Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Super said:

From sunday times

The ExCeL, owned by the Abu Dhabi National Exhibitions Company (Adnec), is charging the health service £2m-£3m a month, according to industry sources.

If that's true, they're ********* then.

Seems to be some debate over the truth though.

EU3HpuwXkAEYMBF?format=jpg&name=900x900

Maybe they were charging that but now they aren't. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If that's true, they're ********* then.

Seems to be some debate over the truth though.

EU3HpuwXkAEYMBF?format=jpg&name=900x900

Maybe they were charging that but now they aren't. :dunno:

Well, no. There’s no debate at all. 
There was initially some fixed costs put into the agreement, and now they’ve removed those. 

Maybe you’d like to take back the comment of them being *********? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Harry said:

Well, no. There’s no debate at all. 
There was initially some fixed costs put into the agreement, and now they’ve removed those. 

Maybe you’d like to take back the comment of them being *********? 

Don't like the UAE regime but fair point- I take it back based on their actions in the UK.

They put it in in the first place but can't argue with the withdrawal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Don't like the UAE regime but fair point- I take it back based on their actions in the UK.

They put it in in the first place but can't argue with the withdrawal.

And yet you still find a snide, critical remark. 
“they put it in in the first place”. 
 

The initial agreement had a “contribution” to fixed costs. They’ve now removed all costs. 
 

An analogy might be that you rent a house. You pay the landlord £1,000 per month. You are then responsible for the gas, electric, water, Sky tv, council tax etc. 

They were giving it rent free but were asking for some of the running costs to be covered. Just like you’d be expected to pay the running costs of a house you rented. 
 

Stop being so critical. This is a positive thing. Why try to poke around at it and find something sinister. 

  • Like 3
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Harry said:

And yet you still find a snide, critical remark. 
“they put it in in the first place”. 
 

The initial agreement had a “contribution” to fixed costs. They’ve now removed all costs. 
 

An analogy might be that you rent a house. You pay the landlord £1,000 per month. You are then responsible for the gas, electric, water, Sky tv, council tax etc. 

They were giving it rent free but were asking for some of the running costs to be covered. Just like you’d be expected to pay the running costs of a house you rented. 
 

Stop being so critical. This is a positive thing. Why try to poke around at it and find something sinister. 

Alright. On this occasion yeah, unqualified statement by me.

They've done a good thing. Credit to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Oh lor. 

Sounds like a tiger’s caught it from a keeper in the USA. 

 

That is not good news to end the day on. 

It was interesting news to even hear that an animal had been given a test for it given the seeming shortage everywhere

This has probably been discussed earlier today but having read BBC sport's extract of Rooney's column I have to agree with him, Matt Hancock has seemingly moved on from PL/all footballers taking a cut so that clubs don't have to furlough staff to talking about donating to charitable causes (the NHS..), this now is a case of why footballers then before being about the clubs. Rooney makes a few points including the premier league's contribution has been £20m, the 30% proposed cut would lead to £200m less in tax, which is better? Other sports stars who have moved abroad to avoid tax Lewis Hamilton would jump out as one, he's taken a reduction on his salary (£40m a year) but thats to help Mercedes rather than anything else seemingly.

Rooney said footballers have been put into a corner now by the league also publicly stating they've made a proposal of a 30% cut and will be pictured as selfish villains if they say no even if it were because it would financially ruin them. When you apply it to all PL players does that include those in the u23's who may not be on big contracts having to take a 30% cut? As what amount per week does that then put them below a london wage for the clubs in those areas? He also said players would probably have been open to having individual discussions with their clubs about what they could do, some could probably afford and may have wanted to contribute more than 30% but some may only be able to afford 10% this would have worked for everyone to what they could afford to contribute, but 30% has now been bandied publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the debate over players wages goes on, this is the other side of the coin.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derby-county-chef-zero-hours-4013757

Sure it's replicated at quite a few clubs too. In the top two divisions there's not much excuse for those with most to continue to receive full whack while those lower get furloughed. I add this is a lot of, but not necessarily all clubs or cases.

Wonder what the situation at AG with this is. Seem to recall that @RedM deduced that the players had taken a cut/deferral/weren't on full whack.

Nice to see the solidarity. ?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

While the debate over players wages goes on, this is the other side of the coin.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derby-county-chef-zero-hours-4013757

Sure it's replicated at quite a few clubs too. In the top two divisions there's not much excuse for those with most to continue to receive full whack while those lower get furloughed. I add this is a lot of, but not necessarily all clubs or cases.

Wonder what the situation at AG with this is. Seem to recall that @RedM deduced that the players had taken a cut/deferral/weren't on full whack.

Nice to see the solidarity. ?

I have some sympathy with Derby there, they only hire a company, Delaware are a billion pound business but have told people on 0 hours contracts they won't be utilising the furlough scheme and that's the reason they can't get 80%, little Derby have done wrong here, it would be a nice gesture to help out when when the company they actually work for make many times the amount Derby do its not them in the wrong here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

While the debate over players wages goes on, this is the other side of the coin.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derby-county-chef-zero-hours-4013757

Sure it's replicated at quite a few clubs too. In the top two divisions there's not much excuse for those with most to continue to receive full whack while those lower get furloughed. I add this is a lot of, but not necessarily all clubs or cases.

