Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TeemuVanBasten

I'm not renewing my season ticket.

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Well it is for me. I am allowed to think differently. I don't think you're "pathetic" for holding a contrary view to mine - please explain why you think I am being "pathetic" or don't you have the vocabulary?

..and if you want a bit of 'vocabulary'...

One is a football club of whom after an unforseen global pandemic and therefore an uncertain financial future,whereby the premier league's major investers , Sky and BT Sport are rumoured to be rebating money, are taking advantage of a government offer of a scheme to avoid making its employees redundant and keep them on full pay....just as 1000s of other businesses are..

....the other was a poorly run football club who spent beyond their means , subsequenly went into administration and therefore didnt pay money owed to dozens of local businesses including the ambulance services....(our players and directors raised 200k for the NHS only 2 weeks ago).

If you really really cant see the difference between the two...then please enlighten as to what adjective I should be using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

..and if you want a bit of 'vocabulary'...

One is a football club of whom after an unforseen global pandemic and therefore an uncertain financial future,whereby the premier league's major investers , Sky and BT Sport are rumoured to be rebating money, are taking advantage of a government offer of a scheme to avoid making its employees redundant and keep them on full pay....just as 1000s of other businesses are..

....the other was a poorly run football club who spent beyond their means , subsequenly went into administration and therefore didnt pay money owed to dozens of local businesses including the ambulance services....(our players and directors raised 200k for the NHS only 2 weeks ago).

If you really really cant see the difference between the two...then please enlighten as to what adjective I should be using?

I asked you to explain why you called me pathetic, not what the difference is between the two scenarios (which, incidentally, is just your own opinion again).

I could just as easily say that if NCFC really need to save less than £1m by using tax payers money out of a turnover of £120m they are also a pretty badly run club.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me pathetic - you wouldn't say that to my face because you'd get lumped, so please don't say it on here. You could use plenty of other words which are less aggressive - look them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

They are paying staff furloughed 100% their wage and not using the government scheme. 

Yes I’ve just checked and what they have actually said is that at the moment they are going to pay their staff but will keep their options open on using the government scheme. All companies that are using the scheme are currently paying their staff, it’s how it works, they then claim back the money at a later date 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

With our unique club situation, it would be irresponsible not to take necessary steps to make the money go as far as possible, as promptly as we can. It would be no moral consolation in 6 months time if we've had to let 90% of club employees go and are embroiled in legal battles for unpaid player contracts 

Exactly.

Share this post


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

I asked you to explain why you called me pathetic, not what the difference is between the two scenarios (which, incidentally, is just your own opinion again).

I could just as easily say that if NCFC really need to save less than £1m by using tax payers money out of a turnover of £120m they are also a pretty badly run club.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me pathetic - you wouldn't say that to my face because you'd get lumped, so please don't say it on here. You could use plenty of other words which are less aggressive - look them up.

...I called your comparison between us and ipswich not paying their debts as pathetic.....not you...and no, I dont need to look up any other words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

Sorry to have to point this out TVB, but the first renewal date was 18th February, the second was 21st March. Seems to me that

1. You weren't going to renew anyway or

2. You didn't know the renewal date because you are not actually a season ticket holder like you proclaim to be!

 

I suppose that we will now have to put up with you making nonsense claims about this in an attempt to justify what you have said, but I's advise against it as you normally just dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

oof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

...I called your comparison between us and ipswich not paying their debts as pathetic.....not you...and no, I dont need to look up any other words.

You could try looking up "opinion", that would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it is morally OK for the club to be taking "advantage" of this scheme then that is your opinion. But how come that is OK when small businesses cannot take advantage of that because they do not pay business rates and in fact have no income and have to lay off the staff.

Just because it is our club there seems to be some fairy dust sprinkled over it. So all the other clubs in the Prem (apart from Ashley, surprise, surprise) are not doing it.

So are we doing it because we need to save money? If so, the players can take a 20% cut to match the rest of the staff. And please don't bore me with and hide behind contracts. Others under contract have done it. Somebody just sit down and talk.

If we don't need to save money then why are we the only club doing it?

