|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 8:20:23 GMT
I see this morning that the Government are looking into a financial package for UK sports, including our beloved game, which posed a question for me.
I understand from what I'd read that Boris and Mr Sunak are looking first and foremost for the EFL, and Premier League in particular, to help out more than they are and essentially filter down cash from the top.
Now, if the Premier League and its clubs were unhappy to do so (and lets face it, as businesses they certainly arent obliged to hand over portions of their own income) Would a goverment bailout, that would be financed by the British tax payer, be a fair outcome to ensure the integrity of the English football pyramid?
I personally would be rather pissed that a portion of my hard earned money (at not much above minimum wage) is being used to subsidise any level of professional footballer, manager or CEO of a club.
I also understand that Football clubs employ a lot of people, who like myself are not high earners by any stretch, and it would be devestating for those individuals who would potentially be jobless - Though I believe those individuals would already have skillsets desired by many companies up and down the UK and finding work would be hard, as I know as much as anyone, but certainly not impossible.
Football clubs are very much run as businesses these days and imo if the business is faltering, youre unable to adjust for the ever changing everyday normality, and there is no emergency funds to see you through tough times, then the business isnt viable and its not upto the tax payer to bail out said businesses.
We are lucky in this country to have so many professional and semi-professional clubs in England and Wales - Many of which are clad with history and fond memories for multiple generations... But I definitely dont feel it is the publics resposibility as a collective to prop up clubs you have no ties to. The clubs that typically do the best competitively are the ones with the biggest supporter pools. More customers - more income.
Whats everyones opinion on this? Maybe a restructure of the FL system that sees us have less professional teams? Clubs together and bail them out? Pressure the EFL and PL to do more than they are?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 8:30:32 GMT
Government money should not be used to bail out overspending football clubs at the highest level. That money should be ring fenced for the very poorest of our society, and our failing NHS.
Some of their spending this summer has been nothing short of abhorrent and repugnant. They've carried on regardless with no forward planning despite only very recently acknowledging that any short fall in TV money will put some of them in a very bad place.
Clubs lower down the rung I feel for and there should be a package in place, although not necessarily from the government, even though it might have to come from there.
Football i'm sorry to say has caused all of it's own issues by creating and servicing an unsustainable model.
The PL and EFL could do itself the world of good by scrapping FFP and allowing wealthy owners the ability to service and properly clear any debt to help pave the way for a more sustainable model going forward. I stress the need for it to be governed properly and not to be used as a vehicle for more clubs to load up more debt with huge transfers.
They have to work together though and must not be allowed to do different things.
I predict they will do nothing and go cap in hand to the government.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 23, 2020 8:34:21 GMT
Tax payers are bailing out businesses left right and centre. Austerity was introduced to pay for greedy bankers. Who do you think is paying for Eat Out to Help Out which benefited very few businesses and basically gave the better off amongst us a few cheap meals.
Football is woven into the very fabric of our country and the Government and the Football authorities should do all it can to help out. It should start with the PL though.
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on Sept 23, 2020 8:36:34 GMT
Mmmm....
Change the business from football clubs to McDonalds, JCB, or PC world? What would your feeling be then, after all they are multi billion pound businesses with high earners. A number of League 1-2 clubs don’t pay players as much as you think and whilst their wages are comfortably higher than the average wage they’ve still significantly lower compared to the Championship let alone the Premier League.
To say that the skill set of the employees will make them marketable is not really fair either. Six months ago I would be battling against 1 or 2 individuals for a role with similar skills sets and experience... Now it is up to 100 some who were working at higher levels and are now looking at lower level roles simply to have a chance to get income, no matter how minimal.
We cannot be in a position where we bail out companies whose turnover makes league 1 or 2 clubs look like market traders but not provide for them too. I agree, Premier league even perhaps Championship teams with Premier league parachute payments should not receive help... but if you’re going to let a league 1 or 2 club fail then you have to do the same for your local manufacturing business of similar turnover.
Don’t forget the impact of bury folding had on local businesses too where their income evaporated as they lost a big customer. Even losing vale would have a huge impact on the local area including community projects.
