Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Attendance from October/Fans Return (Merged)


Recommended Posts

I have watched French football highlights and they have allowed 5,000 fans into all top flight games, some of their stadiums only hold around 15,000 and fans can be quite close at times. Compare that to our approach and the difference is quite stark, I hope this doesn't destroy the lower leagues but how can you operate when there is practically no income for the next 6 months and even after that you just don't know what will happen?

In olden times people used to support Chariot Racing teams like people now support Football but that completely died out over time. Crazy comparison but maybe one day football will be the same. 😧

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Robert the bruce said:

Your sleep walking.....

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TonyTonyTony said:

I doubt the EFL / PFA have the money. I agree re the FA - they should step in but the PL is where the cash is. We are in unprecedented times - they should make a contribution to saving clubs going out of business - call it morality if you want

I think there were plans originally in place for this to happen (during the initial outbreak) but the Premier League wanted some agreements put in place & things never proceeded.

Now personally, I can understand that & if I was an organisation that was in a position to control such things, I would want some say on who gets the handouts & how that money should be spent. I don’t believe clubs should be given a handout to help with running costs to then turn around & suddenly spend money on new signings, so if someone takes a handout, it should be specified that it has to go on covering debts, wages & daily running costs but clubs that have been poorly run in the recent past aren’t entitled to the bail out either, so the likes of Charlton, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackpool, Sunderland, Birmingham & I’m sure there are others (Derby & Sheffield Wednesday?) wouldn’t be entitled to handouts as the mess they find themselves in has nothing to do with the pandemic & everything to do with their owners (and previous owners) incompetence.

Also, the clubs that have seen fit to be able to spend to improve their squads while all this financial uncertainty has been going on, shouldn’t be entitled to anything, if they haven’t had the foresight to realise that something serious is happening with the financial aspect of the sport, then they don’t deserve the money & I’d include us within that! We have seen fit as an organisation to make staff members redundant yet we have still seen fit to spend money to improve our squad, we aren’t in such a bad financial position that we need the help that others clearly do & I’d also include the likes of Forest, Birmingham (again), Derby (again), Norwich, Watford, Stoke, QPR, Swansea, Cardiff, Brentford, Middlesborough, Bournemouth & Sheffield Wednesday (again) in that list just off the top of my head.

If clubs have signed free transfers & / or loans to help themselves out then that’s acceptable (in my opinion) but spending millions on new players & then expecting someone else to pay for them to carry on trading isn’t acceptable, 95% of us (at least) probably knew it was unlikely that supporters would be allowed back into stadiums & we’ve been warned about a second wave of the pandemic hitting since the original pandemic eased a little, so if clubs haven’t heeded that warning, that’s their own incompetence & they don’t deserve the help that could be on offer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

I think there were plans originally in place for this to happen (during the initial outbreak) but the Premier League wanted some agreements put in place & things never proceeded.

Now personally, I can understand that & if I was an organisation that was in a position to control such things, I would want some say on who gets the handouts & how that money should be spent. I don’t believe clubs should be given a handout to help with running costs to then turn around & suddenly spend money on new signings, so if someone takes a handout, it should be specified that it has to go on covering debts, wages & daily running costs but clubs that have been poorly run in the recent past aren’t entitled to the bail out either, so the likes of Charlton, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackpool, Sunderland, Birmingham & I’m sure there are others (Derby & Sheffield Wednesday?) wouldn’t be entitled to handouts as the mess they find themselves in has nothing to do with the pandemic & everything to do with their owners (and previous owners) incompetence.

Also, the clubs that have seen fit to be able to spend to improve their squads while all this financial uncertainty has been going on, shouldn’t be entitled to anything, if they haven’t had the foresight to realise that something serious is happening with the financial aspect of the sport, then they don’t deserve the money & I’d include us within that! We have seen fit as an organisation to make staff members redundant yet we have still seen fit to spend money to improve our squad, we aren’t in such a bad financial position that we need the help that others clearly do & I’d also include the likes of Forest, Birmingham (again), Derby (again), Norwich, Watford, Stoke, QPR, Swansea, Cardiff, Brentford, Middlesborough, Bournemouth & Sheffield Wednesday (again) in that list just off the top of my head.

