘loses less money’?

 

I believe he 'earnt' £7 million quid last year.

 

I'm really struggling with some of the views on here (and that's not including some of the politically charged rants). Some arguing footballers are great because they've visited a hospital, it's the rock stars who are the enemy. People saying clubs are right to be acting this way because the government provided a fund for this, to save the poor unfortunate low paid workers.

 

People with those views are missing a few simple points.

1) this is not directed at footballers in the sense that we think they are all evil. Many do indeed perform many community actions. However, their leadership via clubs and/or PFA have got he balance massively wrong in terms of performing their duty in protecting their members /prized employees, versus acting fairly in the wider (global) community

2) in terms of rock Stars etc., 2 wrongs don't make a right. If you're rich you should be doing your bit

3) the accountancy argument is utterly wrong and misses the point. If someone could point out the following to Andros Townsend it would be appreciated:

 

Normal times you have income and outgoings. Most outgoings are on staff, and almost uniquely in football, they are massively skewed in favour of a few elite performers. These people are arguably some of the most privileged people on the planet. I'd remember that fact.

The income is being impacted. It could be about to get a whole lot worse depending in tv revenue, but at present its just essentially gate receipts and over priced burgers, not insignificant but not the main revenue stream either, at least at PL level.

 

Elsewhere, there are companies that have lost their entire revenue stream, and have no means to pay their staff, most of whom are on relatively low wages.

 

In order to prevent total social breakdown, the government introduced a scheme to help pay these people. The bill will be picked up by the tax payer. Worth noting the tax payer is not a mysterious man with a funny name, but is you and I, earning our average salary of 20 -30k

 

Now here's where it gets to decision time for football clubs, and where they are basically acting like ****s. Like all companies, they have to rebalance their outgoings with income over this strange period which will last for an unknown time. They can either reduce their outgoings by getting their lower paid staff to be paid by the government, or ask their highest paid staff (some of the most privileged in society) to reduce their wages instead.

 

One action means that the taxpayer (you and I) helps pay for these staff at companies we have no interest in for years to come in higher taxes, the other sees highly privileged people help pay for people they work with and rely on every single day of their current working lives.

 

Of course, from an accounting point of view, it makes sense for a company to take the free money option. And you can argue that in a progressive tax system, we are all paying, and the rich are paying more than the poor.

 

In the real world, however, the rich don't pay more tax, the clubs at the top end of the PL are so awash with money they dump millions at the feet of agents, call girls and god knows what else every year, and the players are enormously well-paid and privileged. And the staff being furloughed are people they work with every day at their own clubs!!!

 

I fail to see how anyone doesn't find this morally abhorrent. There are accountancy arguments, progressive taxation arguments, and discussions about where to draw the line in terms of first team v youth team players, how far down the football pyramid we're talking etc., but for (and I'm sure Harry Kane is a charitable Saint) the England captain at a champions league club on millions a year to be taking no pay cut while his fellow club staff (the club he's famously supported all his life) get laid off at the governments cost, to be paid for by me through my tax, when he's got nothing to do (not his fault) and people all around him in his city, country and world are being laid off in droves, losing businesses they've spent years building, losing loved ones and not being able to attend funerals, and risking lives helping people who are dying in underfunded hospitals because you and I can't really afford any more tax already is 4UCKING DISGUSTING.

 

It is not Harry Kane's fault. He hasn't made this decsision, and might be opposed to it for all we know. But that is the context. He's on millions, and expects me to pay for his masseuse at his boyhood club who he works with every day through my tax because he doesn't want a pay cut. While his boss picks up a £3 million bonus for delivering a late stadium and will no doubt get another bonus for safely navigating Spurs through coronavirus through his brilliant accounting decisions.

 

Utter c4nts.

Edited 4 April, 2020 by Chewy
Couple of typos

[East Kent Saint]

It would have been good if the players , manager and board all chipped in to a fund to support the lowly paid workers at each club.

 

Clubs seem to be waiting for the football authorities to make their mind up about this season , UEFA , FA etc seem to be hanging on to prevent losing £750M TV payments so all in limbo . A bit of leadership is required here 1. to tell clubs to support their workers and 2. to make some statements about this season and the alternatives . I don't see going through the motions to finish the remaining games as the answer as the outcome will always have an asterisk attached plus it will impinge on next season.