And I would question the bull about tax. These things are being thrown at the problem just as lame excuses. Otherwise the Government wouldn't have encouraged footballers to do it.

The Government will fund the NHS not footballers. We have all contributed something during this crisis measured by our ability and another week goes by where football thinks it is something special and needs pampering.

And the crook that is Gordon Taylor, finishing in November, on over £2M a year will not lead by example either. So I suppose it is easy for the players to say they have been advised by a crook not to do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Well it is for me.

Sgncfc, I obviously don't approve of the personal abuse. Nevertheless, I don't see Ipswich Town's administration and failure to pay debts as morally equivalent of us taking the fulough money. In many ways I see it as almost a polar opposite.

On the one hand, we have ITFC behaving in a financially irresponsible way chasing the premiership dream but knowing that they were gambling not only with their futures but also with those businesses that supplied them. When they went into administration they failed to pay in full lots of small local businesses and, I believe, charities. 

On the other hand, NCFC are adopting a highly responsible financial approach to prevent as much as possible the prospect of us having to damage our own club and those who supply us as well. From a financial point of view it couldn't be more different - gambling wildly vs prudent pragmatism. We are adopting a scheme encouraged by govt to protect the economy which runs the risk of collapsing as evidenced by the IFS yesterday (although, tbh, in such unprecedented times, I would take any economic forecast with a spoonful of salt). If every business laid off staff and cut back where they could, which is the alternative to the govt's scheme, it would have an even more profound economic effect. The govt is encouraging business to adopt the scheme precisely because it does not want business to take retrenchment action which would have a knock on (negative multiplier) effect. 

I don't see how you can see it as morally equivalent to take the money that govt wants businesses to take compared to denying businesses (local and national) money for goods and services they have provided in good faith as a result of a wild financial gamble.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's look at this from a different angle.

Ipswich Town have placed staff on furlough as well, their owner reportedly being worth over 30x what ours is as of last year.

Why no outrage? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's look at this from a different angle.

Ipswich Town have placed staff on furlough as well, their owner reportedly being worth over 30x what ours is as of last year.

Why no outrage? 

It isn't about the owner's wealth. It is about NCFC losing income, maybe having none at the moment and still paying full whack to the players yet taking advantage of a government scheme that had intentions of something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Known PinkUn fact:

Those that have to announce they're leaving the PinkUn are typically the least missed. 

Also Badgers comments in regards to season ticket renewal dates is probably why hes not been back here to post. 

I know people have a lot of time on their hands now but this virtue signalling and ignorance shown towards what the club has done isn't really helpful.

Share this post


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

It is about NCFC losing income, maybe having none at the moment and still paying full whack to the players yet taking advantage of a government scheme that had intentions of something else.

1. We are contractually obliged to pay the players contracts. they could leave us "on a free" and sue us if we didn't. We can only cut players' wages with their consent.

2. The govt scheme was not intended for something else. From the govt website, (link provided)

"It is designed to help employers whose operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) to retain their employees and protect the UK economy."

Have our operations been severely affected by COVID 19 - YES

Has we retained employees as a result - YES

Has the UK economy been protected - YES 

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

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JF said:

Yes I’ve just checked and what they have actually said is that at the moment they are going to pay their staff but will keep their options open on using the government scheme. All companies that are using the scheme are currently paying their staff, it’s how it works, they then claim back the money at a later date 

Footballers are unique in that a very small percentage get the majority of the wages, premiership clubs are unique in that they are getting millions from Sky (they have guaranteed this seasons payments). Premiership football clubs could for example cut premiership player salaries by say 30% and still afford to pay non playing staff. There is ZERO reason or justification for a premier club to ask taxpayers to pay for it's cleaners cooks, groundsmen etc. The money set aside by the government should be used for businesses that need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Badger said:

1. We are contractually obliged to pay the players contracts. they could leave us "on a free" and sue us if we didn't. We can only cut players' wages with their consent.

2. The govt scheme was not intended for something else. From the govt website, (link provided)

"It is designed to help employers whose operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) to retain their employees and protect the UK economy."