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 8:43:05 GMT
Government money should not be used to bail out overspending football clubs at the highest level. That money should be ring fenced for the very poorest of our society, and our failing NHS. Some of their spending this summer has been nothing short of abhorrent and repugnant. They've carried on regardless with no forward planning despite only very recently acknowledging that any short fall in TV money will put some of them in a very bad place. Clubs lower down the rung I feel for and there should be a package in place, although not necessarily from the government, even though it might have to come from there. Football i'm sorry to say has caused all of it's own issues by creating and servicing an unsustainable model. The PL and EFL could do itself the world of good by scrapping FFP and allowing wealthy owners the ability to service and properly clear any debt to help pave the way for a more sustainable model going forward. I stress the need for it to be governed properly and not to be used as a vehicle for more clubs to load up more debt with huge transfers. They have to work together though and must not be allowed to do different things. I predict they will do nothing and go cap in hand to the government. Agree with all of that mate - Its a really difficult situation and as Stoke fans we are much more fortunate than most clubs in this country. Maybe its easier to have an opinion if its not going to affect us nearly as bad as some other clubs, particularly those lower down the pyramid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 8:51:19 GMT
Government money should not be used to bail out overspending football clubs at the highest level. That money should be ring fenced for the very poorest of our society, and our failing NHS. Some of their spending this summer has been nothing short of abhorrent and repugnant. They've carried on regardless with no forward planning despite only very recently acknowledging that any short fall in TV money will put some of them in a very bad place. Clubs lower down the rung I feel for and there should be a package in place, although not necessarily from the government, even though it might have to come from there. Football i'm sorry to say has caused all of it's own issues by creating and servicing an unsustainable model. The PL and EFL could do itself the world of good by scrapping FFP and allowing wealthy owners the ability to service and properly clear any debt to help pave the way for a more sustainable model going forward. I stress the need for it to be governed properly and not to be used as a vehicle for more clubs to load up more debt with huge transfers. They have to work together though and must not be allowed to do different things. I predict they will do nothing and go cap in hand to the government. Agree with all of that mate - Its a really difficult situation and as Stoke fans we are much more fortunate than most clubs in this country. Maybe its easier to have an opinion if its not going to affect us nearly as bad as some other clubs, particularly those lower down the pyramid. I'm in a difficult situation on this one as the two posts from Pugsley and GermanStokie also strike a chord with me. It's the gross spending from the PL that is muddying the waters with me. They specifically stamped their feet to restart the season last season behind closed doors to fulfill their TV contracts, because of the financial shortcomings if they didn't, yet they have carried on regardless this summer with almost complete disregard to any COVID related situation returning. It irks me a lot especially when lower down the ladder you get clubs like Macclesfield going bust for less than the weekly price of one of their top players. I know that's the way of the world but the world has changed and football has to change with it IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 8:57:02 GMT
Mmmm.... Change the business from football clubs to McDonalds, JCB, or PC world? What would your feeling be then, after all they are multi billion pound businesses with high earners. A number of League 1-2 clubs don’t pay players as much as you think and whilst their wages are comfortably higher than the average wage they’ve still significantly lower compared to the Championship let alone the Premier League. To say that the skill set of the employees will make them marketable is not really fair either. Six months ago I would be battling against 1 or 2 individuals for a role with similar skills sets and experience... Now it is up to 100 some who were working at higher levels and are now looking at lower level roles simply to have a chance to get income, no matter how minimal. We cannot be in a position where we bail out companies whose turnover makes league 1 or 2 clubs look like market traders but not provide for them too. I agree, Premier league even perhaps Championship teams with Premier league parachute payments should not receive help... but if you’re going to let a league 1 or 2 club fail then you have to do the same for your local manufacturing business of similar turnover. Don’t forget the impact of bury folding had on local businesses too where their income evaporated as they lost a big customer. Even losing vale would have a huge impact on the local area including community projects. I think my answer would be the same regardless of what company it was, but thats just my opinion. I would rather see people given the chance to be awarded a grant for a new start-up business, that can show its more viable and has the potential to be successful and grow, giving more job opportunity rather than throwing cash at big-wigs taking massive annual salaries for businesses that are ultimately failing, and thus still not giving its employees (particularly the ones at the bottom of the chain) the longer term job security that we all crave. I dont wanna turn this into a total political discussion mind, from experience it turns nasty and I feel The Oatcake is a bit of reprieve from the harsh realities going on at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 23, 2020 9:08:29 GMT