[Turkish]

I believe he 'earnt' £7 million quid last year.

 

I'm really struggling with some of the views on here (and that's not including some of the politically charged rants). Some arguing footballers are great because they've visited a hospital, it's the rock stars who are the enemy. People saying clubs are right to be acting this way because the government provided a fund for this, to save the poor unfortunate low paid workers.

 

People with those views are missing a few simple points.

1) this is not directed at footballers in the sense that we think they are all evil. Many do indeed perform many community actions. However, their leadership via clubs and/or PFA have got he balance massively wrong in terms of performing their duty in protecting their members /prized employees, versus acting fairly in the wider (global) community

2) in terms of rock Stars etc., 2 wrongs don't make a right. If you're rich you should be doing your bit

3) the accountancy argument is utterly wrong and misses the point. If someone could point out the following to Andros Townsend it would be appreciated:

 

Normal times you have income and outgoings. Most outgoings are on staff, and almost uniquely in football, they are massively skewed in favour of a few elite performers. These people are arguably some of the most privileged people on the planet. I'd remember that fact.

The income is being impacted. It could be about to get a whole lot worse depending in to revenue, but at present its just essentially gate receipts and over priced burgers, not insignificant but not the main revenue stream either, at least at PL level.

 

Elsewhere, there are companies that have lost their entire revenue stream, and have no means to pay their staff, most of whom are on relatively low wages.

 

In order to prevent total social breakdown, the government I troduced a scheme to help pay these people. The bill will be picked up by the tax payer. Worth noting the tax payer is not a mysterious man with a funny name, but is you and I, earning our average salary of 20 -30k

 

Now here's where it gets to decision time for football clubs, and where they are basically acting like ****s. Like all companies, they have to rebalance their outgoings with income over this strange period which will last for an unknown time. They can either reduce their outgoings by getting their lower paid staff to be paid by the government, or ask their highest paid staff (some of the most privileged in society) to reduce their wages instead.

 

One action means that the taxpayer (you and I) helps pay for these staff at companies we have no interest in for years to come in higher taxes, the other sees highly privileged people help pay for people they work with and rely on every single day of their current working lives.

 

Of course, from an accounting point of view, it makes sense for a company to take the gre money option. And you can argue that in a progressive tax system, we are all paying, and the rich are paying more than the poor.

 

In the real world, however, the rich don't pay more tax, the clubs at the top end of the PL are so awash with money they dump millions at the feet of agents, call girls and god knows what else every year, and the players are enormously well-paid and privileged. And the staff being furloughed are people they work with every day at their own clubs!!!

 

I fail to see how anyone doesn't find this morally abhorrent. There are accountancy arguments, progressive taxation arguments, and discussions about where to draw the line in terms of first team v youth team players, how far down the football pyramid we're talking etc., but for (and I'm sure Harry Kane is a charitable Saint) the England captain at a champions league club on millions a year to be taking no pay cut while his fellow club staff (the club he's famously supported all his life) get laid off at the governments cost, to be paid for by me through my tax, when he's got nothing to do (not his fault) and people all around him in his city, country and world are being laid off in droves, losing businesses they've spent years building, losing loved ones and not being able to attend funerals, and risking lives helping people who are dying in underfunded hospitals because you and I can't really afford any more tax already is 4UCKING DISGUSTING.

 

It is not Harry Kane's fault. He hasn't made this decsision, and might be opposed to it for all we know. But that is the context. He's on millions, and expects me to pay for his masseuse at his boyhood club who he works with every day through my tax because he doesn't want a pay cut. While his boss picks up a £3 million bonus for delivering a late stadium and will no doubt get another bonus for safely navigating Spurs through coronavirus through his brilliant accounting decisions.

 

Utter c4nts.

 

Excellent post

[Lighthouse]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52163997

 

Danny Rose feels as if Premier League players have 'their backs to the wall' because other people are telling them what to do with their money.

