I'm not renewing my season ticket.

[sgncfc 1,221]

4 hours ago, ricardo said:

The problem we have here is that everybody wants a football club to go back to when this is all over but they don't want it to make the necessary business decisions in order to ensure that happens. The sad reality is that when things break there are bound to be casualties.

I think all I take issue with you on is your use of the word "necessary" in the context of the decision to furlough staff. No one on here knows if it is or isn't necessary at the present time for NCFC to use the furlough scheme, and Mr Webber hasn't provided any evidence yet to support the executive view that it apparently is. Until he does that, the jury is out and some people, including the OP, have a more extreme view on that. If it truly is "necessary" then that may lead to some other questions about why it is when we are paying players over £60m a year.

My view hasn't changed with all this toing and froing - the savings we will make are comparative peanuts (less than £1m) and we don't yet know what the impact will be on our income, so why is this action "necessary"?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

9 minutes ago, Cliff the Canary said:

Apologies! I’ll rephrase, the scheme should be for small business or those endanger of financial collapse.

The point of my post is the morally correct thing for any business, regardless of it’s nature, should be to reduce top end earners exorbitant salaries to help keep the lower earners in jobs, before dipping into the public purse!

In reality my suggestion is far too left wing for a world lacking morality and where greed rules! Those kind of sentiments probably died out with utopian socialists 😜 (not the Suffolk socialists) 🤣

Yes but being all precious about the public purse only now is hypocritical. Surely these principles should be for all times. For instance would you say it's right for footballers to be earning what they do while other employees have their incomes supplemented by the public purse? 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

18 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

I think all I take issue with you on is your use of the word "necessary" in the context of the decision to furlough staff. No one on here knows if it is or isn't necessary at the present time for NCFC to use the furlough scheme, and Mr Webber hasn't provided any evidence yet to support the executive view that it apparently is. Until he does that, the jury is out and some people, including the OP, have a more extreme view on that. If it truly is "necessary" then that may lead to some other questions about why it is when we are paying players over £60m a year.

My view hasn't changed with all this toing and froing - the savings we will make are comparative peanuts (less than £1m) and we don't yet know what the impact will be on our income, so why is this action "necessary"?

Possibly by opening up our finances to that level of scrutiny gives the game away that we're flat broke and would undermine any negotiating position were we able to sell players this summer?

[sgncfc 1,221]

1 minute ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Possibly by opening up our finances to that level of scrutiny gives the game away that we're flat broke and would undermine any negotiating position were we able to sell players this summer?

But I thought everyone already assumed that we were flat broke - after all, we have spent the last two years telling everyone we are and that's the reason many people on here back the clubs decision; because they all believe we have no money. 

Anyway, they don't need to open their books to scrutiny, they just need to report to their shareholders, in detail, why they have taken such a controversial decision - something any company should be challenged on. Believe me, whatever happens on the pitch before then, the AGM in October will be lively!

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

26 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Yes but being all precious about the public purse only now is hypocritical. Surely these principles should be for all times. For instance would you say it's right for footballers to be earning what they do while other employees have their incomes supplemented by the public purse? 

Salaries are not a measure of a person's value to a community, but primarily a confluence of demand and supply. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

6 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Salaries are not a measure of a person's value to a community, but primarily a confluence of demand and supply. 

This is how it works so why should it work differently now? Why are nurses and carers super heros only for this short time? Will shopworkers retain any of their sudden increase in value when the pandemic is over?

And will we still be bleating for richer owners so that the disparity will be greater still. That's the one that is totally beyond me because many of those demanding such things earn a small fraction of what players are paid now.

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by nutty nigel

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

And will we still be bleating for richer owners so that the disparity will be greater still. That's the one that is totally beyond me because many of those demanding such things earn a small fraction of what players are paid now.

Hopefully we have heard the last of Super rich Chinese owners

[ricardo 7,345]

17 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is how it works so why should it work differently now? Why are nurses and carers super heros only for this short time? Will shopworkers retain any of their sudden increase in value when the pandemic is over?