Have our operations been severely affected by COVID 19 - YES

Has we retained employees as a result - YES

Has the UK economy been protected - YES 

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

Please can you stop talking sense? People want to be outraged. Let them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Footballers are unique in that a very small percentage get the majority of the wages, premiership clubs are unique in that they are getting millions from Sky (they have guaranteed this seasons payments). Premiership football clubs could for example cut premiership player salaries by say 30% and still afford to pay non playing staff. There is ZERO reason or justification for a premier club to ask taxpayers to pay for it's cleaners cooks, groundsmen etc. The money set aside by the government should be used for businesses that need it.

But how do you judge who needs it and who doesn’t? Does the billionaire Richard Branson  need it for Virgin? The scheme is there for employers to retain employees at a time through no fault of their own they can’t work. I have no opinion either way on if it’s right for  NCFC using the scheme, the same as I have no opinion on any other company using it. The one thing I do have an opinion on though is I’d rather companies used it than laying their staff off.

Edited by JF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Ok, let's look at this from a different angle.

Ipswich Town have placed staff on furlough as well, their owner reportedly being worth over 30x what ours is as of last year.

Why no outrage? 

It isn't about the owner's wealth. It is about NCFC losing income, maybe having none at the moment and still paying full whack to the players yet taking advantage of a government scheme that had intentions of something else.

The intention of the JRS was and still is to keep people paid and safe during a time of crisis. The implication towards Norwich City is that we're duping the taxpayers by getting them to pay our furloughed staff and just adding to the big pile of cash we have in the boardroom.

Last time I checked, every single PL club was still paying their players in full, talks on going towards a league-wide 30% reduction. No different to us. I'll say that again but with a different text effect- every single PL club is still paying the players in full.

The difference is that the others have looked at the balance sheet and can afford to pay in full across the whole club- for now. Evidently we are ahead of the curve; take Sheff Utds clever statement. They are still paying all staff in full! (But maybe might probably look at the government JRS scheme moving forward as financially it's probably necessary).

Because I have an amount of savings that mean I could probably last 2 months if I drained it down to 0, am I morally bankrupt for being on furlough so I don't have to wind up penniless?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mason 47 said:

The intention of the JRS was and still is to keep people paid and safe during a time of crisis. The implication towards Norwich City is that we're duping the taxpayers by getting them to pay our furloughed staff and just adding to the big pile of cash we have in the boardroom.

Last time I checked, every single PL club was still paying their players in full, talks on going towards a league-wide 30% reduction. No different to us. I'll say that again but with a different text effect- every single PL club is still paying the players in full.

The difference is that the others have looked at the balance sheet and can afford to pay in full across the whole club- for now. Evidently we are ahead of the curve; take Sheff Utds clever statement. They are still paying all staff in full! (But maybe might probably look at the government JRS scheme moving forward as financially it's probably necessary).

Because I have an amount of savings that mean I could probably last 2 months if I drained it down to 0, am I morally bankrupt for being on furlough so I don't have to wind up penniless?

 

You can't reason with morally outraged. if it wasn't this it would be something else

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

It isn't about the owner's wealth. It is about NCFC losing income, maybe having none at the moment and still paying full whack to the players yet taking advantage of a government scheme that had intentions of something else.

Of course it's about wealth. A wealthy owner can put money in to protect wages. 

And of course its about losing income - that is the point - clubs need income to pay staff wages especially as the club are committed to contracts with players that are cast in stone.  The club cannot control player wages. If the players either collectively or individually give up 20 - 30 percent of their wages, that is up to them, not the club.

Also, home matches get in £100,000 or more in ticket money for casuals and away fans and that is loss of income for every match that doesn't happen.  Now I hear people say "but the club has money".  So it has some, but that money is going to disappear fast if the present situation carries on for a long time - which it looks like it will.  If we spend that money and three months down the line it has gone, then what?

Redundancies. That's what.  So be careful what you wish for. The present situation with furloughing protects jobs,  protects the future of the solvency of the club if players do not give any wages back.  The players are in a sticky situation and there will be a need imo for them to act collectively at some point to recognise they are not doing anything for their salaries except trying to keep fit......but the players are not obliged to give up anything and may not...but that is still nothing the club has any control over. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

Please can you stop talking sense? People want to be outraged. Let them.