 

Must be incredibly difficult for you Danny, I'm sure all the laid off, minimum wage bar staff, Top Shop assistants and Easyjet cabin crew have every sympathy for you.

[egg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52163997

 

Danny Rose feels as if Premier League players have 'their backs to the wall' because other people are telling them what to do with their money.

 

Must be incredibly difficult for you Danny, I'm sure all the laid off, minimum wage bar staff, Top Shop assistants and Easyjet cabin crew have every sympathy for you.

 

It goes further than the "backs against wall" bit. He went on to say :

 

"I can only speak for myself but I would have no problems whatsoever contributing any of my wages to people who are fighting this on the front line and to people who have been affected by what's happening at the minute."

 

That suggests to me that he's up for some sort of contribution or donation, not a willingness to take a pay cut per se. Further, I'm sensing a lack of understanding of why footballers are in the firing line.

Edited 4 April, 2020 by egg

[Lighthouse]

It goes further than the "backs against wall" bit. He went on to say :

 

"I can only speak for myself but I would have no problems whatsoever contributing any of my wages to people who are fighting this on the front line and to people who have been affected by what's happening at the minute."

 

That suggests to me that he's up for some sort of contribution or donation, not a willingness to take a pay cut per se. Further, I'm sensing a lack of understanding of why footballers are in the firing line.

 

There're loads of gems in there.

 

"Essentially, if the players take a wage cut, the beneficiaries are the clubs. Their main concern is what is happening to this money. They are happy to put money into a pot, rather than it just vanishing. They want to have an influence as to where this money is going"

 

Nowhere Danny! The money isn't GOING anywhere there is just less to give you, that's the point. The clubs aren't benefiting, they've taken a massive hit in income and they're trying to cut costs.

[Chewy]

I think poor Mr Rose would be better off directing his ire at the likes of Ashley and Levy for rushing to furlough the person who tops up Danny’s monographed gold-plated water bottle before waiting to see what the players did rather than any politicians questioning the moral validity of this decision.

 

Would rather they chose where it went?? They work with these people every day, they’d be supporting the lowest paid workers at their own football clubs. It’s not a difficult concept.

[whelk]

Journos go to Rose as he will always give them something.

Players might say silly things but is the hierarchy at the clubs where should direct the anger.

[shurlock]

Journos go to Rose as he will always give them something.

Players might say silly things but is the hierarchy at the clubs where should direct the anger.

 

Lazy, uninstructive, gotcha journalism at its finest.

[Lighthouse]

Journos go to Rose as he will always give them something.

Players might say silly things but is the hierarchy at the clubs where should direct the anger.

 

I don't think any of them are covering themselves in glory.

 

It wouldn't take a half decent accountant ten minutes to work out what pay cut is needed for each player to cover the non-playing staff for £2500pm. Why this wasn't done and then put the the player I have no idea.

[StDunko]

I believe he 'earnt' £7 million quid last year.

 

I'm really struggling with some of the views on here (and that's not including some of the politically charged rants). Some arguing footballers are great because they've visited a hospital, it's the rock stars who are the enemy. People saying clubs are right to be acting this way because the government provided a fund for this, to save the poor unfortunate low paid workers.

 

People with those views are missing a few simple points.

1) this is not directed at footballers in the sense that we think they are all evil. Many do indeed perform many community actions. However, their leadership via clubs and/or PFA have got he balance massively wrong in terms of performing their duty in protecting their members /prized employees, versus acting fairly in the wider (global) community

2) in terms of rock Stars etc., 2 wrongs don't make a right. If you're rich you should be doing your bit

3) the accountancy argument is utterly wrong and misses the point. If someone could point out the following to Andros Townsend it would be appreciated:

 

Normal times you have income and outgoings. Most outgoings are on staff, and almost uniquely in football, they are massively skewed in favour of a few elite performers. These people are arguably some of the most privileged people on the planet. I'd remember that fact.

The income is being impacted. It could be about to get a whole lot worse depending in tv revenue, but at present its just essentially gate receipts and over priced burgers, not insignificant but not the main revenue stream either, at least at PL level.

 

Elsewhere, there are companies that have lost their entire revenue stream, and have no means to pay their staff, most of whom are on relatively low wages.