Mmmm.... Change the business from football clubs to McDonalds, JCB, or PC world? What would your feeling be then, after all they are multi billion pound businesses with high earners. A number of League 1-2 clubs don’t pay players as much as you think and whilst their wages are comfortably higher than the average wage they’ve still significantly lower compared to the Championship let alone the Premier League. To say that the skill set of the employees will make them marketable is not really fair either. Six months ago I would be battling against 1 or 2 individuals for a role with similar skills sets and experience... Now it is up to 100 some who were working at higher levels and are now looking at lower level roles simply to have a chance to get income, no matter how minimal. We cannot be in a position where we bail out companies whose turnover makes league 1 or 2 clubs look like market traders but not provide for them too. I agree, Premier league even perhaps Championship teams with Premier league parachute payments should not receive help... but if you’re going to let a league 1 or 2 club fail then you have to do the same for your local manufacturing business of similar turnover. Don’t forget the impact of bury folding had on local businesses too where their income evaporated as they lost a big customer. Even losing vale would have a huge impact on the local area including community projects. I think my answer would be the same regardless of what company it was, but thats just my opinion. I would rather see people given the chance to be awarded a grant for a new start-up business, that can show its more viable and has the potential to be successful and grow, giving more job opportunity rather than throwing cash at big-wigs taking massive annual salaries for businesses that are ultimately failing, and thus still not giving its employees (particularly the ones at the bottom of the chain) the longer term job security that we all crave. I dont wanna turn this into a total political discussion mind, from experience it turns nasty and I feel The Oatcake is a bit of reprieve from the harsh realities going on at the moment. This Government have a habit of handing over millions and millions in contracts to their rich mates so it wouldn't surprise me if they bunged a few PL clubs some cash!!!
|
|
|
Post by potterpaul on Sept 23, 2020 9:43:52 GMT
Surely both PL and EFL should be looking at increasing the cost to businesses that earn money from using their fixtures, betting and pools companies. How would bet365 look at a 20% covid increase.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 23, 2020 9:51:49 GMT
Given that every PL club is still getting c£100 million or more in TV payments there should be no bailing out of PL teams. If you can't survive on £100 million per annum - tough.
Championship and below should be helped but it would be great if some of the help came from the PL clubs at the top of the pyramid. Below the Championship most clubs will need help to survive - very few have rich enough owners to survive without help. The Championship is the trickiest to sort out. Some clubs like our own have VERY rich owners who, if FFP was abandoned for a year or so, could easily survive. Others in the division are not in our happy position as far as rich owners are concerned and they will probably need more help than any other clubs in the country given relatively high player wages and virtually nil income this season.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 9:56:09 GMT
I think if the Government are going to ban a business from trading, then we as a society should be obliged to support that business until it is allowed to trade again.
Be that self employed musicians, actors, live music venues, nightclubs, theatres, sportsman, sports clubs etc. etc.
It was ultimately us who paid to bail out the banks, it's us who are going to be paying for the furlough scheme, if we turn our backs on the arts and sports now, then we won't have any arts and sports to go back to.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 23, 2020 10:47:15 GMT
I think if the Government are going to ban a business from trading, then we as a society should be obliged to support that business until it is allowed to trade again. Be that self employed musicians, actors, live music venues, nightclubs, theatres, sportsman, sports clubs etc. etc. It was ultimately us who paid to bail out the banks, it's us who are going to be paying for the furlough scheme, if we turn our backs on the arts and sports now, then we won't have any arts and sports to go back to. I agree with you, Paul. For anyone who's interested, this was covered in an interview I did with Colin Murray on Radio 5 live late last night. The first part is mainly about stopping crowds returning to games, and the later part is about this point. Starts at 1:16:04 www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mr9c
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Sept 23, 2020 10:58:45 GMT
I would agree with a package of support measures for all clubs but it might feel more palatable if the amount of any transfer fees paid were deducted from their grant or some form of transfer embargo applied to any club who received the grant.
I also agree that FFP as it currently stands should be scrapped.
If club owners are able and prepared to fund their clubs during the pandemic they should be allowed to do so in preference to the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 23, 2020 11:50:31 GMT
Given that every PL club is still getting c£100 million or more in TV payments there should be no bailing out of PL teams. If you can't survive on £100 million per annum - tough. Championship and below should be helped but it would be great if some of the help came from the PL clubs at the top of the pyramid. Below the Championship most clubs will need help to survive - very few have rich enough owners to survive without help. The Championship is the trickiest to sort out. Some clubs like our own have VERY rich owners who, if FFP was abandoned for a year or so, could easily survive. Others in the division are not in our happy position as far as rich owners are concerned and they will probably need more help than any other clubs in the country given relatively high player wages and virtually nil income this season. Not advocating help for the premier league clubs but £100m doesnt go that far an average weekly wage of £40k when you include NI pays for about 45 players, some are on more, some less obviously but then you have all the coaching staff, physios, doctors, office and admin staff it won't go all that far, the only sustainable way forward without fans is players getting paid less.... For EFL and below they need to scrap financial fairplay and think about ownership rules pretty sure if they had been able Man City or Man United would have bought Bury or Macclesfield and put some of their better youngsters through there, not a position I could imagine being in but I'd take being a feeder club over not having a club.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Sept 23, 2020 11:59:37 GMT
The FA should relax FFP and let owners inject unsecured amounts into their clubs. Money will work it’s way to clubs with sellable assets.
