Tinmans Love Child

3 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

No. Where did I say that..?

You didn’t?

55 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I just don't see the benefit in making everyone poorer.

Who benefits?

Hang on a minute, this isn’t an April Fools is it?

24 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I just don't see the benefit in making everyone poorer.

Who benefits?

By your thinking the rich people benefit the poor people have to suffer!  If footballers have 5 year mortgages like you mention that have high payments then they should have appropriate protection insurance (as I do) and they should also have appropriate income protection (as I do)

46 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

No, I think you need to recognise that the outgoings of someone in a very time limited career will be significantly higher than those who spread their major life expenses over 25 years or more.

To expect someone who might find their current account credited with 30 or 40k a month find themselves trying to meet the same commitments on 2.5k a month isn't a recipe for success, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

If you earn 30k a year, the chances are you live a modest existence with an average house and car and possibly a holiday every year, but you will likely be able to support that lifestyle until you retire at 65 or so.

The same as if you earn 100k a year, only you'll likely have a bigger house, a newer car, a larger pension and a couple of breaks a year, safely thinking that you will maintain a similar income until you are 65.

A footballer will likely spent 5 years of their career working their way up to the big money, maybe 5 years on top money and then their income will drop significantly. So they are under pressure as well. A different pressure to the majority due to the nature of their jobs, but at the end of this season, they will all be another 12 months closer to their retirement date and in some cases, 12 months further away from reaching their potential whilst also being a year closer to retirement.

So I can see why clubs might be reluctant to insist on deferment and why players might not be welcoming of the idea.

So I’m concluding your solution is that those who earn loads of money I.e. footballers should continue to do so so they can continue their high spending lifestyles, and those who earn very little in comparison can take a cut?  Really? Wow!  I’m happy for footballers to earn the big bucks in an industry that earns big bucks, but in the current global crisis for the whole of society including football fans, non playing staff etc to take the financial hit but footballers shouldn’t be impacted cause they have expensive lifestyles is on a completely different page to me.  
 

https://apple.news/AuOTX8u7dS42hdtoa6BiuZA

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

You can't expect people earning hundreds of thousands a year to have a lifestyle similar to someone on the national average.

They probably have 5 year mortgages for example, repaying a 25 year commitment for most people in a really condensed period, that won't be cheap!

Neither will be building up a sufficient pension pot.

Im not sure of your point?  Are you saying people who get paid loads of money I.e. footballers should get financial help akin to what they earn so they can keep up with their massive mortgage and car payments?

14 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

And likely to bankrupt every player within 2 months.

Only if the players are irresponsible with the whacking amounts of $$$$ they get paid and spunk it all up the wall every week, which would be madness considering that a career in football is hardly guaranteed.

The whole point of the £2500 limit the Gov set I thought was that this should cover most normal bills like rent etc especially with payment breaks on mortgages etc, but don’t our players mostly live in property the club owns?

40 minutes ago, glynriley said:

Not 100% sure but I read a quote from the pfa chairman saying clubs who deferred payment to players would be embargoed from signing new ones. If that is the case that would probably explain it. 
 

I would expect the majority of footballers would actually feel pretty uncomfortable taking their full salary whilst non playing staff they know and work with, who they know get paid a fraction  of the players wages, are getting 80% at best.  The PFA look out of touch with current events to me, it’s more about the morality of enforcing that players still get paid full whack, than the legality I think

Honest question, why would a football club furlough non playing staff but not the players?  Is the reason they don’t want to annoy the players (god forbid), or is it because of contracts (or bad contracts), just seems massively unfair 

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

An actual bit of football news linked to this.

https://www.cityam.com/coronavirus-clubs-facing-an-avalanche-of-claims-from-players-over-forced-pay-cuts/

I don’t think many players will find sympathy from many people if they take clubs to court to get paid their full salary should they be asked to take a cut.  They get paid well, and fair play to them, but they should not be exempt from sacrifice in times of crisis.

However the problem lies in the contracts not foreseeing an unforeseen event like this, although interestingly in Scotland the contracts have a clause should the season be suspended.  I can see all contracts in the future having a clause should the season be suspended.

18 minutes ago, ollywhyte said:

Sent home with my laptop now. My wife is 38 weeks pregnant tomorrow with our first born, not going to take any risks now. Worrying times and looks like we may have to isolate ourselves with the baby, gutting with so many people excited to meet him! First time grandparents etc.

Hope everyone is keeping safe

My wife’s in labour as we speak and very worried about who comes to see the baby, family included, unfortunately we are going to have to play safe which is sad as nobody gets to meet the new baby for a while but zero point risking it!  Good luck by the way!  We arrived at Southmead at 2pm Monday and no baby yet!

On 13/03/2020 at 00:11, steviestevieneville said:

Very worst case which won’t happen. World wide there’s been 125,000  people diagnosed , as of yesterday . So how we will get 500,000 dead in this country alone is ridiculous. 
 