 

In order to prevent total social breakdown, the government introduced a scheme to help pay these people. The bill will be picked up by the tax payer. Worth noting the tax payer is not a mysterious man with a funny name, but is you and I, earning our average salary of 20 -30k

 

Now here's where it gets to decision time for football clubs, and where they are basically acting like ****s. Like all companies, they have to rebalance their outgoings with income over this strange period which will last for an unknown time. They can either reduce their outgoings by getting their lower paid staff to be paid by the government, or ask their highest paid staff (some of the most privileged in society) to reduce their wages instead.

 

One action means that the taxpayer (you and I) helps pay for these staff at companies we have no interest in for years to come in higher taxes, the other sees highly privileged people help pay for people they work with and rely on every single day of their current working lives.

 

Of course, from an accounting point of view, it makes sense for a company to take the free money option. And you can argue that in a progressive tax system, we are all paying, and the rich are paying more than the poor.

 

In the real world, however, the rich don't pay more tax, the clubs at the top end of the PL are so awash with money they dump millions at the feet of agents, call girls and god knows what else every year, and the players are enormously well-paid and privileged. And the staff being furloughed are people they work with every day at their own clubs!!!

 

I fail to see how anyone doesn't find this morally abhorrent. There are accountancy arguments, progressive taxation arguments, and discussions about where to draw the line in terms of first team v youth team players, how far down the football pyramid we're talking etc., but for (and I'm sure Harry Kane is a charitable Saint) the England captain at a champions league club on millions a year to be taking no pay cut while his fellow club staff (the club he's famously supported all his life) get laid off at the governments cost, to be paid for by me through my tax, when he's got nothing to do (not his fault) and people all around him in his city, country and world are being laid off in droves, losing businesses they've spent years building, losing loved ones and not being able to attend funerals, and risking lives helping people who are dying in underfunded hospitals because you and I can't really afford any more tax already is 4UCKING DISGUSTING.

 

It is not Harry Kane's fault. He hasn't made this decsision, and might be opposed to it for all we know. But that is the context. He's on millions, and expects me to pay for his masseuse at his boyhood club who he works with every day through my tax because he doesn't want a pay cut. While his boss picks up a £3 million bonus for delivering a late stadium and will no doubt get another bonus for safely navigating Spurs through coronavirus through his brilliant accounting decisions.

 

Utter c4nts.

 

Totally agree.

[paulwantsapint]

If as reported the agents are pushing for breach of contract all then clubs need to unite & agree that those players will not be signed

If nobody signs you, you can not play or earn

 

I get the feeling that some players are being forced to not break ranks over a pay cut by others who want to ride the gravy train be it other players or the hanger on’s like agents & entourage

 

Surely the 1st high profile players to make large public donations to good causes will make the money back from sponsors wanting to publicise them

 

Also the question has to be asked if the players take a wage cut is the money then donated to for argument sake NHS/ club shop staff or is it going to Sky/BT? Or to line the owners pockets?

 

Also who is seriously out of love with current football

[Whitey Grandad]

Do you actually welcome what Spurs have done?

 

No I don’t, but this is really under a general discussion of taxation and incomes.

 

In my view it is down to the players as a whole to take a big hit and put something back into the club that has made them so wealthy.

[Whitey Grandad]

Also who is seriously out of love with current football

 

The money that has been sloshing around is quite frankly obscene.

[Lighthouse]

No I don’t, but this is really under a general discussion of taxation and incomes.

 

In my view it is down to the players as a whole to take a big hit and put something back into the club that has made them so wealthy.

 

Not even that, they just need to TAKE a slightly less obscene wedge of cash, whilst they're sat at home playing X-Box.

[Whitey Grandad]

I believe he 'earnt' £7 million quid last year.

 

I'm really struggling with some of the views on here (and that's not including some of the politically charged rants). Some arguing footballers are great because they've visited a hospital, it's the rock stars who are the enemy. People saying clubs are right to be acting this way because the government provided a fund for this, to save the poor unfortunate low paid workers.

 

People with those views are missing a few simple points.