And will we still be bleating for richer owners so that the disparity will be greater still. That's the one that is totally beyond me because many of those demanding such things earn a small fraction of what players are paid now.

 

Try out a few doctors and nurses for Temmu Pukki's position and you will soon find out why😀

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Temmu Pukki

Who? 40 days and you've forgotten our top striker😂

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

6 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Try out a few doctors and nurses for Temmu Pukki's position and you will soon find out why😀

Does it work the other way round, would you be happy to see Teemu Pukki treating you for Covid-19?

 

[ricardo 7,345]

1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

Does it work the other way round, would you be happy to see Teemu Pukki treating you for Covid-19?

 

It should be quite obvious why it doesn't. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Job swap!

That's the way to sort this...

I could go bizzying about for a couple of days while Tilly cleans bogs and calls bingo....

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I could go bizzying about for a couple of days while Tilly cleans bogs and calls bingo....

He was a Peeler. They retire at 40!

[Cliff the Canary 63]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Yes but being all precious about the public purse only now is hypocritical. Surely these principles should be for all times. For instance would you say it's right for footballers to be earning what they do while other employees have their incomes supplemented by the public purse? 

I consider any professional, whether it be sports star or hedge fund manager, whose salaries are exorbitant and disproportionate to the majority of working people, to be both immoral and wrong!

You are absolutely right in that these principles should be for all times, but whilst the world (except N Korea) embraces capitalism and it’s population pursues material wealth and gain, there would never be a big enough shift to the political left to change this! 
I’m not suggesting some Orwellian dystopia and socialism failed before because humans are inherently greedy!

Only an event on a global scale could perhaps galvanise enough people to take a stand against the super wealthy and fight for more equality, maybe this crisis might be that event! or more likely, after this is done, everything goes back to normal, the rich get richer, and the hero’s of this crisis continue in their underpaid jobs.

[CANARYKING 634]

I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in this, there isn’t going to be any football for the masses to attend till 2022 at the earliest, no vaccine- no football

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 minutes ago, Cliff the Canary said:

I consider any professional, whether it be sports star or hedge fund manager, whose salaries are exorbitant and disproportionate to the majority of working people, to be both immoral and wrong!

You are absolutely right in that these principles should be for all times, but whilst the world (except N Korea) embraces capitalism and it’s population pursues material wealth and gain, there would never be a big enough shift to the political left to change this! 
I’m not suggesting some Orwellian dystopia and socialism failed before because humans are inherently greedy!

Only an event on a global scale could perhaps galvanise enough people to take a stand against the super wealthy and fight for more equality, maybe this crisis might be that event! or more likely, after this is done, everything goes back to normal, the rich get richer, and the hero’s of this crisis continue in their underpaid jobs.

Perhaps things will even up a bit over the next few years until the current reality just becomes a memory.

[ricardo 7,345]

1 minute ago, CANARYKING said:

I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in this, there isn’t going to be any football for the masses to attend till 2022 at the earliest, no vaccine- no football

Quite correct, some of us may live to attend CR again but no for a long time.

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

5 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in this, there isn’t going to be any football for the masses to attend till 2022 at the earliest, no vaccine- no football

Don’t agree with that at all

[TIL 1010 4,722]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I could go bizzying about for a couple of days while Tilly cleans bogs and calls bingo....

He was a Peeler. They retire at 40!

Retire at 40 ? if only.

[Badger 2,405]

4 hours ago, sgncfc said:

No one on here knows if it is or isn't necessary at the present time for NCFC to use the furlough scheme

Sorry sgncfc, but I'd have thought it was obvious. The criterion the govt gives is as follows (link included😞

"It is designed to help employers whose operations have been severely affected by coronavirus." + "all employers are eligible to claim"

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

We haven't had any games since the lockdown started and will have lost other forms of revenue as well - catering etc. In addition, I believe that the concerts for the summer have been cancelled etc etc. We don't yet know what will happen to the Sky money or when "normal football" will resume. How can you possibly think that we have not been severely affected?

