gingerjon Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, Les Tonks Sidestep said: Just found this on BBC If I was doing this again I would not do the testing," Orient chairman Mark Travis told BBC Radio 5 Live. "This is an incentive not to test and that is bad for football and bad for health and safety." Ah okay. I think, and this may shock you, they've drawn something slightly out of context there. He was clear throughout the interview that testing was right and player safety was the most important aspect. It was only when referring to the competitive and commercial advantage to be gained by avoiding testing that he said the above - hence the second line about the incentives. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said: Just found this on BBC If I was doing this again I would not do the testing," Orient chairman Mark Travis told BBC Radio 5 Live. "This is an incentive not to test and that is bad for football and bad for health and safety." The EFL are behaving disgracefully. I see 2 West Ham players and the manager had to leave stadium just before the game as tested positive. The game went on, Hammers swear blind they have been following protocols. So the RL not on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yipyee Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 14 hours ago, Chrispmartha said: They didn’t for a very very good reason - TV revenue. But would they have needed the tv revenue if they didnt have to pay the players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yipyee Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 14 hours ago, LeeF said: Furlough that finishes weeks before the season finishes Really? Are you for real? Furlough ends at the END of October The grand final was scheduled for the BEGINNING of October.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yipyee Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 14 hours ago, Tommygilf said: That's false considering the furlough scheme only goes on till October, was only worth up to 25k equivalent wages anyway and has been reduced in value since July/August. Then of course there is the sky contract which has kept the other money flowing in but wouldn't indefinitely. The players have taken a pay cut, the reduced wage is no different to normal peoples wages and what they need to cover. the furlough scheme would have covered the playing season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, yipyee said: Really? Are you for real? Furlough ends at the END of October The grand final was scheduled for the BEGINNING of October.... And contracts run until..... Are you for real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, yipyee said: The players have taken a pay cut, the reduced wage is no different to normal peoples wages and what they need to cover. the furlough scheme would have covered the playing season. They've taken cuts but a lot were on very good contracts to start with so were brought nowhere near to furlough levels. Furlough might have covered the playing season (to a decreasing tune each month), but the loss of sky money would have far outweighed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, yipyee said: But would they have needed the tv revenue if they didnt have to pay the players? Yes, because they did have to pay the players! Unless you think all super league players went onto 25k per annum wages and would have accepted 12.5k from August? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yipyee Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 minute ago, LeeF said: And contracts run until..... Are you for real? The end of the term of the contract, some will be up at the end of the playing season. Any refund to sky would be a part refund. Four months is a quarter of a years salary saved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yipyee Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Tommygilf said: Yes, because they did have to pay the players! Unless you think all super league players went onto 25k per annum wages and would have accepted 12.5k from August? Why not? Some would be on around that anyway, and its no different to the rest of the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 minute ago, yipyee said: The end of the term of the contract, some will be up at the end of the playing season. Any refund to sky would be a part refund. Four months is a quarter of a years salary saved Contracts run until the same date for every player except short term deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 minute ago, yipyee said: Why not? Some would be on around that anyway, and its no different to the rest of the country Stop digging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, yipyee said: Why not? Some would be on around that anyway, and its no different to the rest of the country If you're on 100k wages you can't suddenly reduce your income and expenditures by over 4 fold. Furlough paid players up to 25k from the government, the clubs topped up as much as they could the rest, that was how pay cuts were managed. You're digging a pointless hole now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 5 hours ago, SL17 said: You adapt to your own situation. I’ll have to go to work as I have done all along. We need to start living with it, as it will never go away. There’s no cure for the common cold. Yet we sit waiting for one for COVID-19. Winter is upon us like every year. Read the stats before making a judgement based on hearsay. If a club has an influenza outbreak then some players have to stay home. It's not really different. This virus spreads much more easily than flu however. And on 6 October I get my flu jab. Assuming it works then i will not get seriously ill. And if you get real flu as opposed to man flu you know it if you get ill. It's only because of vaccines that loads more do not die of flu. This Covid is going to stay with us like flu, and that's only assuming we have a vaccine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iffleyox Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said: If you're on 100k wages you can't suddenly reduce your income and expenditures by over 4 fold. Furlough paid players up to 25k from the government, the