1) this is not directed at footballers in the sense that we think they are all evil. Many do indeed perform many community actions. However, their leadership via clubs and/or PFA have got he balance massively wrong in terms of performing their duty in protecting their members /prized employees, versus acting fairly in the wider (global) community

2) in terms of rock Stars etc., 2 wrongs don't make a right. If you're rich you should be doing your bit

3) the accountancy argument is utterly wrong and misses the point. If someone could point out the following to Andros Townsend it would be appreciated:

 

Normal times you have income and outgoings. Most outgoings are on staff, and almost uniquely in football, they are massively skewed in favour of a few elite performers. These people are arguably some of the most privileged people on the planet. I'd remember that fact.

The income is being impacted. It could be about to get a whole lot worse depending in to revenue, but at present its just essentially gate receipts and over priced burgers, not insignificant but not the main revenue stream either, at least at PL level.

 

Elsewhere, there are companies that have lost their entire revenue stream, and have no means to pay their staff, most of whom are on relatively low wages.

 

In order to prevent total social breakdown, the government I troduced a scheme to help pay these people. The bill will be picked up by the tax payer. Worth noting the tax payer is not a mysterious man with a funny name, but is you and I, earning our average salary of 20 -30k

 

Now here's where it gets to decision time for football clubs, and where they are basically acting like ****s. Like all companies, they have to rebalance their outgoings with income over this strange period which will last for an unknown time. They can either reduce their outgoings by getting their lower paid staff to be paid by the government, or ask their highest paid staff (some of the most privileged in society) to reduce their wages instead.

 

One action means that the taxpayer (you and I) helps pay for these staff at companies we have no interest in for years to come in higher taxes, the other sees highly privileged people help pay for people they work with and rely on every single day of their current working lives.

 

Of course, from an accounting point of view, it makes sense for a company to take the gre money option. And you can argue that in a progressive tax system, we are all paying, and the rich are paying more than the poor.

 

In the real world, however, the rich don't pay more tax, the clubs at the top end of the PL are so awash with money they dump millions at the feet of agents, call girls and god knows what else every year, and the players are enormously well-paid and privileged. And the staff being furloughed are people they work with every day at their own clubs!!!

 

I fail to see how anyone doesn't find this morally abhorrent. There are accountancy arguments, progressive taxation arguments, and discussions about where to draw the line in terms of first team v youth team players, how far down the football pyramid we're talking etc., but for (and I'm sure Harry Kane is a charitable Saint) the England captain at a champions league club on millions a year to be taking no pay cut while his fellow club staff (the club he's famously supported all his life) get laid off at the governments cost, to be paid for by me through my tax, when he's got nothing to do (not his fault) and people all around him in his city, country and world are being laid off in droves, losing businesses they've spent years building, losing loved ones and not being able to attend funerals, and risking lives helping people who are dying in underfunded hospitals because you and I can't really afford any more tax already is 4UCKING DISGUSTING.

 

It is not Harry Kane's fault. He hasn't made this decsision, and might be opposed to it for all we know. But that is the context. He's on millions, and expects me to pay for his masseuse at his boyhood club who he works with every day through my tax because he doesn't want a pay cut. While his boss picks up a £3 million bonus for delivering a late stadium and will no doubt get another bonus for safely navigating Spurs through coronavirus through his brilliant accounting decisions.

 

Utter c4nts.

 

You are absolutely right, but it has always been morally abhorrent yet nothing has been done to change that.

 

Perhaps players’ contracts should have a clause in relating to unexpected serious interruption to the playing schedule.

[Whitey Grandad]

You might find this table from The Times interesting. Our ‘net worth’ at £3.1 be is higher than Liverpool’s at £2.2bn.

 

There must be some debt in there somewhere.