[CANARYKING 634]

1 hour ago, FenwayFrank said:

Don’t agree with that at all

So when do you reckon we can go ?

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

3 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

So when do you reckon we can go ?

I think it will be before Christmas, but let’s be honest, none of us know really.

[Peanuts 150]

3 hours ago, Cliff the Canary said:

I consider any professional, whether it be sports star or hedge fund manager, whose salaries are exorbitant and disproportionate to the majority of working people, to be both immoral and wrong!

In the case of sports stars this is known as the 'Wilt Chamberlain argument'. To paraphrase Nozick, if 25k Norwich fans freely pay their £40 or so every week to see Teemu Pukki play and he receives a small cut of each ticket which adds up to a huge wage, how can that be morally wrong?

My view on the furlough is that whilst the optics are not good, we have as much right as any other business that pays its taxes to participate in the scheme according to the rules. Whether we should is another matter.

[City 2nd 191]

16 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

Don’t agree with that at all

Doesn’t matter if you agree with it. It’s a reality coming your way!

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

3 minutes ago, City 2nd said:

Doesn’t matter if you agree with it. It’s a reality coming your way!

I don’t agree that it will be two years before we get to a game again. No one knows when it will be and saying two years is over reacting in my opinion.

[City 2nd 191]

14 hours ago, CANARYKING said:

So when do you reckon we can go ?

That m pay friend depends on the authorities. If some form of social distancing has to remain until a vaccine is found for Coronavirus which is safe to use and has been tested on humans without problems, I would suggest 2021/22 season, and then a league will be formed, but only with clubs who have rich owners!

I think everyone needs to be aware that football could, as we currently know it, will become part of this diseases history.

[City 2nd 191]

6 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

I don’t agree that it will be two years before we get to a game again. No one knows when it will be and saying two years is over reacting in my opinion.

Based totally on what medical scientists are suggesting. If matters like social distancing have to remain until a safe vaccine is discovered, how will that reflect on attendances for a start. Many clubs will go to the wall very shortly -  that is the reality.

We are now in lockdown to 7th May at the earliest, do you really honestly see this season being completed. And if it isn’t, do you honestly see the next season starting? I don’t. 

Football is immaterial to the numbers of people across the world becoming infected with this disease, yet alone dyeing. Do you honestly believe football will continue as you know it?

 

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

16 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

I don’t agree that it will be two years before we get to a game again. No one knows when it will be and saying two years is over reacting in my opinion.

Maybe two years is a bit pessimistic but it’s not going to resume as it was before until there’s a vaccine available to Joe Public.

It’ll be at least 12 months but in the grand scheme of things does that really matter ? It’s only b*oody football after all...

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

I’m just reacting to a post saying we won’t be going to matches until 2022, what happens with this season, or whether football continues as we know it is a different subject altogether 

[Pugin 601]

Logically, attended football will resume at the same time as pubs, restaurants, public gatherings, Parliament, and the workplace re-open with no restrictions. I cannot see it happening this calendar year. When it does, many, many people will self-exclude.

The 'major scientific study' is great news. Within a reasonable timescale we will have an understanding of virus transmission, and effectiveness of preventative measures including masks and facial barriers. Crucially, we will understand if asymptomatic people who test positive for the virus can still spread the virus, and at what stage the infected become viable 'spreaders'. There is so much which is currently not known. For example if a person tests negative on Day One, on which Day afterwards could they become an infected spreader of the virus. This us crucial to the question of Public Assembly.

I hate and detest the idea of 'behind closed doors' games, but I think we will see it happen before the end of the year for the simple reason that those attending will be a controlled and tested population. Participants can be tested, every day if necessary, by way of mitigating the risk to an acceptable level.

None of us have any of the answers. But we can at least ask the questions and make a few logical assumptions. Hopefully we will one day have an effective vaccine.