Safe, sensible hands guiding the club

[hogesar 9,615]

5 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

In other words, you don't actually give much of a sh*t at all about the lack of morality. 

 

Correct. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Well yes. The guys in charge are looking after the club and themselves very well.

Or, to put it another way, those in charge are looking after themselves very well and the taxpayer is helping look after  the club.

 

In that way it's no different to anything else. 

Footballers are no different to other people earning big money.

I'm not convinced that giving them a paycut and not furloughing would save the taxpayer anything. Maybe even the opposite.

If more taxes are needed to get us through this, which is probable and understandable, then put another few % on all earnings / income over £2,500 pm would be fair. The big earners will still pay more.

Is it unique in football that people obsess on other people's money unless they think it's going to be used to fund their interest.

[Mello Yello 2,278]

  8 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

Well I will most certainly be taking my refund/reimbursement if and when it's offered - and I won't feel one iota of personal guilt in doing so.....There are those involved in the higher/upper echelons of our club whom financially won't be out of pocket regardless of the future fate of NCFC.....

Badger sez: ......That's entirely your choice and right.

But realistically, do you expect players/ coaches etc to feel as much as we do about the club as we do? 

Realistically, you were correct that it is entirely my choice and right......I reiterate, I still won't feel one iota of personal guilt in doing so.....and I care about the players/coaches, probably as much as they care about me..... 

 

Our majority shareholding duo also feel as much as we do about the club......I wonder what their future financial intentions are?......

 

 

 

 

[essex canary 491]

In reply to Nigel. The challenge is there are some businesses and industries who play fair meaning they seek a fair balance between all their stakeholders be they employees, shareholders, customers, bondholders, creditors whatever. Then again there are some who are making no real effort in that respect. Limited Companies are supposed to do exactly that by law. 

In football terms I gave an example of  good practice  in Kings Lynn FC.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

14 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

In other words, you don't actually give much of a sh*t at all about the lack of morality. 

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Correct. 

Well I actually respect you for finally admitting that Hogesar, but should probably stop implying that you do have concerns about the "morality", as you have done about half a dozen times.

Still, not as bad as badger claiming to be a "leftie" when he's clearly a Blairite at best. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[nutty nigel 7,509]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In reply to Nigel. The challenge is there are some businesses and industries who play fair meaning they seek a fair balance between all their stakeholders be they employees, shareholders, customers, bondholders, creditors whatever. Then again there are some who are making no real effort in that respect. Limited Companies are supposed to do exactly that by law. 

In football terms I gave an example of  good practice  in Kings Lynn FC.

So how do Norwich City rate against the other 19 PL clubs for this fair balance?

Edited April 25, 2020 by nutty nigel

[hogesar 9,615]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Well I actually respect you for finally admitting that Hogesar, but should probably stop implying that you do have concerns about the "morality", as you have done about half a dozen times.

Still, not as bad as badger claiming to be a "leftie" when he's clearly a Blairite at best. 

Its because in a world where everything is fair and even I'd be against the club doing it purely on a moral basis.

But what I do is weigh it up against the primarily role Webber etc in the club have right now and that is to give us the best possible chance of being a football club still, and longer term the best chance of success.

I then weigh it up against what's happening outside of football. Even local businesses I know of several who have furloughed everyone just for some free government money - they still have regular income and could keep open and pay their employees and continue to support the economy but they're making a conscious effort to essentially give everyone an 80% paid holiday. Its short sighted.

It's also no coincidence that the strong majority of people who are protesting these decisions have either been Anti-Delia or Anti-Webber (or both) but simply had little to cling onto. 

[essex canary 491]

Nigel, The other 18 excluding Burnley may well be worse than NCFC. But then  Norwich say they are not truly in the Premier League class. Then again they are not in the Kings Lynn class either.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

28 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It's also no coincidence that the strong majority of people who are protesting these decisions have either been Anti-Delia or Anti-Webber (or both) but simply had little to cling onto. 

We live in strange times where people like to divide people into little camps and hate them for having an opinion which differs from their own. 

Its like the Trump hate, and the Clinton hate.

Labour voters blocking Tory voters from their facebook feeds, and vice versa. 

People feeling the need to chastise people who forget that they are a "they" instead of a "him". 

I am just about old enough to remember when the world was a little bit different, when Question Time had some really intelligent debates, when the audience didn't shout over the panelists, when all this stuff was a bit of banter in the pub or workplace instead of people being bizarrely tribal. 

You want to put me into your little "anti-Webber" box because I have previously criticised something that Webber has said or done, and that's because you have chosen to make yourself a prisoner in your own little box, the box which says that because you've determined one day that you are "Pro-Webber" you can't hold any negative opinions and certainly can't share them. You've created two big tribes in your mind, and determined that I'm not in the same one as you.

Quite a few other posters have done the same. Its the same weird tribalism that we see in politics. That tribalism is the cancer of social media. 

I'm happy to stay outside of those two boxes of yours Hogesar, no matter how much you'd like to drag people into yours, or how much you want to stuff me into the other.