 

Premier League clubs’ owners and net worth

Arsenal S Kroenke (US) £7.2bn

Aston Villa N Sawiris (Egypt) £5.3bn

Bournemouth M Demin (Russ) £100m

Brighton T Bloom (Eng) £1.3bn

Burnley M Garlick (Eng) £62m

Chelsea R Abramovich (Russ) £10.2bn

Crystal Palace J Harris (US), D Blitzer (US), S Parrish (Eng) £4.2bn

Everton F Moshiri (Iran) £1.6bn

Leicester Srivaddhanaprabha family (Thai) £4.9bn

Liverpool J W Henry (US) £2.2bn

Man City Sheikh Mansour (UAE) £24.7bn

Man Utd Glazer family (US) £3.6bn

Newcastle M Ashley (Eng) £2.4bn Norwich D Smith/M Wynn-Jones (Eng/Wales) £23m

Sheff Utd Prince A bin Musaad (Saudi Arabia) £198m

Southampton G Jisheng (China) £3.1bn

Tottenham J Lewis (Eng) £4.1bn

Watford G Pozzo (It) £93m

West Ham D Sullivan/D Gold (Eng) £1.2bn

Wolves G Guangchang (China) £5.5bn

[benjii]

Not a chance in hell that Wee Goa is worth £3bn.

[warsash saint]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52165826

 

Scousers have now followed suit & furloughed their staff!! so f**king wrong

[whelk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52165826

 

Scousers have now followed suit & furloughed their staff!! so f**king wrong

 

I bet most Liverpool fans will be disgusted. What Is up with these cnts?

[SaveloyMush]

I think the best approach is another month of lockdown, towards the end of which we will have to assess the trends in cases and fatalities and - more importantly - how close to capacity the NHS is operating. As crude and morbid as it sounds, if they’re are coping reasonably well and can handle a modest increase in patients, we can look at reopening certain businesses in strictly controlled and limited amounts.

 

If it were up to me I’d say, in order of priority:

- Shops and shopping centres, possibly with a requirement to wear PPE when inside.

- Self employed businesses. Sparkies, plumbers, hairdressers, etc.

- Banks, council buildings etc.

- Gymnasiums and sports centres.

- Bars, restaurants... basically anywhere food is prepared

- Sporting events, music gigs, religious ceremonies, weddings. Basically anything involving large gatherings of people.

- Air travel. As painful as it, it has to be the last thing to reopen. Nothing spreads a disease as far and wide as international air travel.

 

The whole immune passport thing is the worst thing we can do IMO. Far too many people will deliberately seek infection.

 

Air travel hasn't been shut down! It should have been the first thing to shutter.

[whelk]

They don’t seem happy on RAWK....

 

 

Liverpool place some non-playing staff on furlough

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?share_fid=4447&share_tid=345137&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eredandwhitekop%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D345137&share_type=t&link_source=app

[Red]

I think poor Mr Rose would be better off directing his ire at the likes of Ashley and Levy for rushing to furlough the person who tops up Danny’s monographed gold-plated water bottle before waiting to see what the players did rather than any politicians questioning the moral validity of this decision.

 

Would rather they chose where it went?? They work with these people every day, they’d be supporting the lowest paid workers at their own football clubs. It’s not a difficult concept.

 

I wouldn't feel sorry for Danny - no doubt he'll cheer himself up by spending more than a EUFA fine on a party tonight

[suewhistle]

Not sure whether this has been quoted here, but an interesting perspective from an ex-pro.: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/03/premier-league-players-tarnished-by-taking-too-long-to-act-on-pay

[Turkish]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52165826

 

Scousers have now followed suit & furloughed their staff!! so f**king wrong

 

Six weeks ago they reported a profit of £42m. Utter p1ss take.

[Chewy]

Six weeks ago they reported a profit of £42m. Utter p1ss take.

 

This is a genuinely “wow” moment. Even forgetting that it’s so morally repugnant that it shouldn’t cross their minds, they’ve seen the reaction, the fall-out, the out-cry, they know the political hue of their city and fans. And they do this.

 

Wow.

 

Even the colossal moron Carragher isn’t supporting his club on this one.

Edited 4 April, 2020 by Chewy
For clarity

[davefoggy]

No football = no wages for players (or at the very least a 70% pay cut) until the end of this current season as i can't see another ball being kicked for a very long time sadly. Then the clubs wouldnt need to use the government scheme

[Chewy]

Six weeks ago they reported a profit of £42m. Utter p1ss take.