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 12:46:00 GMT
I think if the Government are going to ban a business from trading, then we as a society should be obliged to support that business until it is allowed to trade again. Be that self employed musicians, actors, live music venues, nightclubs, theatres, sportsman, sports clubs etc. etc. It was ultimately us who paid to bail out the banks, it's us who are going to be paying for the furlough scheme, if we turn our backs on the arts and sports now, then we won't have any arts and sports to go back to. Whilst I agree the clubs need financial help, I think it's inappropriate for said clubs to seek that help from the government and British public. I also disagree the Government have stopped clubs from trading, clubs have agreed they want to play football on a Saturday when really they cant afford it, and there are other methods of people being able to watch (such as streaming, like the Vale are doing) Its a reduced income, but many many businesses are also on reduced footfall/income also. I dont think its fair to compare the Arts and Entertainment industry, to forking out for banks and furlough schemes. Unfortunately banks make the world go round and the collapse of a Bank would cause pandemonium, whether we like it or not. Arts and Entertainment businesses are not essential to most of the population's every days lives and a bit of a luxury. Again, I dont believe the government is banning them fron trading per-se, more that they need to come up with different ways for their services/products to be consumed. I believe a good, strong business should be able to adapt to changes and if they cant then unfortunately you fold. The government has spent so much money during this pandemic, and we are in a bad way financially as a nation. Boris and the government have been critised heavily for this, but the answer seems to be to piss more money away for the sake of ensuring people can watch 90 minutes of football on a saturday. That money isnt free and I'd find it hard to explain to my Daughter that the first x amount of years of her life, we endured more financial hardship than necessary because we propped up Football Clubs out of our own pocket. Not forgetting a number of lower league clubs are already run badly and make little to no money per year anyway. Again, just my opinion but I believe there is a hierarchy in terms of how essential businesses/services are, and how severe it would be for the majority of the population if (some, not all) disappeared. And for me Football, and the Arts and Entertainment industry in general are very, very, very far down that list. I think of it as, If my taxes on my salary had to increase much more, then I would potentially struggle financially so Barrow vs Harrogate Town on a Saturday can still be played at a professional capacity. It doesnt make sense for me to support such a thing, when the impact of it not going ahead means short term hardship for a very small amount of people in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 13:03:46 GMT
I think if the Government are going to ban a business from trading, then we as a society should be obliged to support that business until it is allowed to trade again. Be that self employed musicians, actors, live music venues, nightclubs, theatres, sportsman, sports clubs etc. etc. It was ultimately us who paid to bail out the banks, it's us who are going to be paying for the furlough scheme, if we turn our backs on the arts and sports now, then we won't have any arts and sports to go back to. Whilst I agree the clubs need financial help, I think it's inappropriate for said clubs to seek that help from the government and British public. I also disagree the Government have stopped clubs from trading, clubs have agreed they want to play football on a Saturday when really they cant afford it, and there are other methods of people being able to watch (such as streaming, like the Vale are doing) Its a reduced income, but many many businesses are also on reduced footfall/income also. I dont think its fair to compare the Arts and Entertainment industry, to forking out for banks and furlough schemes. Unfortunately banks make the world go round and the collapse of a Bank would cause pandemonium, whether we like it or not. Arts and Entertainment businesses are not essential to most of the population's every days lives and a bit of a luxury. Again, I dont believe the government is banning them fron trading per-se, more that they need to come up with different ways for their services/products to be consumed. I believe a good, strong business should be able to adapt to changes and if they cant then unfortunately you fold. The government has spent so much money during this pandemic, and we are in a bad way financially as a nation. Boris and the government have been critised heavily for this, but the answer seems to be to piss more money away for the sake of ensuring people can watch 90 minutes of football on a saturday. That money isnt free and I'd find it hard to explain to my Daughter that the first x amount of years of her life, we endured more financial hardship than necessary because we propped up Football Clubs out of our own pocket. Not forgetting a number of lower league clubs are already run badly and make little to no money per year anyway. Again, just my opinion but I believe there is a hierarchy in terms of how essential businesses/services are, and how severe it would be for the majority of the population if (some, not all) disappeared. And for