Apologies for going back to a post but the reason only 125,000 people diagnosed yesterday is the lack of testing.  In America only 15,000 had been tested which is less than the Uk!  The virus is now in Africa as well.  Unfortunately the figures I quoted will prove to be conservative I think

12 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

In France the government have banned visits  to old people’s homes to avoid contagion.

They are advising not to visit elderly relatives or friends and people over seventy have been asked to stay at home going out only when there is no other choice.

Am I the only one who is bewildered by all this ? 
 

I have never experienced anything like this in my entire life. 
 

To top it all, whilst I realise that the weaker members of our community are at risk of losing their lives , thousands die off each year with the flu . Why is this virus so much more important ? 
 

 

This is more important because there is currently no treatment, whereas existing flus can be treated via flu jab

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Seems to me that the UK approach is somewhat maverick - and potentially - quite clever.

Of course, this could massively backfire.

I get the impression (and I haven't read up massively on this, limiting my knowledge to news broadcasts), that the government want us to get ill. But in a controlled way, so that by the beginning of summer when this pandemic is expected to reach its peak, a lot of people will already have some form of natural immunity to the worst of it and the NHS are in a better position to cope.

If we go full shut down now, the panic and fear will be diluted by the time things are worse and/or the damage to the economy will be far worse.

Not saying that a price has been put on our heads in terms of the economic outcome to the country, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And with so many companies and organisations putting their own measures in place, a controlled slow down of spreading a virus we can't stop could be the best approach, especially if those most at risk take more precautions.

Granted, I have next to no faith in Boris, but there is something reassuring about the words from Chris Whitty.

 

100% agree, most of us will get this thing, so once you accept that, you then want to manage that so you can deal with it.  Yes there is an argument they could have done things sooner to stop the spread, but the cat was out the bag before we even knew about it, they said yesterday although only 500 odd confirmed cases currently, in reality it’s 10,000 already, which means the spread can not be stopped by token lock downs

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We shouldn’t be relying on hope.

IMO we also can’t panic and shut everything down as the long term impacts to the economy will impact many more of the population for years to come, Italy could be screwed financially by shutting down to soon, then realising they have to keep shut for even longer, which could then result in even more deaths.  
 

I thought the approach we are taking seemed sensible and measured and based on actual statistics and studies, and it was good to see this kind of response which, even if you don’t agree with it, no one can deny it’s not based on information

5 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I thought the data was coming from the World Health Organisation ?

I would hope so as the rest of the world will be taking note.

Based on what China is telling them

1 hour ago, steviestevieneville said:

Yes I get all that . There are reports that China has peaked and are over the worst of it and let’s hope that’s the case

Not sure I’d trust any data coming out of China on this, they don’t really like to be honest in any info that comes out of the country in anything, and I wouldn’t trust that their numbers of CVD have started to drop

8 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

Very worst case which won’t happen. World wide there’s been 125,000  people diagnosed , as of yesterday . So how we will get 500,000 dead in this country alone is ridiculous. 
 

That’s because it’s not really got going yet, your appearing naive and ill informed which is a dangerous combo

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

China not happy with a fraction of 1% getting it so take stern and effective action. 

Out government resigned to 80% possibly getting it. 

UK plc is gambling with millions of lives. 

 

Worst case the government expects 80% of a 60mil population to get the virus and 1% will die, that’s around 500,000 deaths, at best they expect half of this.  This is not scaremongering it’s real and has happened before

5 minutes ago, mozo said:

They do it in Germany.

Maybe they do it already in Greta's Sweden? 

In Germany it is called 'Pfand'. You'll see homeless people rooting around bins to fill their bags with discarded glass bottles. They can then collect the cents from the supermarket. Excellent system.

 

They should introduce a scheme for those little laughing gas canisters that get left on the floor, might encourage those crazy kids to not chuck them on the floor after their mild 5 second high

5 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

I could not delete this one so will just say 'Hi Sturny, howz it going today?'

Thems were the days. I assume Corona is long since gone as a brand? If not then sadly it soon will be although I would be out in a flash buying it. But that's just me.

You used to get 2p I think if you took the empty back to a shop!  What a great idea, very environmental, good incentive to recycle, this is what Greta should be trying to push not blaming past generations who actually were way more environmentally friendly back in the day!

But don’t worry, at least football players won’t be shaking hands before the game so they wont catch Coronavirus, the thousands of fans watching in the stadium however...

Can’t wait for the “I spoke to a Sunderland fan after the game and they said we were the best away fans they’d ever had” comments later!

3 hours ago, BCFC11 said:

Here’s more proof (not that it’s needed) how the BP love to drag City’s name through the mud at every opportunity 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bristol-citys-trip-reading-1984-3783939

Not sticking up for Rovers fans but they always bang on that the BP is biased towards City, and we say the same, maybe the BP is not biased at all?

17 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

These things take time !

(or if you like)  Dese tings take toime  

Dheres more da irleland dan dis