Corona Virus

[VLC86]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

Does that include ours?

Nope, they aren’t going to do it.

[bmt]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

Does that include ours?

We haven't yet have we? But yes if we start furloughing non-playing staff it would. Far more important things than club bias at the moment.

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, Costock_Fox said:

Nope, they aren’t going to do it.

You sure.

[bmt]

1 minute ago, AKCJ said:

Yeah I'm sick of hearing about footballers taking their time to organise a collected wage cut. Get it done and clubs should use that money to ensure no staff are paid by the Government and the rest can be donated to the NHS.

 

Personally think Rooney has a brass neck to sit there whinging about people asking him to take a pay cut on the day his football club has furloughed staff on a fraction of what he earns.

I think that's unduly harsh, and it wasn't what he was complaining about at all. 

[Guest MattP]

38 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

Whether it's right or wrong or fair or moral or whatever... the thing that gets me about saying footballers should contribute and take a pay cut, is that it's coming from the same government who were banging on about 'free-market capitalism' less than six months ago.

There is no business on the planet where staff take more of the revenue created than in football. It is free market meritocracy at its absolutely finest in that way.

 

The NHS is going to get all the funding it needs at the minute so there is not really any need for a delay as Rooney wants to make sure his money goes there, they would be better off making sure the lower league clubs don't go out of business and become a burden on the taxpayer.

[bmt]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

You sure.

Oh so we haven't done anything. In which case, no, our club should not take the flak for what other clubs are doing.

[bmt]

Just now, MattP said:

There is no business on the planet where staff take more of the revenue created than in football. It is free market meritocracy at its absolutely finest in that way.

 

The NHS is going to get all the funding it needs at the minute so there is not really any need for a delay as Rooney wants to make sure his money goes there, they would be better off making sure the lower league clubs don't go out of business and become a burden on the taxpayer.

I agree with most of this but surely it's worth a proper discussion rather than making suggestions without speaking to the players first. That seems like it was what was (in my opinion correctly) annoying Rooney. It is their money after all.

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, bmt said:

I think that's unduly harsh, and it wasn't what he was complaining about at all. 

He complained about what Hancock said in response to a direct question from a journalist. If Rooney wanted to rail against the comments, use the PFA and stop making it about Wayne. 

[bmt]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

He complained about what Hancock said in response to a direct question from a journalist. If Rooney wanted to rail against the comments, use the PFA and stop making it about Wayne. 

I get that frustration, but I think he's right still. Hancock had absolutely no right to answer that question, he's not the right person in government for a start. Worse, I think what he said is clearly his own position/opinion and so it was definitely the wrong place to air it. I agree with Rooney the effect is castigating footballers who don't immediately agree with the proposal, and deflecting public opinion from more important issues.

 

If I was asked to take a pay cut I would definitely want to know why and have input into how it was spent in this circumstance, whether or not you agree with what footballers would want to spend money on.

[Lionator]

Just reading an nhs critical care paper and it appears that if he can get through this first 24 hours in icu without ventilation then he has a much higher chance (75%+) of survival than if he needs a ventilator in this first 24 hours (35%+). So if we hear that he’s on a ventilator today then the outlook is pretty grim. 

[bmt]

15 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

That doesn't mean she shouldn't provide in a time of need. 

 

Stop being a blinkered royalist, Izz. 

This. 

 

As if people are judged purely on their return on investment too, what a time to be alive

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, bmt said:

I get that frustration, but I think he's right still. Hancock had absolutely no right to answer that question, he's not the right person in government for a start. Worse, I think what he said is clearly his own position/opinion and so it was definitely the wrong place to air it. I agree with Rooney the effect is castigating footballers who don't immediately agree with the proposal, and deflecting public opinion from more important issues.

 

If I was asked to take a pay cut I would definitely want to know why and have input into how it was spent in this circumstance, whether or not you agree with what footballers would want to spend money on.