clubs topped up as much as they could the rest, that was how pay cuts were managed. You're digging a pointless hole now This is the point really - if someone's earning £250k (for the sake of argument) then you, I and the average person in the street might think that's more money than we'd know what to do with, but people set their lives up to suit their earnings (or, less favourably stated but nonetheless, their earnings dictate their lives). If someone earns £25k it's too easy to think that if they were earning £250k then they'd have more money than they knew what to do with and so would be banking £225pa straight into their savings, or having loads of nice holidays - all of which could obviously be dispensed with for 8 months or whatever of being on £25k with no harm done. Except, in general, the more you earn the bigger your mortgage is, the more expensive your car is, the bigger your outgoings are likely to be. So essentially actually you're more likely to be shafted by being put on £25k furlough (never mind the 80% of £25k) than someone on average wages. And the most shafted of all will probably be the middle earners. It's not much of a drop to earn £25k rather than £30k in a year and you can probably make it work. If you're earning £50k and suddenly get faced with 50% loss of earnings for nearly a year (especially if you're the sole earner or you/your partner is on mat leave) then you're screwed. I know you know this, but it bears repeating for those that don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, iffleyox said: This is the point really - if someone's earning £250k (for the sake of argument) then you, I and the average person in the street might think that's more money than we'd know what to do with, but people set their lives up to suit their earnings (or, less favourably stated but nonetheless, their earnings dictate their lives). If someone earns £25k it's too easy to think that if they were earning £250k then they'd have more money than they knew what to do with and so would be banking £225pa straight into their savings, or having loads of nice holidays - all of which could obviously be dispensed with for 8 months or whatever of being on £25k with no harm done. Except, in general, the more you earn the bigger your mortgage is, the more expensive your car is, the bigger your outgoings are likely to be. So essentially actually you're more likely to be shafted by being put on £25k furlough (never mind the 80% of £25k) than someone on average wages. And the most shafted of all will probably be the middle earners. It's not much of a drop to earn £25k rather than £30k in a year and you can probably make it work. If you're earning £50k and suddenly get faced with 50% loss of earnings for nearly a year (especially if you're the sole earner or you/your partner is on mat leave) then you're screwed. I know you know this, but it bears repeating for those that don't. Thank you for laying it out like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Yes it's tough for high earners suddenly reduced to penury. Won't anyone think of the tax rebates? Halve someone's gross income does not always halve their net income. As I understand it, if you are on the furlough scheme, you can't work. Is that correct? What sort of contract are professional players on that does not have a clause that suspends the contract in case of unforseen disasters. How much pay do players get after their club goes out of business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, SL17 said: A flu jab is not a vaccine. Yes, it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, SL17 said: A flu jab is not a vaccine. So what is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iffleyox Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 minute ago, SL17 said: A flu jab is not a vaccine. I wish I didn't have to get on with some work now, so I could spend some time either unpicking this myself or watching as other people do, but come on - you're either working to a definition of vaccine which means it's (only) something that gives 100% of immunity 100% of the time, or you're disagreeing with both the NHS and indeed World Health Organisation, both of whom have large areas of the internet dedicated to talking about the "flu vaccine"... What definition of vaccine are you using which excludes the flu vaccine? I'm prepared to believe that this might actually be technically true, but it's going to be *very* technical and outside both common understanding of the word, and indeed how it is communicated by the people who make, procure, and administer it (and other vaccines) in both the public and private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, SL17 said: A flu jab is not a vaccine. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/flu-influenza-vaccine/#:~:text=The flu vaccine is a,the flu vaccine for adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 hour ago, gingerjon said: which does show the issue of having two completely different testing regimes and requirements in place in a single competition. That can't be right, all in the same competition must without any favourability or prejudice be subjected to the same rules and regulations shouldn't they, whatever the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronicler of Chiswick Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 To briefly go back on topic. Don't forget that we have clubs that are subject to different administrations. West Wales and the Crusaders come under the Welsh Assembly which currently has banned all spectator sport, the Catalans in France and the Wolfpack (if they're still around) in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, Chronicler of Chiswick said: To briefly go back on topic. Don't forget that we have clubs that are subject to different administrations. West Wales and the Crusaders come under the Welsh Assembly which currently has banned all spectator sport, the Catalans in France and the Wolfpack (if they're still around) in Canada. Not to mention different local restrictions in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 And Scotland.. And Wales... And Northern Ireland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.