Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow_belly

Transfer ban for clubs like Norwich

Recommended Posts

On 06/04/2020 at 12:32, PurpleCanary said:

Voting Tory...ūüėé

You read my mind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2020 at 12:25, Barbe bleu said:

Can you think of any examples of things that you are legally allowed to do but would not be good, sensible or fair things to do?

Its actually legal to walk somebody around in public on a leash, BDSM, even in a gimp suit. Happens from time to time and the police are powerless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2020 at 10:16, yellow_belly said:

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-spurs-transfer-ban-talksport-4022210

yes I am a supporter, yes I am a season ticket holder and yes I understand business but sometimes you have to do the right thing. No ...NCFC is not doing the right thing, and they KNOW it.

I actually agree that any club taking furlough dosh shouldn't be able to sign players while taking furlough. 

Surely it is common sense that a company that isn't operational should be under a recruitment ban if making most of its workforce temporarily redundant. 

And spending on signing on fees, agent fees, transfer fees would suggest they didn't need to take as much as they did. A £250k signing on fee enough to cover one month of furlough dosh for 100 employees. 

That's why it annoys me that we appear to have completed a signing at the same time as taking taxpayers money. An outsider is quite right to raise eyebrows at this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So people are still paying for sky - I doubt everyone has cancelled their subscription - but sky have stopped paying clubs, who can no longer afford to pay their players. Makes sense. The blockage in the system is coming from Sky. 

Sky should automatically reduce the fees for everyone who pays for it, and every player's wage should go down accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SplatCat said:

So people are still paying for sky - I doubt everyone has cancelled their subscription - but sky have stopped paying clubs, who can no longer afford to pay their players. Makes sense. The blockage in the system is coming from Sky. 

Sky should automatically reduce the fees for everyone who pays for it, and every player's wage should go down accordingly. 

Perhaps there need to be clauses in players contracts in the future to protect clubs against something like this.

OK so we may not have another pandemic, but there could be a world war. It could last 4 years. So basically if there is a world war every club would go under because it has to honour all contracts?

Makes you wonder why on earth football isn't prepared for something like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I actually agree that any club taking furlough dosh shouldn't be able to sign players while taking furlough. 

Surely it is common sense that a company that isn't operational should be under a recruitment ban if making most of its workforce temporarily redundant. 

And spending on signing on fees, agent fees, transfer fees would suggest they didn't need to take as much as they did. A £250k signing on fee enough to cover one month of furlough dosh for 100 employees. 

That's why it annoys me that we appear to have completed a signing at the same time as taking taxpayers money. An outsider is quite right to raise eyebrows at this. 

Are you going to apply that rule to airliners not allowed to purchase new aircraft if they furlough their staff? 

We could go on and on and on with those kind of examples.....

 

Bailing out banks after the last financial crisis, but allowing them to give executives large bonuses?

Letting airlines keep ticket fees effectively as a no-interest loan from passengers on cancelled flights?

Sky Sports or ESPN not refunding monies for non-exist sports coverage?

 

Lots more targets for your ire than 20 football clubs... and those targets effect a lot more people too. 

 

 

 

Edited by Surfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if the House of Lards are still able to claim their tax free £300+ a day even if they're not attending.....?

Maybe they can use a notary to sign by proxy?....Then each unfortunate Lard can state.... "Well I'd definitely be in daily attendance but due to the current pandemic and enforced self isolation, I'm unfortunately unable to take my seat"....."Oh, and will it be possible for someone to deliver on weekdays some subsidised booze and grub to my home address as well?".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Surfer said:

Are you going to apply that rule to airliners not allowed to purchase new aircraft if they furlough their staff? 

We could go on and on and on with those kind of examples.....

 

Bailing out banks after the last financial crisis, but allowing them to give executives large bonuses?

Letting airlines keep ticket fees effectively as a no-interest loan from passengers on cancelled flights?

Sky Sports or ESPN not refunding monies for non-exist sports coverage?

 

Lots more targets for your ire than 20 football clubs... and those targets effect a lot more people too. 

 

 

 

Far too logical Surfer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...