 

And apparently last year they spent almost £44 million on agents fees. Yep, this is a company in need of tax payer assistance at this time of national crisis.

[Shandy_Top_89]

Almost feels like this should be the last straw and unless clubs refund the taxpayer in full when this is over, all clubs who participate in this should be boycotted until they do.

 

Not talking a wish-washey boycott where a few thousand stay away, I mean getting average attendances at PL games below 5000.

 

I know it doesn't necessarily hit the clubs hard enough in the pocket, but it would probably be damaging enough PR wise (and crucially would look bad enough on tv) that it might just cause some thought amongst them.

 

Unfortunately we will all be so relieved to have football (and all forms of freedom and entertainment) back after this, that its probably extremely unlikely and next to impossible to organize. Have to admit I would find it hard to stay away after months without it!

[Lighthouse]

Air travel hasn't been shut down! It should have been the first thing to shutter.

 

There would have been hundreds of thousands of people stranded abroad who needed to get home. The services running at the moment are extremely limited and nearly empty.

[Turkish]

Almost feels like this should be the last straw and unless clubs refund the taxpayer in full when this is over, all clubs who participate in this should be boycotted until they do.

 

Not talking a wish-washey boycott where a few thousand stay away, I mean getting average attendances at PL games below 5000.

 

I know it doesn't necessarily hit the clubs hard enough in the pocket, but it would probably be damaging enough PR wise (and crucially would look bad enough on tv) that it might just cause some thought amongst them.

 

Unfortunately we will all be so relieved to have football (and all forms of freedom and entertainment) back after this, that its probably extremely unlikely and next to impossible to organize. Have to admit I would find it hard to stay away after months without it!

 

I find it absolutely unfathomable that the government are subsidising 3 of the worlds richest football clubs whilst these clubs continue to pay their players players tens of thousands a week. It’s utterly shameful.

[Chewy]

Almost feels like this should be the last straw and unless clubs refund the taxpayer in full when this is over, all clubs who participate in this should be boycotted until they do.

 

Not talking a wish-washey boycott where a few thousand stay away, I mean getting average attendances at PL games below 5000.

 

I know it doesn't necessarily hit the clubs hard enough in the pocket, but it would probably be damaging enough PR wise (and crucially would look bad enough on tv) that it might just cause some thought amongst them.

 

Unfortunately we will all be so relieved to have football (and all forms of freedom and entertainment) back after this, that its probably extremely unlikely and next to impossible to organize. Have to admit I would find it hard to stay away after months without it!

 

How about we use this as a means of determining the table. Liverpool finish fifth bottom for this, no champions league money for them next year.

 

Alternatively, and on a very vaguely and as yet not thought through properly whim, how about companies that use the furlough get nationalised to an extent when we're all done. Could return clubs to some sort of fan ownership afterwards. Because if ever something has finally proved that the football hierarchy are utterly detached from the fan base its this.

 

This is a national crisis and this is a crisis fund, and it is being exploited by billionaire owners to avoid them or their multi millionaire players covering for their low-paid co-workers, and asking everyone else in the country, including our NHS staff, to pay for it with their taxes. Nice.

[Wurzel]

I find it absolutely unfathomable that the government are subsidising 3 of the worlds richest football clubs whilst these clubs continue to pay their players players tens of thousands a week. It’s utterly shameful.

 

Especially as many of thos players will have various sponsorship details providing enough income to live off of comfortably for a while (even at their standard of living) without taking a penny in wages.

[The Cat]

There would have been hundreds of thousands of people stranded abroad who needed to get home. The services running at the moment are extremely limited and nearly empty.

 

There's a definite need to keep flights going for that reason. What's terrible is the fact people are still stepping off planes here and being allowed to just waltz out of the airport without being tested or having enforced quarantine.

[Cartman]

If I was a player I wouldn't be taking a pay cut either, why would I? So that more money goes into the pockets of the billionaire club owners? Because that is where the money would go, not to NHS nurses or the low paid staff at the club. Are people really so naive that they think the likes of Mike Ashley wouldn't use the government scheme even if the players did take a pay cut? They are well within their rights to tell the owners to go fück themselves, take the money and give to a medical charity instead.