Skip to content

Season extended indefinitely

1111214161723

Comments

  • We'll see what happens after this whole mess.
    For one thing, companies will surely have to pay much higher rates. Will individuals as well?

  • @Glenactico said:
    I get that. I just don’t see what it tells us about whether Hancock’s comments about footballers were or were not a deliberate attempt to deflect attention onto them.

    Well he could have answered "We all need to do our bit" and deflected towards the chancellor , but then they'd have been painted in sections of the press to have been increasing the burden on people when they need helping. Not big fans of context our front pages and most owned by tax dodgers.

  • @drcongo said:
    If Hancock believed that it was only fair that high earners pay more towards the public services that are stopping us all dying at the moment, his answer to that (yes, very specific) question, would have been something more like "I believe everybody earning very large amounts of money should be paying more towards the public services that are stopping us all dying, so we are raising taxes to make sure this applies to everyone, not just premier league footballers". He didn't though did he.

    Gotcha. I hadn’t really thought about it like that and I do now agree with you in some ways. Although I still don’t think it was his intention to deflect attention away from government failings as was suggested above.

  • No, I agree with you @Glenactico, it's not really a deflecting from failings. But I would suggest it falls into an emerging pattern of "blame the public" which seems to be sneaking into more and more government statements, which I can only assume is laying the groundwork for deflecting later - "This wasn't our fault, we told you all to stay indoors and the lack of PPE for NHS staff is nothing to do with the fact that we never ordered more when we first found out this was heading toward a pandemic, and the lack of NHS staff is nothing to do with the fact that we announced last year that a huge proportion of them were unskilled workers who we're going to deport at the first opportunity, and the decimation of the NHS for a decade wasn't our fault, it was Labour's fault because they happened to be in power when the global 2008 crash happened, and LOOK AT FOOTBALLERS THEY EARN LOADS"

  • I think it's disgraceful that the government should in any way be blamed for equipment still not arriving for NHS and care staff and businesses not being able to get the funds they need. They keep saying people ARE getting equipment and ARE getting the help they need and if they say it then it's happening. And if it's not then it will be the fault of some ambulance/fire/police/Trust head who will be blamed by the tabloids and a campaign to take their pension off them begun. Sign Here!! ('Phew! We almost had to take ownership there...!)

  • You know what I find weird? Government asks British manufacturers to design and make ventilators, British firm Gtech does so.

    • 20th March the government tells Gtech to go in to production with them.
    • 24th March non-dom tax exile and Tory party donor James Dyson announces his firm is going to make ventilators too.
    • 26th March government tells Gtech to f*ck off

    If we need ventilators, we need ventilators.

  • @drcongo said:
    You know what I find weird? Government asks British manufacturers to design and make ventilators, British firm Gtech does so.

    • 20th March the government tells Gtech to go in to production with them.
    • 24th March non-dom tax exile and Tory party donor James Dyson announces his firm is going to make ventilators too.
    • 26th March government tells Gtech to f*ck off

    If we need ventilators, we need ventilators.

    Is that last part actually true?

    https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/18345950.worcester-firm-gtech-coronavirus-ventilator-not-used-not-meet-government-standards-city-mp-robin-walker-says/

  • In a statement, Mr Grey said he had been “overwhelmed” by the support for the ventilator and despite the government and medical groups coordinating the project giving Gtech the go-ahead, he had been informed that he should not go ahead with his plans.

    From the article you linked. So yes, they told them to go into production, then (entirely coincidentally) after Dyson popped up, they told them not to go into production. Which bit isn't true?

  • Amazing the effect a sizeable backhander has for those making these sort of decisions.

  • 'Gtech owner Nick Grey said his team’s ventilators had not been “snubbed” and he was relieved the government was not forced to use his “rudimentary” designs because the coronavirus crisis was so bad.'

    The bit above really. I don't know much more than that but do think 'told to f**k off' is an inflammatory way of describing what has happened. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy.

    It was interesting yesterday to see how quickly some of the Twitter warriors leapt on the BBC for 'ignoring' the start of the daily briefing when another less political reason of the feed dropping out due to technical issues was another option as no TV had it live.

  • I'm sure singapore based Sir Dyson - a tax paying, UK factory building patriot if ever there was one - will deliver and at no cost at all to this great government of ours.

  • edited April 2020

    Oh, and Liverpool have reversed their decision.

  • Now that's how it's done and you should hope so!

  • @chairboyscentral said:
    Oh, and Liverpool have reversed their decision.

    Their worst PR since those Suarez t shirts. But it's good to admit their mistake and rectify it.