If clubs have signed free transfers & / or loans to help themselves out then that’s acceptable (in my opinion) but spending millions on new players & then expecting someone else to pay for them to carry on trading isn’t acceptable, 95% of us (at least) probably knew it was unlikely that supporters would be allowed back into stadiums & we’ve been warned about a second wave of the pandemic hitting since the original pandemic eased a little, so if clubs haven’t heeded that warning, that’s their own incompetence & they don’t deserve the help that could be on offer.

Good post.

For me, there is a lot of moaning from owners that FFP doesn’t allow them to buy there way to success, e.g. they can only cover losses.  Well this is the perfect opportunity for them to cover bigger losses!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chappers said:

I’ve just lost the point of your argument, how it relates to small attendances at a fairly low level (Saving clubs), and why that’s so wrong when more risky activities are permitted. The science I read suggests that virus infection outdoors is low risk, and social distancing at Twerton Park is hardly difficult.

Sorry if I was unclear

2 points really, we're telling the country we're socialising too much. Further restrictions have been put in place and there's rumours (Scotland have already done it) that next step will be no mixing of households. It would somewhat confuse or dilute this message if you then had people attending sports events. There are families of 5 who can't go and see both grandparents at the same time. I'm not saying I dont want to see fans back in but I'm looking at the bigger picture and the message. Same as when football stopped and Cheltenham went ahead for example - it was mixed messages.

Second point is that for a lot of people match day isn't just the game, it's the whole day. People are more likely to meet up before the game, maybe in pubs, maybe at home or maybe just hanging around outside the ground mixing with each other and possibly again after. It's not just the moment inside the ground where fans are split evenly around a huge ground - it's the getting in, the facilities available once inside and how that works. I would assume that although it's a significant amount of money, just getting fans in at reduced numbers isn't enough. They'd need to be buying food and drink etc too? Will that be possible? It could be that trials are done and it's proved this can all work safely but I questioned your comment that it was "perfectly safe" and "absolutely no reason not to". There's no evidence it's "perfectly" safe yet and there are reasons not to, even if you dont agree with it.

A third point, or perhaps 2a what happens when the weather turns? Twerton Park for example has a lot of open ends, people wont stand out in the rain while it seems like it will work to spread people around the ground in practicality they will congregate under cover. I'm thinking of other grounds at that level e.g. Chippenham where there's a relatively small stand and then only one goal and one side of the pitch covered. Will capacity be reduced based on weather? I havent seen any guidelines so genuine question.

Dont get me wrong, I really want to attend football matches. Point 1 is my biggest concern though, if we're really facing a potential second wave and the government wants people to buy-in to what they are trying to achieve then I don't see how crowds can return to football and other sporting events.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pezo said:

I went as well, clearly works in smaller crowds. The logic of stopping something like that but saying it's ok to sit in the pub for 12 hours getting shitfaced is beyond me.

Were talking about something that reached 4k+ new cases and killed 11 people yesterday and were impinging on people's freedom because of that, since when has the ends of saving everyone justified the means of taking away people's freedom's. Have I completely missed the point? I think the government need to explain this a lot better. 

I know there's a separate thread but this needs to be addressed when people say these things. A day later and it's 5k cases and 37 deaths, tripled in a day. This isn't even about how many people are dying today it's about stopping that number before it gets out of control. Also consider that there's a lag between when people get it and when they die, so we're talking about 5k cases today and how many deaths that may look like in 3 weeks time  -not hard to comprehend how they make look if the numbers have tripled in 24 hours.