me Football, and the Arts and Entertainment industry in general are very, very, very far down that list.I think of it as, If my taxes on my salary had to increase much more, then I would potentially struggle financially so Barrow vs Harrogate Town on a Saturday can still be played at a professional capacity. It doesnt make sense for me to support such a thing, when the impact of it not going ahead means short term hardship for a very small amount of people in the grand scheme of things. That's fine you're happy for the arts and sports industries to collapse if it means you're going to have to pay more tax in the future but what about all the other non (your word) 'essential' industries that we have already supported? Should we not have furloughed all the staff who work in the pub sector, or indeed any of the hospitality industry? Should we not have provided those business with grants either. Why should restaurants and pubs be any higher up the 'hierarchy' than theatres or sports businesses, they're not 'essential' either? What do we do, just leave any business that isn't 'essential' to fend for itself, regardless of the restrictions, what sort of world would we actually have to come back to? Never mind all the poor souls who will have lost their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Sept 23, 2020 13:23:08 GMT
One question I have is around employment law. British Airways were allowed to sack all their employees and then re-hire them on lower salary levels.
Why cant that be done with footballers in order to create a salary cap already now?
Virtually every person in every country is feeling the pain of this pandemic in their wallets. Why should footballers be exempt?
For me this would be the way to make football survive long-term and make it profitable.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 23, 2020 13:40:48 GMT
I think if the Government are going to ban a business from trading, then we as a society should be obliged to support that business until it is allowed to trade again. Be that self employed musicians, actors, live music venues, nightclubs, theatres, sportsman, sports clubs etc. etc. It was ultimately us who paid to bail out the banks, it's us who are going to be paying for the furlough scheme, if we turn our backs on the arts and sports now, then we won't have any arts and sports to go back to. Excellent point The Arts are really being overlooked (and Im not talking about Elton John type figures i.e. the equivalent of the Man Utds) But you have to think what British music (across many different genres) contributes to our economy, our culture AND our well-being. Music being just one example. When you think how many billions of our money has gone to banks because of bad practice, and other huge corporations who have given very little back the Arts and Sport are asking for very little in comparison. But without that very little a huge part of our culture is decimated.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 23, 2020 13:40:59 GMT
One question I have is around employment law. British Airways were allowed to sack all their employees and then re-hire them on lower salary levels. Why cant that be done with footballers in order to create a salary cap already now? Virtually every person in every country is feeling the pain of this pandemic in their wallets. Why should footballers be exempt? For me this would be the way to make football survive long-term and make it profitable. So if Liverpool sack all their players - what is to stop, say, Salah and Firmino being signed by Man United or Man City one second later? No transfer fees to pay - jobs a good un! The reason why British Airways could happily sack all their employees is that a) they are already the highest payers amongst British Airlines and b) there are far too many air crew for the numbers of jobs available, so BA wouldn't give a damn if a few of their pilots signed for Easy Jet.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 23, 2020 13:41:31 GMT
One question I have is around employment law. British Airways were allowed to sack all their employees and then re-hire them on lower salary levels. Why cant that be done with footballers in order to create a salary cap already now? Virtually every person in every country is feeling the pain of this pandemic in their wallets. Why should footballers be exempt? For me this would be the way to make football survive long-term and make it profitable.
Fine idea in principle but.....
As soon as you "sack them", you'd then need months as some kind of transfer window, as some players may not want to re-sign for that club,especially if this new salary cap was only applied in the English leagues. Most players would just fuck straight off aborad.
You'd need months to just sort out the playing staff for all of the clubs.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Sept 23, 2020 13:50:57 GMT
One question I have is around employment law. British Airways were allowed to sack all their employees and then re-hire them on lower salary levels. Why cant that be done with footballers in order to create a salary cap already now? Virtually every person in every country is feeling the pain of this pandemic in their wallets. Why should footballers be exempt? For me this would be the way to make football survive long-term and make it profitable. Because when Man Utd sack Paul Pogba and then try to rehire him on a lower salary, Pogba’s agent will say to them, no sorry Paul has just joined Juventus. And Man Utd will have lost their £80m transfer fee.