I've already stated my position which is that I believe we need to bring an experienced executive alongside Webber, Ward and Kensell, somebody like an Alan Bowkett, and that while I think Webber deserves more time to develop the football side of this club, that trio have some a lot of naivety and shown their lack of experience over the past year on the business side.

I don't think there is a "pro Webber being in charge of football, but at least want an experienced chairman" box, if I have to go in a box I'll choose that one, thank you. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Nigel, The other 18 excluding Burnley may well be worse than NCFC. But then  Norwich say they are not truly in the Premier League class. Then again they are not in the Kings Lynn class either.

So what is it about NCFC that is upsetting you?

Wish we were Kings Lynn is a new one BTW🙃

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Nigel, The other 18 excluding Burnley may well be worse than NCFC. But then  Norwich say they are not truly in the Premier League class. Then again they are not in the Kings Lynn class either.

Although we're on the same page with this furlough thing essex canary, may want to look into how this King's Lynn fella made his money. 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/midasextra/article-1691821/Shady-truth-behind-UKIPs-Stephen-Cleeve.html

Edited April 25, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[Cliff the Canary 63]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Not really. I agree with you in many senses that the huge gaps in wealth and income are wrong, but don't think that this should be resolved by random individuals agreeing to forfeit a proportion of their income, whilst most others don't.

They exist in the same society as we do - one that values wealth and looks above all things - why should they have to reject the values of society unilaterally because of a faux outrage manufactured by the press that generally supports and works for that very inequality in the first place? I'd rather people retained their outrage and voted appropriately, but experience suggests that they won't.

I respect your opinion. Whilst we have focused on football players, the focus of what I’m saying should be applied to every profession where the exorbitant income of the few, is totally disproportionate to the masses! 
Will this global event cause a shift to the political left? Probably not as the middle class is the buffer that keeps capitalism working! Too enticed by the prospect of wealth and too scared to break free from the system!

Edited April 25, 2020 by Cliff the Canary

[essex canary 491]

Thanks Tvb. Point taken.

[hogesar 9,615]

26 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I'm happy to stay outside of those two boxes of yours Hogesar, no matter how much you'd like to drag people into yours, or how much you want to stuff me into the other.

Too right you can stay away from my boxes.

[Mello Yello 2,278]

I remember a decade ago Paul Lambert was the Messiah as everyone squeezed into the then pro lambo big box......now to everyone in the new lambo big box....... Lambo's the Devil incarnate......

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

23 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

I remember a decade ago Paul Lambert was the Messiah as everyone squeezed into the then pro lambo big box......now to everyone in the new lambo big box....... Lambo's the Devil incarnate......

McNally was worshipped as well.

Actually these people worship and put these people up on a pedestal, who don't critique them and make them immune to any criticism (or 'wrongspeak') are the problem.

Because McNally and Lambert both fell victim to their subsequently inflated egos. 

And then suddenly people will call them out for all their faults with the benefit of hindsight. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Who are "these people" are they the same ones as "certain posters". I know they can't be the ,"silent majority".

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

Been reading this thread with interest. There are a lot of good points made on both sides of the argument. 

Isn't it time we accepted that there isn't really a perfect right or wrong answer? No option offers a financially and morally appropriate course of action for a club in our situation.

For what it's worth, my gut instinct is telling me that the club are trying to put the players in a position where they voluntarily offer a cut. That can't be disputed legally at a later time.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

5 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Been reading this thread with interest. There are a lot of good points made on both sides of the argument. 

Isn't it time we accepted that there isn't really a perfect right or wrong answer? No option offers a financially and morally appropriate course of action for a club in our situation.

For what it's worth, my gut instinct is telling me that the club are trying to put the players in a position where they voluntarily offer a cut. That can't be disputed legally at a later time.

That's an interesting theory which isn't the slightest bit believable because the executives, the people who would devise and execute this grand plan, haven't taken one themselves.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That's an interesting theory which isn't the slightest bit believable because the executives, the people who would devise and execute this grand plan, haven't taken one themselves.

No, and a very good point, but they absolutely could offer to match it if such an offer were forthcoming.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think comparing the players to what other people and companies are doing is irrelevant. Its like saying its OK to drink and drive because others do it or I'm not picking up my dog's **** because others don't.

We are discussing whether our players at NCFC should take a pay cut to help out the club, not the NHS or Government, just the club who have now admitted they will be losing money.

And like it or not, there is a morality issue which makes many of us question what is happening at the club. The message was they haven't even discussed it.

So many people are on 80% of their wages and can ill afford to be losing it. And lets not pretend that the furlough scheme was set up to assist the wealthy. It was set up to help those businesses that would go to the wall and cannot afford to take loans with no income. That is why Hancock answered the question the way he did. Football at the top has saleable assets that do not have to be poured away down drains, thrown in skips or bailed out by the Government

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We are discussing whether our players at NCFC should take a pay cut to help out the club, not the NHS or Government, just the club who have now admitted they will be losing money.

And I were a player, even with my current stance on this issue, I'd be questioning why the executives haven't taken a pay cut. 