  • Rashford must have a big kitchen if he can feed 400,000 local school kids!
    Joking aside that's the kind of response that makes you think some football clubs do understand the right way to behave.

  • That's top class from Rashford.
    It's good for rich players to donate money, but even better when it's some really specific thing like that where the benefit is so real.

  • Sunderland the first League One club to furlough their players?

  • Furloughing their players but keeping them on full pay really sticks in the mouth. Let’s assume Grigg is on £5k a week, so £20k a month. Why should the tax payer pay £2.5k of that?

  • Depending on how much Charlton are contributing while he's on loan there, I'd imagine McGeady is still taking up a fair chunk of the wage bill?

  • edited April 2020

    @Last_Quarter said:
    Furloughing their players but keeping them on full pay really sticks in the mouth. Let’s assume Grigg is on £5k a week, so £20k a month. Why should the tax payer pay £2.5k of that?

    I think you are under valueing Grigg somewhat, bearing in mind Salford were prepared to contribute £5k as PART of his wages to take him on loan!

    https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/sunderland-afc/salford-city-offering-ps5000-week-towards-will-grigg-wages-bid-land-sunderland-striker-loan-1369445

  • edited April 2020

    Oh, Coventry had already furloughed players and some non-playing staff: https://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/2020/april/news-operational-update-from-chief-executive-dave-boddy/

    I expect most, if not all, other League One clubs to follow suit, but it's a crazy world where Sunderland and Coventry are taking that step before Wycombe and Accrington.

  • @mooneyman said:

    @Last_Quarter said:
    Furloughing their players but keeping them on full pay really sticks in the mouth. Let’s assume Grigg is on £5k a week, so £20k a month. Why should the tax payer pay £2.5k of that?

    I think you are under valueing Grigg somewhat, bearing in mind Salford were prepared to contribute £5k as PART of his wages to take him on loan!

    You're spot on @mooneyman. I was using that article as the basis for my estimate, but he is more likely on £10k+.

  • I thought you could only Furlough staff up to £2500 a month ? Surely you cant claim that and make the difference up ?

  • @Last_Quarter said:

    @mooneyman said:

    @Last_Quarter said:
    Furloughing their players but keeping them on full pay really sticks in the mouth. Let’s assume Grigg is on £5k a week, so £20k a month. Why should the tax payer pay £2.5k of that?

    I think you are under valueing Grigg somewhat, bearing in mind Salford were prepared to contribute £5k as PART of his wages to take him on loan!

    You're spot on @mooneyman. I was using that article as the basis for my estimate, but he is more likely on £10k+.

    He was apparently on £25k at Wigan, so I doubt he took a great reduction (if any) when he went to Sunderland.

    https://sillyseason.com/salary/wigan-athletic-players-salaries-126819/

  • edited April 2020

    @ChasHarps said:
    I thought you could only Furlough staff up to £2500 a month ? Surely you cant claim that and make the difference up ?

    Furlough is for the employee's benefit primarily isn't it? It ensures them a salary when they might otherwise have been made redundant.

    Obviously a lot of companies are smartly/cynically getting on it, to temporarily save themselves a huge amount of wages

    But companies are free to make up the full wage/etc

    I wonder why Wycombe haven't done it yet? Is it because they see it taking money out of the pot that could be used for "greater good" or something?

    Or have they done it? Anyone know for sure? It needs to be remembered that most staff at a football club are non playing.

  • The government contribution is 80% of an employee’s salary, capped at £2500 per month (so the equivalent of an annual salary of 30k). The employer can decide to continue to pay the remaining 20%, or any amount above the cap, to employees on furlough, but that additional element would not be funded by the government.

  • Yep, that's exactly right as I understand it. Which in the case of Will Grigg (and his potential £25k a week wage) begs the question why Sunderland think they can afford to pay him £97.5k a month, but not £100k.

  • You're also not allowed to do anything that constitutes work for the employer that furloughed you, which in this case you'd guess means training too?

    Weirdly though, there seems to also be a loophole in the legislation that means as an employee you are allowed to take other paid work while furloughed from your regular employer. Which is all a bit mad when applied to professional footballers.

  • @drcongo said:
    You're also not allowed to do anything that constitutes work for the employer that furloughed you, which in this case you'd guess means training too?

    Weirdly though, there seems to also be a loophole in the legislation that means as an employee you are allowed to take other paid work while furloughed from your regular employer. Which is all a bit mad when applied to professional footballers.

    Training in a group environment presumably. Otherwise, it'd be pretty harsh to stop a pro athlete just keeping fit!

Sign In or Register to comment.