Fair enough, but the flip side to that argument is that in the case of Hancock I am unsure who he should have redirected the question too, but I do know it is not Wayne who should speak on behalf of players.

[Ollie93]

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Just reading an nhs critical care paper and it appears that if he can get through this first 24 hours in icu without ventilation then he has a much higher chance (75%+) of survival than if he needs a ventilator in this first 24 hours (35%+). So if we hear that he’s on a ventilator today then the outlook is pretty grim. 

I find it absolutely mad to think our PM is in intensive care. One usually views these individuals as untouchable, quite sobering.

[Jon the Hat]

31 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

That doesn't mean she shouldn't provide in a time of need. 

 

Stop being a blinkered royalist, Izz. 

What do you think the Queen does with the millions exactly?  Most of it is employing people to maintain the Royal palaces.  You want them to lose their jobs instead?

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

What do you think the Queen does with the millions exactly?  Most of it is employing people to maintain the Royal palaces.  You want them to lose their jobs instead?

She hoards it and has built a throne of solid gold under Balmoral is what I heard 

[foxile5]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

She hoards it and has built a throne of solid gold under Balmoral is what I heard 

They're worth 88,000,000,000 according to Forbes. 

[VLC86]

35 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You sure.

Well an article said they wouldn’t and considering the backlash the others have got it would take a major PR **** up to do it and we don’t seem like the club to do it.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

They're worth 88,000,000,000 according to Forbes. 

Yeah but that is assets not cash, pretty useless in the short term or in the current crisis.

[murphy]

13 hours ago, StanSP said:

Pleb.

 

 

This is why I have always much preferred dogs to people.

[VLC86]

7 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yeah but that is assets not cash, pretty useless in the short term or in the current crisis.

I’ve heard she is on the stickered items in Tesco because of it.

[RowlattsFox]

The journalist who asked the question got exactly what they wanted by asking the question. That's the problem with media, they're only interested in tripping someone up or getting a story. They cause the confusion sometimes because they are twisting and questioning everything a politician says. But it is part of the job to handle that. Ideally Hancock should have said he isn't the man to tell footballers what to do but hoped they could help in any way possible.

 

Hard to feel sympathetic for footballers though, and the continuous questions rather some of them saying who else is taking a paycut doesn't really hold much weight with me. Some have even said the senior politicians should be taking a cut first, when they are probably working harder than ever with intense pressure to earn that income currently. Fact is players are currently getting paid a lot of money for doing nothing.

I think the general public, and I include football fans in that, have had enough of the money at the top of the game and any chance to have a pop at them is going to be taken.

 

Its not their fault, of course its not, and they are under no obligation to take a pay cut or donate anything, and it's 100% right to ensure that any pay cuts etc don't just give the clubs more money apart from ensuring they can keep paying non-playing staff. Players have their own interests too, and will be donating to their own countries fight against Coronavirus, particularly the players from poor countries. I guess some sort of World Footballer Fund can be set up and would raise millions, but no idea how or who would be able to access it, this would also support lower league clubs but then I'm sure they'll be clubs out there trying to use it when they don't need too.

 

Anyway, probably isn't the thread to talking about this so sorry for that.

[ealingfox]

The Queen and the Royal Family could afford to make a substantial cash donation of income or reserves to this cause and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

 

Its neither here nor there as it wasnt her calling out footballers but let's not pretend they arent fabulously wealthy.

[Guest Markyblue]

13 minutes ago, murphy said:

 

This is why I have always much preferred dogs to people.

Rest assured the scum who post things like that from both ends of the political spectrum are in need of pity and i wouldn't waste a second on them.

[EastAnglianFox]

Gove now self isolating as a family member showing symptoms

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

The Queen and the Royal Family could afford to make a substantial cash donation of income or reserves to this cause and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

 

They might be for all we know.

 

And if they are, they wouldn't be splashing it all over the papers.