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 13:51:40 GMT
Whilst I agree the clubs need financial help, I think it's inappropriate for said clubs to seek that help from the government and British public. I also disagree the Government have stopped clubs from trading, clubs have agreed they want to play football on a Saturday when really they cant afford it, and there are other methods of people being able to watch (such as streaming, like the Vale are doing) Its a reduced income, but many many businesses are also on reduced footfall/income also. I dont think its fair to compare the Arts and Entertainment industry, to forking out for banks and furlough schemes. Unfortunately banks make the world go round and the collapse of a Bank would cause pandemonium, whether we like it or not. Arts and Entertainment businesses are not essential to most of the population's every days lives and a bit of a luxury. Again, I dont believe the government is banning them fron trading per-se, more that they need to come up with different ways for their services/products to be consumed. I believe a good, strong business should be able to adapt to changes and if they cant then unfortunately you fold. The government has spent so much money during this pandemic, and we are in a bad way financially as a nation. Boris and the government have been critised heavily for this, but the answer seems to be to piss more money away for the sake of ensuring people can watch 90 minutes of football on a saturday. That money isnt free and I'd find it hard to explain to my Daughter that the first x amount of years of her life, we endured more financial hardship than necessary because we propped up Football Clubs out of our own pocket. Not forgetting a number of lower league clubs are already run badly and make little to no money per year anyway. Again, just my opinion but I believe there is a hierarchy in terms of how essential businesses/services are, and how severe it would be for the majority of the population if (some, not all) disappeared. And for me Football, and the Arts and Entertainment industry in general are very, very, very far down that list.I think of it as, If my taxes on my salary had to increase much more, then I would potentially struggle financially so Barrow vs Harrogate Town on a Saturday can still be played at a professional capacity. It doesnt make sense for me to support such a thing, when the impact of it not going ahead means short term hardship for a very small amount of people in the grand scheme of things. That's fine you're happy for the arts and sports industries to collapse if it means you're going to have to pay more tax in the future but what about all the other non (your word) 'essential' industries that we have already supported? Should we not have furloughed all the staff who work in the pub sector, or indeed any of the hospitality industry? Should we not have provided those business with grants either. Why should restaurants and pubs be any higher up the 'hierarchy' than theatres or sports businesses, they're not 'essential' either? What do we do, just leave any business that isn't 'essential' to fend for itself, regardless of the restrictions, what sort of world would we actually have to come back to? Never mind all the poor souls who will have lost their jobs. I can see the descending into quite a lengthy debate that I really arent willing to argue too much. The furlough scheme has bailed out hundreds of thousands of jobs in pretty much every industry. I dont see why I should have to endure personal hardship so that people can get their fix of entertainment. Ironically I have lost my job during the pandemic, whilst having my first child just under 2 weeks ago. I didnt dwell on it, I dusted myself down and secured work as fast as I could. I adjusted. I dont know what more the government could reasonably do other than pay most of the wages of staff who were unable to work. If youre financially in a position to contribute to proping up the Arts and Entertainment sector, then good for you. I unfortunately am not. I certainly dont agree that Pubs or any hospitality business who is unable to adjust to the current situation, should be financed by the publict. If they cant adjust then thats unfortunate, but its not my problem to bare. As said before, I would much rather see grants for new start ups willing to alter for the current way of life, rather than prop up businesses that are failing. Change is scary, sure... But sometimes its needed. Im guessing you're either involved in aforementioned industry, or retired and regularly use those industries. So apologies if you feel attacked, as I said Its just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ryd1967 on Sept 23, 2020 13:56:06 GMT
One question I have is around employment law. British Airways were allowed to sack all their employees and then re-hire them on lower salary levels. Why cant that be done with footballers in order to create a salary cap already now? Virtually every person in every country is feeling the pain of this pandemic in their wallets. Why should footballers be exempt? For me this would be the way to make football survive long-term and make it profitable. I totally agree with your suggestion. The salary cap could potentially save football as we know it. But and a very big But, would these footballers be prepared to take a cut! Maybe they could be forced into it, because if they don't agree then they could leave and where would they go if other clubs are unable to pay what they want. Something needs to be done if not there will be more Burys and Macclesfield's.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 14:02:20 GMT
That's fine you're happy for the arts and sports industries to collapse if it means you're going to have to pay more tax in the future but what about all the other non (your word) 'essential' industries that we have already supported? Should we not have furloughed all the staff who work in the pub sector, or indeed any of the hospitality industry? Should we not have provided those business with grants either. Why should restaurants and pubs be any higher up the 'hierarchy' than theatres or sports businesses, they're not 'essential' either? What do we do, just leave any business that isn't 'essential' to fend for itself, regardless of the restrictions, what sort of world would we actually have to come back to? Never mind all the poor souls who will have lost their jobs. I can see the descending into quite a lengthy debate that I really arent willing to argue too much.The furlough scheme has bailed out hundreds of thousands of jobs in pretty much every industry. I dont see why I should have to endure personal