Do I also have to mention the dangers of 5k people out in public with this virus, many asymptomatic and who they may pass it on to? If we carried on as we were with people taking the piss and meeting in large groups, holding house parties and such like, 1 person soon spreads to 20, and those 20 soon spread to their friends and family. It needed to be addressed now before it got out of hand because if it didn't people were only going to get more relaxed with their actions.

8 hours ago, allyolly said:

You couldn’t make it up could you. This government is full of mixed messages. An open air 27,000 capacity stadium is not safe with say a 20% crowd but a pub after being open for 10hrs with no obvious ventilation is??

I get the travel thing and crowd control before and after but there are ways of managing that in a controlled way to minimise transmission. 

Pubs and indoor spaces shouldn't be opening without proper ventilation, it's part of the guidance of them opening.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

Totally agree.  However, not everyone is as responsible as you.

If everyone did as asked and took social distancing seriously we would be experiencing lots more of what we enjoy. 

It's not the match itself; clubs will manage this properly, it's the fact that you can't trust some people to act responsibly before and after the game.   If it was me I'd let fans in but on the provision that 1) all pubs nearby are shut and 2) all nearby parking restrictions are lifted (where safe) so it's easy for everyone who can drive, to drive to the game.  For example we could use the park and ride at long ashton so people can walk to the ground.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

I have watched French football highlights and they have allowed 5,000 fans into all top flight games, some of their stadiums only hold around 15,000 and fans can be quite close at times. Compare that to our approach and the difference is quite stark, I hope this doesn't destroy the lower leagues but how can you operate when there is practically no income for the next 6 months and even after that you just don't know what will happen?

In olden times people used to support Chariot Racing teams like people now support Football but that completely died out over time. Crazy comparison but maybe one day football will be the same. 😧

France are interesting. They've gone from 1k cases a day to several days of 13k cases a day in a month. That's double their worst day on March 31st. They've got the most active cases in Europe though their deaths are still relatively low at this point, will be interesting to see how that tracks over the next couple of weeks. Could the increase in cases be linked to crowds returning? Either way I'm not sure if they are someone we should be looking to emulate right now.

Also for balance, Nice played behind closed doors on Sunday against PSG despite intially hoping for 5k fans and last week Marseille only had 1k instead of 5k so it's not looking as hopeful everywhere in France.

1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

It's good that you're sensible. Unfortunately it's been shown that a lot of people can't, it's not just a case of "your choice" if you aren't sensible. They aren't putting just themselves at risk, they are putting everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

I think it's great you've been able to go to football, and as you say you've kept your distance so while the option is there I'm not saying you shouldn't go, you absolutely should but looking at it from a bigger picture I just can't see how we can open up further whilst telling the country they need to restrict their socialising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Pubs and indoor spaces shouldn't be opening without proper ventilation, it's part of the guidance of them opening.

That is not true @MarcusX, as someone who has been involved heavily in the reopening of a bar, the guideline was just to increase circulation if possible

The is no guideline to say a venue can't open "without proper ventilation"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

France are interesting. They've gone from 1k cases a day to several days of 13k cases a day in a month. That's double their worst day on March 31st. They've got the most active cases in Europe though their deaths are still relatively low at this point, will be interesting to see how that tracks over the next couple of weeks. Could the increase in cases be linked to crowds returning? Either way I'm not sure if they are someone we should be looking to emulate right now.

Also for balance, Nice played behind closed doors on Sunday against PSG despite intially hoping for 5k fans and last week Marseille only had 1k instead of 5k so it's not looking as hopeful everywhere in France.

It's good that you're sensible. Unfortunately it's been shown that a lot of people can't, it's not just a case of "your choice" if you aren't sensible. They aren't putting just themselves at risk, they are putting everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

I think it's great you've been able to go to football, and as you say you've kept your distance so while the option is there I'm not saying you shouldn't go, you absolutely should but looking at it from a bigger picture I just can't see how we can open up further whilst telling the country they need to restrict their socialising.