Wonder what the situation at AG with this is. Seem to recall that @RedM deduced that the players had taken a cut/deferral/weren't on full whack.

Nice to see the solidarity. ?

Seen nothing to suggest what the players are doing either way.

non playing staff have been Furloughed and Lansdown is willing to take tax-payer money to cover the 80% of their wages, pretty disgusted with the club to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of day if a club cannot go 3 months in contingent mode, it is a pretty sad indictment of their planning.

It shows how close to the wire they are running, how much they are gambling.  That applies to pretty much every club, big or small.

The CJRS has been poorly introduced.  The concept of retaining employees is good, but the rules are open to abuse.  And businesses driven by money, will exploit it.  They are exploiting it, and not just in football.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bh_red said:

Seen nothing to suggest what the players are doing either way.

non playing staff have been Furloughed and Lansdown is willing to take tax-payer money to cover the 80% of their wages, pretty disgusted with the club to be honest.

Yeah, it's up in the air ultimately. 

Red M said one thing ie furlough, rugby cut and therefore a deduction that players were also taking a hit.

Gregor said furlough but no cut/deferral as yet. Unlike the Rugby of course..

Perhaps waiting for PFA guidance, EFL guidance, something collective. It doesn't sit well however!

I have read that some PL clubs were/are scared (legally, contractually and so on) to ask players to take a hit. Similar here? 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hodge said:

I have some sympathy with Derby there, they only hire a company, Delaware are a billion pound business but have told people on 0 hours contracts they won't be utilising the furlough scheme and that's the reason they can't get 80%, little Derby have done wrong here, it would be a nice gesture to help out when when the company they actually work for make many times the amount Derby do its not them in the wrong here. 

Okay thanks, that's cleared up.

Derby and their opaque and complex corporate structures though can make it hard to see where one ends and one begins.

Sounds like Delaware not doing the right thing but then do the schemes cover people in his position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Okay thanks, that's cleared up.

Derby and their opaque and complex corporate structures though can make it hard to see where one ends and one begins.

Sounds like Delaware not doing the right thing but then do the schemes cover people in his position?

From your article (which explains everything), sounds like either Delaware either unaware or spreading misinformation, so nothing to do with Derby

Employees on any type of contract are eligible for the scheme, including those on zero-hour and temporary, casual contracts.

 

Mr Pickering said that Delaware North bosses have told casual employees that they are not eligible for the scheme.

In an email shared with Derbyshire Live, bosses at Delaware North said they would not be utilising the scheme at this time.

They said the reason was that Mr Pickering and his colleagues are casual workers, and therefore ineligible for the scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bh_red said:

Seen nothing to suggest what the players are doing either way.

non playing staff have been Furloughed and Lansdown is willing to take tax-payer money to cover the 80% of their wages, pretty disgusted with the club to be honest.

Seen nothing to indicate BCFC non-playing staff have been furloughed? AG staff have been but they're a separate company that is based on hospitality/match day concessions etc which there is none of atm so impossible for them, many hospitality companies will be in exactly the same position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hodge said:

From your article (which explains everything), sounds like either Delaware either unaware or spreading misinformation, so nothing to do with Derby

Employees on any type of contract are eligible for the scheme, including those on zero-hour and temporary, casual contracts.

 

Mr Pickering said that Delaware North bosses have told casual employees that they are not eligible for the scheme.

In an email shared with Derbyshire Live, bosses at Delaware North said they would not be utilising the scheme at this time.

They said the reason was that Mr Pickering and his colleagues are casual workers, and therefore ineligible for the scheme.

Casual workers ineligible for the scheme? 

Figures but will hit hard some who can ill afford it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Casual workers ineligible for the scheme? 

Figures but will hit hard some who can ill afford it. 

They are eligible, its on the govt website, however Delaware telling them they're ineligible seemingly because they don't wan to use the scheme. Presumably its a case of Derby don't need the work atm with no cooking etc so they've got no work orders coming in so have no need to provide work to the guy. Still no reason they couldn't use the scheme anyway so the guy at least gets some money.

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

Read that earlier. Could be a step towards moving back to normality.

Just hope the general public don't decide that the bank holiday that is around the corner means holiday time and the government opt to enforce even more stringent measures on travel, social distancing and all that Jazz and that ends up putting a spanner in the works.

Is it wrong to hope that it rains all weekend?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

At the end of day if a club cannot go 3 months in contingent mode, it is a pretty sad indictment of their planning.

It shows how close to the wire they are running, how much they are gambling.  That applies to pretty much every club, big or small.

The CJRS has been poorly introduced.  The concept of retaining employees is good, but the rules are open to abuse.  And businesses driven by money, will exploit it.  They are exploiting it, and not just in football.

TBF a large proportion of the population as well as those companies which seemed ‘healthy’ are much in the same position regards cash flow and reserves.

I’m including me and my employer in that, it’s certainly no judgment.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Super said:

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Totally agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...