hardship so that people can get their fix of entertainment. Ironically I have lost my job during the pandemic, whilst having my first child just under 2 weeks ago. I didnt dwell on it, I dusted myself down and secured work as fast as I could. I adjusted. I dont know what more the government could reasonably do other than pay most of the wages of staff who were unable to work. If youre financially in a position to contribute to proping up the Arts and Entertainment sector, then good for you. I unfortunately am not. I certainly dont agree that Pubs or any hospitality business who is unable to adjust to the current situation, should be financed by the publict. If they cant adjust then thats unfortunate, but its not my problem to bare. As said before, I would much rather see grants for new start ups willing to alter for the current way of life, rather than prop up businesses that are failing. Change is scary, sure... But sometimes its needed. Im guessing you're either involved in aforementioned industry, or retired and regularly use those industries. So apologies if you feel attacked, as I said Its just my opinion. But you started the thread! So yep, you're saying you think that any business that isn't (in your words) 'essential' should be left to fend for itself, no matter the restrictions. And no I'm not involved in those industries, I just don't want to see millions of people lose their jobs which would have a devastating effect on our economy and if we can protect them by seeing our taxes rise a little, then we should do it. And to come out of the other side of this and there be no sport, no theatres, no music venues, no pubs, no restaurants, no museums, no art galleries, our entire culture decimated ... blimey, I think I'd rather Covid took me now.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 23, 2020 14:23:29 GMT
I think this description 'essential' is very ambiguous when it comes to economy and industry. We have a very limited, misguided and unhealthy view of what is "essential" imho.
I would certainly say Music is essential for example.
If it isn't how come EVERY single country and culture in the world produces so much of it and has done so for centuries, and why do people spend so much time listening to it, engaging with it, making it, celebrating to it, mourning to it etc All aspects of life are permeated by music. It's not just entertainment.
Apart from that its estimated to be worth £5-6 billion to our economy last year.
Just trying to make a point.
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 14:29:53 GMT
I can see the descending into quite a lengthy debate that I really arent willing to argue too much.The furlough scheme has bailed out hundreds of thousands of jobs in pretty much every industry. I dont see why I should have to endure personal hardship so that people can get their fix of entertainment. Ironically I have lost my job during the pandemic, whilst having my first child just under 2 weeks ago. I didnt dwell on it, I dusted myself down and secured work as fast as I could. I adjusted. I dont know what more the government could reasonably do other than pay most of the wages of staff who were unable to work. If youre financially in a position to contribute to proping up the Arts and Entertainment sector, then good for you. I unfortunately am not. I certainly dont agree that Pubs or any hospitality business who is unable to adjust to the current situation, should be financed by the publict. If they cant adjust then thats unfortunate, but its not my problem to bare. As said before, I would much rather see grants for new start ups willing to alter for the current way of life, rather than prop up businesses that are failing. Change is scary, sure... But sometimes its needed. Im guessing you're either involved in aforementioned industry, or retired and regularly use those industries. So apologies if you feel attacked, as I said Its just my opinion. But you started the thread! So yep, you're saying you think that any business that isn't (in your words) 'essential' should be left to fend for itself, no matter the restrictions. And no I'm not involved in those industries, I just don't want to see millions of people lose their jobs which would have a devastating effect on our economy and if we can protect them by seeing our taxes rise a little, then we should do it. And to come out of the other side of this and there be no sport, no theatres, no music venues, no pubs, no restaurants, no museums, no art galleries, our entire culture decimated ... blimey, I think I'd rather Covid took me now. I set up the the thread to see what other peoples opinions were. Not to have an argument about what you believe in versus what I believe in. You're clearly very set in your views, as I am mine. But you are absolutely being unnecessarily extreme in saying there would be no entertainment left if we didnt publicly bail out struggling arts and entertainment businesses, and you know that. There is plenty of businesses who are strong enough to survive. During times like this, the companies who are able to adjust through ingenuity and creativity should be backed and championed, not those who dont. As I said, you sound as though you wouldnt be enduring any financial hardship in the event of a tax increase, so congratulations, thats great for you. I would be though so I dont want my tax money spent on things that bare no impact on me what so ever. There are more important ways to be spending the very limited cash the country has at the moment in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Rip Roaring Potter on Sept 23, 2020 14:35:20 GMT
I think this description 'essential' is very ambiguous when it comes to economy and industry. We have a very limited, misguided and unhealthy view of what is "essential" imho. I would certainly say Music is essential for example. If it isn't how come EVERY single country and culture in the world produces so much of it and has done so for centuries, and why do people spend so much time listening to it, engaging with it, making it, celebrating to it, mourning to it etc All aspects of life are permeated by music. It's not just entertainment. Apart from that its estimated to be worth £5-6 billion to our economy last year. Just trying to make a point. I agree, definitely. But I dont understand how recording artists would be that affected by lockdowns and social distancing, other than live performances. I dont know the figures at all, but I would hazard a guess that MOST musicians are still earning similair levels to that pre-pandemic through Spotify, Youtube, Apple Music etc. If anything I have been listening to far more music than I ever have by having more time at home.