Thanks for clarifying I assumed that Nice and Marseille fans were just in the same stand as the cameras to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Even that is open to debate TBH 

Yeah, I was really aiming that at clubs that need players to just put a team out, not for the likes of us where we are possibly spending £25k p/w on the likes of Mawson’s wages. Maybe I should of put that bit a bit clearer?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, phantom said:

That is not true @MarcusX, as someone who has been involved heavily in the reopening of a bar, the guideline was just to increase circulation if possible

The is no guideline to say a venue can't open "without proper ventilation"

Fair enough I've misunderstood and sounds like you'll know better. I did some reading and most articles said they should but perhaps as you say there's no actual rule

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Back of the net said:

Totally agree.  However, not everyone is as responsible as you.

If everyone did as asked and took social distancing seriously we would be experiencing lots more of what we enjoy. 

It's not the match itself; clubs will manage this properly, it's the fact that you can't trust some people to act responsibly before and after the game.   If it was me I'd let fans in but on the provision that 1) all pubs nearby are shut and 2) all nearby parking restrictions are lifted (where safe) so it's easy for everyone who can drive, to drive to the game.  For example we could use the park and ride at long ashton so people can walk to the ground.

Far to sensible I'm afraid that's why it wont happen, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

Therein, sadly, lies the problem.

If people had been sensible from the outset and followed the guidelines we would not be in this position. From the outset it was pretty clear that this virus was deadly and virulent, but could only be transmitted if we let it through our own actions. Wash hands, and keep social distancing were the initial guidelines, but even when lockdown ended too many seemed to have a problem interpreting those simple rules. More recently, wearing a mask in a shop  and observing social distancing has proved equally taxing for far too many people - how many people think having the elastic over your ears constitutes wearing a mask, not whether it overs the nose and mouth?

Mrs Downend says it is only a minority that are not following the rules, but with this virus  it is the actions of that minority that are causing the problem that affects the majority. Only the other day there was a report of a guy returning from a foreign holiday who not only failed to observe quarantine on his return, but went on a pub crawl with his mates with who knows how many new infections resulting. 

I've read comments where people are quoted as saying that if they want to take the risk, then why shouldn't they be allowed so to do. The reason is that they are not just risking themselves, but every other person they come into contact with, most of whom are not prepared to take the same degree of risk.

I suspect that football at all levels, but especially lower down the pyramid, would have been able to organise and police a safe return for limited numbers of fans. That they are not yet allowed to do so is down to the selfish actions of a minority of the population that have been unable, or unwilling, to excercise any personal responsibility over the last few months.

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile in Brasil . . . 

With 4.5 million cases and more than 138,000 fatalities from Covid-19, Brazil is the second worst-hit country in the world in terms of deaths. On Tuesday it recorded 33,536 infections and 836 deaths.

Despite this Brazil's government has said football stadiums can open their doors to fans - at 30% capacity at first but that could increase. In Rio de Janeiro's Maracanã stadium that would mean 25,000 people in the stands.

City authorities can veto the decision - Belo Horizonte has already said it won't be bringing fans back in yet, according to Brazilian media reports.

And clubs are struggling to keep their players virus-free. One league match last month was cancelled minutes before kick-off when members of one team tested positive. And on Tuesday Flamengo were due to play in a Copa Libertadores tie, but seven players and two staff tested positive before the match

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:
Meanwhile in Brasil . . . 

With 4.5 million cases and more than 138,000 fatalities from Covid-19, Brazil is the second worst-hit country in the world in terms of deaths. On Tuesday it recorded 33,536 infections and 836 deaths.

Despite this Brazil's government has said football stadiums can open their doors to fans - at 30% capacity at first but that could increase. In Rio de Janeiro's Maracanã stadium that would mean 25,000 people in the stands.

City authorities can veto the decision - Belo Horizonte has already said it won't be bringing fans back in yet, according to Brazilian media reports.