Not outraged, it's about our "community" club or our "self funded" club doing what is best for the community. You telling me players would not accept 30% pay cuts to fund non playing staff wages? Given the deaths and the world wide pandemic they would look exceptionally greedy. It's about doing what is right and not backing morally justifiable decisions. You know it makes sense..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Footballers are unique in that a very small percentage get the majority of the wages, premiership clubs are unique in that they are getting millions from Sky (they have guaranteed this seasons payments). Premiership football clubs could for example cut premiership player salaries by say 30% and still afford to pay non playing staff. There is ZERO reason or justification for a premier club to ask taxpayers to pay for it's cleaners cooks, groundsmen etc. The money set aside by the government should be used for businesses that need it.

That is a generalisation. Norwich are a PL club, yet our situation is vastly different to other clubs in the division except perhaps Burnley. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel very strongly about lots of things that upset me. When I do, I might give to charity for example. Yet I keep that to myself even though I feel others should feel the same way I do. 

 

To the OP, go ahead and take your own responsibility for what you believe. Yet I don't think you can expect others to feel the same, no matter how sore you feel yourself. By not renewing you are following your own principles and in that act, feel good about it and let that be enough.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We wouldn't have had to Furlough our playing staff if we had a stinking rich chinese owner. Now I guess how that chinese owner attained his wealth would have no moral issues with yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

That is a generalisation. Norwich are a PL club, yet our situation is vastly different to other clubs in the division except perhaps Burnley. 

The players are STILL getting paid in full... They could take a reasonable pay cut (I have taken a 50% cut) and that would mean we could pay our other staff. This money will have to be paid back by the tax payer at sometime. Premiership clubs should not be subsided by the tax payer when it's still 100% paying players. People seem to be arguing that we are unique in that we can't sustain ourselves for a few months in the premiership with out games and this is seen as to be a good thing? I would be questioning why our cash flow is so poor... Anyway it's not going look great to the the wider footballing community...

Edited by Kenny Foggo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Not outraged, it's about our "community" club or our "self funded" club doing what is best for the community. You telling me players would not accept 30% pay cuts to fund non playing staff wages? Given the deaths and the world wide pandemic they would look exceptionally greedy. It's about doing what is right and not backing morally justifiable decisions. You know it makes sense..

It is most definitely outrage and the kind of outrage that people revel in and want to have. As Ricardo suggests, if it wasn't this furlough, it would be something else.

I am not telling you anything; I simply do not know and neither do you. I find little value in guessing what may be going on behind closed doors and making assumptions - that almost certainly reinforce preconceived opinions - without the actual facts. If you want to make assumptions and be outraged, go right ahead, I will not argue with you, I just won't join you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

We wouldn't have had to Furlough our playing staff if we had a stinking rich chinese owner. Now I guess how that chinese owner attained his wealth would have no moral issues with yourself?

Says the man who at first questioned the club using the furlough scheme. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, hogesar said:

Known PinkUn fact:

Those that have to announce they're leaving the PinkUn are typically the least missed. 

Also Badgers comments in regards to season ticket renewal dates is probably why hes not been back here to post. 

I know people have a lot of time on their hands now but this virtue signalling and ignorance shown towards what the club has done isn't really helpful.

They are paying everybody's full wages, as they are contractually obliged to, since they're topping up the furloughed staff's payment to the normal wage - which they are not obliged to.

Edited by Creative Midfielder
OK the board has gone crazy, I actually quoted a completely different post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

They are paying everybody's full wages, as they are contractually obliged to, since they're topping up the furloughed staff's payment to the normal wage - which they are not obliged to.

Yes, it's amazing how this simple fact seems to continually escape some people.  Yes, it would be fantastic if the players agreed/volunteered or were pressurised into taking less for a time, but the club cannot enforce it or demand it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does make me very uncomfortable and the optics don’t look good from the outside 

whilst I have renewed my season ticket, I am cutting back on my other expenditure eg match day hospitality, merchandise etc. There has to be some consequences for the owners poor decision making 

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...