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on Sept 23, 2020 14:38:02 GMT
Mmmm.... Change the business from football clubs to McDonalds, JCB, or PC world? What would your feeling be then, after all they are multi billion pound businesses with high earners. A number of League 1-2 clubs don’t pay players as much as you think and whilst their wages are comfortably higher than the average wage they’ve still significantly lower compared to the Championship let alone the Premier League. To say that the skill set of the employees will make them marketable is not really fair either. Six months ago I would be battling against 1 or 2 individuals for a role with similar skills sets and experience... Now it is up to 100 some who were working at higher levels and are now looking at lower level roles simply to have a chance to get income, no matter how minimal. We cannot be in a position where we bail out companies whose turnover makes league 1 or 2 clubs look like market traders but not provide for them too. I agree, Premier league even perhaps Championship teams with Premier league parachute payments should not receive help... but if you’re going to let a league 1 or 2 club fail then you have to do the same for your local manufacturing business of similar turnover. Don’t forget the impact of bury folding had on local businesses too where their income evaporated as they lost a big customer. Even losing vale would have a huge impact on the local area including community projects. I think my answer would be the same regardless of what company it was, but thats just my opinion. I would rather see people given the chance to be awarded a grant for a new start-up business, that can show its more viable and has the potential to be successful and grow, giving more job opportunity rather than throwing cash at big-wigs taking massive annual salaries for businesses that are ultimately failing, and thus still not giving its employees (particularly the ones at the bottom of the chain) the longer term job security that we all crave. I dont wanna turn this into a total political discussion mind, from experience it turns nasty and I feel The Oatcake is a bit of reprieve from the harsh realities going on at the moment. Oh no political emphasis on this at all and i agree... let’s keep politics out of this. The issue we do have is start ups have access to grants now, the environment isn’t quite right to confirm viability of success with the right market available. This would be a perfect opportunity for online businesses however so perhaps the unfortunate side will be the faster loss of high street businesses. Losing football clubs, especially in areas like doncaster would have a massive impact on local businesses who have grown hand in hand with their success.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 23, 2020 14:39:49 GMT
But you started the thread! So yep, you're saying you think that any business that isn't (in your words) 'essential' should be left to fend for itself, no matter the restrictions. And no I'm not involved in those industries, I just don't want to see millions of people lose their jobs which would have a devastating effect on our economy and if we can protect them by seeing our taxes rise a little, then we should do it. And to come out of the other side of this and there be no sport, no theatres, no music venues, no pubs, no restaurants, no museums, no art galleries, our entire culture decimated ... blimey, I think I'd rather Covid took me now. I set up the the thread to see what other peoples opinions were. Not to have an argument about what you believe in versus what I believe in. You're clearly very set in your views, as I am mine. But you are absolutely being unnecessarily extreme in saying there would be no entertainment left if we didnt publicly bail out struggling arts and entertainment businesses, and you know that. There is plenty of businesses who are strong enough to survive. During times like this, the companies who are able to adjust through ingenuity and creativity should be backed and championed, not those who dont. As I said, you sound as though you wouldnt be enduring any financial hardship in the event of a tax increase, so congratulations, thats great for you. I would be though so I dont want my tax money spent on things that bare no impact on me what so ever. There are more important ways to be spending the very limited cash the country has at the moment in my opinion. I'm more than happy to respond to the points you raise in your post but are you sure you actually want me to?
|
|