And clubs are struggling to keep their players virus-free. One league match last month was cancelled minutes before kick-off when members of one team tested positive. And on Tuesday Flamengo were due to play in a Copa Libertadores tie, but seven players and two staff tested positive before the match

I would advise everyone to do the complete opposite to what Brazil do.

  • Like 3
  • Flames 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Therein, sadly, lies the problem.

If people had been sensible from the outset

That appears to put it all back on “people”.  Many people were sensible well before our effing idiot of a PM took action.  He was still shaking hands with hospital patients, holding face to face briefings, telling everyone it was all ok.  Then allowing events to go ahead like Cheltenham.  The Irish took it seriously and cancelled their national day.  I was taking my kids out of school, cancelling family and friends meet-ups we had planned.  Our PM was giving people one last piss-up.  He was too slow and too indecisive.

and followed the guidelines we would not be in this position. From the outset it was pretty clear that this virus was deadly and virulent, but could only be transmitted if we let it through our own actions.

yet we we continually told it was nothing!  To the uneducated, the blinkered, the brainwashed and those who don’t give a toss, it was a “carry on as normal” message.  

Wash hands, and keep social distancing were the initial guidelines, but even when lockdown ended too many seemed to have a problem interpreting those simple rules.

not helped by people in positions of responsibility flouting the rules.

and business owners seeing their businesses struggle whilst friends of the government are profiteering, tantamount to money laundering.

no wonder a small element if the people rebel.

More recently, wearing a mask in a shop  and observing social distancing has proved equally taxing for far too many people - how many people think having the elastic over your ears constitutes wearing a mask, not whether it overs the nose and mouth?

Mrs Downend says it is only a minority that are not following the rules, but with this virus  it is the actions of that minority that are causing the problem that affects the majority. Only the other day there was a report of a guy returning from a foreign holiday who not only failed to observe quarantine on his return, but went on a pub crawl with his mates with who knows how many new infections resulting.

no argument with this....but we now live in a selfish society.  I’ll leave that there.

I've read comments where people are quoted as saying that if they want to take the risk, then why shouldn't they be allowed so to do. The reason is that they are not just risking themselves, but every other person they come into contact with, most of whom are not prepared to take the same degree of risk.

I suspect that football at all levels, but especially lower down the pyramid, would have been able to organise and police a safe return for limited numbers of fans. That they are not yet allowed to do so is down to the selfish actions of a minority of the population that have been unable, or unwilling, to excercise any personal responsibility over the last few months.

I suspect so too, but unfortunately the priorities of easing lockdown in places like pubs was done too quickly, to allow a safe easing of other things like schools.  The lip service of “our kids education is vital” versus “go to the pub” tells me everything.

With better plans, clear criteria, rather than continued moving if the goalposts, poignant in this discussion, we could have a better evaluation of the risks of outdoor entertainment versus indoor.  Instead we have a blunt tool, because the government tried to look after their mates.

 

 

 

Rant above ⬆️⬆️⬆️

Edited by Davefevs
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting really tired of listening to clubs in lower leagues asking the government to bail them out. It's not right that tax payers money funds football. 

Tax payers money needs to pay for the NHS, medical supplies, and supporting people that have fallen on hard times. Some families have lost everything and its distasteful to hear football clubs coming out with cap in hand

This is a football issue that should be solved by football clubs

The wage bill of the premier is more than £2bn. If all players lose 5% of salary for one year, this equates to £100,000,000. Enough to cover the entire wage bill of league one and two.

So many of the tip flight players owe their living to the lower leagues. Time to lose a measly 5% and support them.

Asking the average Joe in the street earning £20k a year to pay his taxes to keep Fleetwood afloat is immoral

Do the right thing football. Let any money we have left in government go to people that really need it 

Rant over 

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too complicated an argument with too many dynamics to formulate a full response.