That's why the young trio haven't asked the players to take a pay cut, because they don't want to take one themselves. 

Its simple.

Edited April 25, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

2 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

We live in strange times where people like to divide people into little camps and hate them for having an opinion which differs from their own. 

Its like the Trump hate, and the Clinton hate.

Labour voters blocking Tory voters from their facebook feeds, and vice versa. 

People feeling the need to chastise people who forget that they are a "they" instead of a "him". 

I am just about old enough to remember when the world was a little bit different, when Question Time had some really intelligent debates, when the audience didn't shout over the panelists, when all this stuff was a bit of banter in the pub or workplace instead of people being bizarrely tribal. 

You want to put me into your little "anti-Webber" box because I have previously criticised something that Webber has said or done, and that's because you have chosen to make yourself a prisoner in your own little box, the box which says that because you've determined one day that you are "Pro-Webber" you can't hold any negative opinions and certainly can't share them. You've created two big tribes in your mind, and determined that I'm not in the same one as you.

Quite a few other posters have done the same. Its the same weird tribalism that we see in politics. That tribalism is the cancer of social media. 

I'm happy to stay outside of those two boxes of yours Hogesar, no matter how much you'd like to drag people into yours, or how much you want to stuff me into the other.

I've already stated my position which is that I believe we need to bring an experienced executive alongside Webber, Ward and Kensell, somebody like an Alan Bowkett, and that while I think Webber deserves more time to develop the football side of this club, that trio have some a lot of naivety and shown their lack of experience over the past year on the business side.

I don't think there is a "pro Webber being in charge of football, but at least want an experienced chairman" box, if I have to go in a box I'll choose that one, thank you. 

You really are an incredibly bitter and hard-done-by type of person. Maybe you should consider therapy after all this 😀👍🏻

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

23 minutes ago, Hoola Han Solo said:

You really are an incredibly bitter and hard-done-by type of person. Maybe you should consider therapy after all this 😀👍🏻

Just had a look at your post history and within about a dozen posts you've called people a "village idiot", a "nut job", a "petulant child", "brain dead", "miserable gammon", 

Are you projecting? Do you have your own issues to deal with perhaps? Anger? Is it drink? Gambling? Unhappy marriage? Very small womb broom?

Edited April 25, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think comparing the players to what other people and companies are doing is irrelevant. Its like saying its OK to drink and drive because others do it or I'm not picking up my dog's **** because others don't.

We are discussing whether our players at NCFC should take a pay cut to help out the club, not the NHS or Government, just the club who have now admitted they will be losing money.

And like it or not, there is a morality issue which makes many of us question what is happening at the club. The message was they haven't even discussed it.

So many people are on 80% of their wages and can ill afford to be losing it. And lets not pretend that the furlough scheme was set up to assist the wealthy. It was set up to help those businesses that would go to the wall and cannot afford to take loans with no income. That is why Hancock answered the question the way he did. Football at the top has saleable assets that do not have to be poured away down drains, thrown in skips or bailed out by the Government

Out of all the posts about this for me yours are the only ones that hold water Pops.

With players reps, PFA reps and all the advisers and accompanying pressures I doubt it's simple and straightforward but  I think it's impossible to argue with the ethics and morals of what you say.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

47 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Just had a look at your post history and within about a dozen posts you've called people a "village idiot", a "nut job", a "petulant child", "brain dead", "miserable gammon", 

Are you projecting? Do you have your own issues to deal with perhaps? Anger? Is it drink? Gambling? Unhappy marriage? Very small womb broom?

I’m all of those things mate 😆👍🏻

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

8 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think comparing the players to what other people and companies are doing is irrelevant. Its like saying its OK to drink and drive because others do it or I'm not picking up my dog's **** because others don't.

We are discussing whether our players at NCFC should take a pay cut to help out the club, not the NHS or Government, just the club who have now admitted they will be losing money.

And like it or not, there is a morality issue which makes many of us question what is happening at the club. The message was they haven't even discussed it.

So many people are on 80% of their wages and can ill afford to be losing it. And lets not pretend that the furlough scheme was set up to assist the wealthy. It was set up to help those businesses that would go to the wall and cannot afford to take loans with no income. That is why Hancock answered the question the way he did. Football at the top has saleable assets that do not have to be poured away down drains, thrown in skips or bailed out by the Government

This 

Villa players have deferred 25% of their wage too.

[CANARYKING 634]

53 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

This 

Villa players have deferred 25% of their wage too.

Deferring means nothing, they’ll still get the money

[king canary 7,577]

42 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

Deferring means nothing, they’ll still get the money

They will be it depends on how that payment is made and spread out- there is a short term benefit in a time when income will have dropped significantly. 

[king canary 7,577]

12 hours ago, hogesar said:

It's also no coincidence that the strong majority of people who are protesting these decisions have either been Anti-Delia or Anti-Webber (or both) but simply had little to cling onto. 

In my view the opposite is also true. Those who refuse to accept any criticism of the club or its owners are continuing down that path in the current situation.