But, why would a football club in the entertainment and hospitality sector be treated differently to another business in that sector, whose trade has been restrained by the government?

Agree with Triple-T above that football could help itself also.

The government’s range of financial support packages were ill-conceived imho, and now they are about to end things like CJRS (Furloughing).  It won’t be just football clubs “bleating” once October hits!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that the government should not bail out any clubs. And I think there is a zero percent chance they will. Some clubs are starting to get desperate and I think that this is the beginning of the end for many which is sad. But life goes on, its only football.

I also disagree that players should have to foot the bill. Regardless of the amount they earn. Its up to the leagues to support the clubs. 

There is a 200m fund from the PL available providing the championship has a wage cap. Problem solved. I dont care if it widens the gap between the championship and the PL. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

You can't blame them for asking for a handout - the NL/L1/L2 clubs are in the shite big time, but i agree the help should some from within football. There is enough money sloshing about. 

With agents fees as high as they are, salaries, naming rights etc, I feel it's more of a moral issue for the big boys to help their feeder clubs 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Too complicated an argument with too many dynamics to formulate a full response.

But, why would a football club in the entertainment and hospitality sector be treated differently to another business in that sector, whose trade has been restrained by the government?

Agree with Triple-T above that football could help itself also.

The government’s range of financial support packages were ill-conceived imho, and now they are about to end things like CJRS (Furloughing).  It won’t be just football clubs “bleating” once October hits!

Football clubs did get the same support as hospitality businesses , no issue they had furlough. 

But why should we spend tax payers money on a football club when we have a trillion of national debt and nurses earning £25k to risk their lives to save us.

It's a football issue, sort it internally

Other hospitality industries don't have a multi billion group of clubs at the top that feed from lower levels 

If the government pay to support football clubs, it's a sad sad day. It's a case of survival from your own industry 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Matthew me said:

Football clubs did get the same support as hospitality businesses , no issue they had furlough. 

But why should we spend tax payers money on a football club when we have a trillion of national debt and nurses earning £25k to risk their lives to save us.

it shouldn’t be getting special treatment, but I suspect football won’t be the only industry under serious trouble with the latest lockdown.  The government seem to imply its “economy first, people’s lives second”, so they should be putting support measures in place to help those businesses who’s trade they’ve constrained by putting lockdown back in.  Perhaps just extending CJRS woukd help.  Other countries have by 12-24 months.  But our government are too busy giving £108m contracts for PPE to one man bands, because one of their mates is profiteering.  If they weren’t “washing” public money through their mates, and eventually offshore no doubt, we might see nurses paid properly.  Football isn’t the reason for nurses pay...if only our taxes were being used like the voting public told they were gonna be used.

It's a football issue, sort it internally

no, it’s a covid issue, impacting many, many industries.

Other hospitality industries don't have a multi billion group of clubs at the top that feed from lower levels

not my area of expertise but I suspect there are some huge entertainment businesses outside of football too....and I suspect they have supply chains similarly impacted.  Are they bailing out them?

If the government pay to support football clubs, it's a sad sad day. It's a case of survival from your own industry

An industry forced to be unable to trade because of a virus and measures imposed by the government.  Enough businesses have gone to the wall through covid...ineptitude of our government in dealing with it has exacerbated the impact.  Remember it was gonna all be over in 12 weeks!!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Matthew me said:

Other hospitality industries don't have a multi billion group of clubs at the top that feed from lower levels 

 

So do you support smaller pubs going out of business as long as Wetherspoons can keep going?

Local theatres as long as the next Avengers movie gets made?

Local restaurants as long as Pizza Express is alright?

Family B&Bs as long as Premier Inn are ok?

Do you think all those large corporations don't/haven't benefitted from the smaller ones they bought up / took staff from / forcibly closed and replaced etc. along the way? Surely you should be advocating for them to do the same? It's not a football problem, it's a societal/capitalism problem!

  • Like 4
  • Flames 1
Link to post
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...