Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Blue_and_Gold

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47
That's the Tory way Mall.......same rationale for self employed...instead of a basic level universal income,  pay out at 80%,then 70%,then 20%of previous year's profits...great if your profits are high and horrible if they are relatively low....just increases the gap and to many people, just not fair.

Not quite as simple as that Kes. It was capped at a maximum of an average of £50,000 over the preceding 3 years. If your average over the preceding 3 years was £50,001, you get nothing.

Self employed were also allowed to continue to work, whereas employed who were furloughed were not.

And dare I say it, there's very often a reason why a lot of self employed peoples net profit are low.   :laughcry:

General Discussion / Financial help from Govt looks unlikely
« on: September 24, 2020, 06:32:18 PM »
Have to say that this from the BBC seems strange when NL statement is taken into account. 

Elite sport will be expected to "look at ways in which it can support itself" through financial difficulties arising from the absence of fans, the UK sports minister has told Parliament.

Nigel Huddleston said the government understood the recent restrictions put in place would "cause financial difficulties" to sports, but that the focus would be directed to "those most in need".

Football governing bodies have warned of "profound" and "severe" consequences from the loss of matchday revenue.

General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 23, 2020, 08:13:07 PM »
This guy obviously hasn't done his homework!

General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 23, 2020, 01:39:13 PM »
I wonder if Danny Hunter is available for transfer.   How refreshing was he to listen to ?

Not just the latest interview.

Check the one from 4th May. He appears to be a man with foresight.

General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 23, 2020, 12:07:43 PM »
"If" there are to be Govt handouts it shouldn't be a one size fits all.

Each Club should have to put in their own application, and each application should be assessed on its own merits. Why give taxpayers money to Clubs that are on the brink of collapse anyway, Pandemic or not. Full and up to date accounts should be assessed prior to receipt of any grant money.

No direct payments to the Clubs (for reasons previously quoted by NonLeague), but paid directly to the relevant parties e.g. rates, utilities etc. This would also stop people that have loaned money on a personal basis to clubs, reducing their debt exposure with any grant money.

Players on contract is a tricky one, but all parties need to play ball here. There are part time players where football is the players second job. Why should they receive money from the Govt for their second jobs, when so many people are losing their main incomes? Contracts are a two way street. Clubs wouldn't complain if they had a player on contracts that they could then sell on for a tidy profit. If Clubs had decided to put so many players on contracts this season, especially with what we had learned from experience at the end of last season, were they not asking for trouble? There was always a good chance of further restrictions and for obvious reasons such things as Sports were always going to be affected. Did the people involved think this Pandemic would just go away, or have they always been confident someone else would pick up their bill.

I would like to see some money put into Non League football, but not if it means that it will carry on as it has been doing. I also hope that any money made available comes from football itself. I don't believe it should be taxpayers money. I believe there are far more important and deserving causes.

Danny Hunter, Chairman of Boreham Wood:

Hunter also took a swipe at Dagenham managing director Steve Thompson, who on Tuesday called for a £15-20million Government bail-out to help clubs survive.

“I can’t keep listening to people saying the Government have to bail us out,” he added.

“There is one London chairman who says the Government have to give us £15-20million to bail us out. You can’t do that and then pay a striker £2,500 a week and then think the Government is going to bail you out.

“That is just crazy. We all have to cut our cloth accordingly. You can’t spend huge on budgets and then complain you’ve got no money, you all know what you’re doing.”

I like this guy!

General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 23, 2020, 09:18:48 AM »
If a good few clubs go to the wall then maybe owners, Director's will actually push this magical reset button rather than just talking about it.  Football has been out of control for a number of years.   Should tax payers really be asked to fork out for other people’s mismanagement ?   Football clubs should be accountable the same as any other business.

In my opinion its a no to tax payers money being spent on this (although I do think its a big possibility). Why should the taxpayer have this burden when we have seen how unwilling the majority
of supporters appear to be when it comes to fund raising for their own Clubs. There's far more important things for the tax payers money to be spent on, especially when you see and hear stories of Clubs allowing their players and supporters to break social distancing rules. Some Clubs and Supporters really don't help themselves. A major reason for these tougher restrictions is down to people not adhering to the social distancing rules previously put in place.

Premier League could do more, as medium to long term its in their interest to do so. 20m is only a short term answer. Lets not forget that many Clubs have overspent and have serious debts or loans even prior to the Pandemic. If Clubs are living "hand to mouth" anyway, the problem is not going to go away just because they receive funds from Govt or Premier League which enables them to carry on the way they have been.

Is "hand to mouth" really a good way to run a business"? Doesn't that point out that something is seriously wrong, Pandemic or not?

I can see a good few pre-pack deals being done.

You may be right on that one. If Clubs are being sensible they should at least have it available as an option.

General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 22, 2020, 09:23:57 PM »
Sounds like all you good people who have been "enjoying the ride", whilst encouraging SC to spend spend spend.  Now need to dig deep and bail the owner out.  :countingmoney:

That will be for others to  arrange. :rain:

General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 22, 2020, 06:49:23 PM »

This scenario was always on the cards and it can’t Have  come as a shock to most.     Clubs have had since March to prepare for this worst case scenario.  All this talk of reset buttons being pushed seems to have all been forgotten.   

The warnings signs were all there, and seemingly ignored at their peril

Very much so on all counts.  :banghead;

General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 22, 2020, 06:01:26 PM »

Whatever happened to 'Project reset'?


General Discussion / Re: The Future of the Club
« on: September 22, 2020, 05:59:56 PM »
On the face of it sounds great that SC thinks he could cover the overheads so long as the streaming income covered the wages, until you read on that the "weekly budget that is now into five figures" £10K a WEEK and we still class ourselves as part-time!  On these figures I think SC would have been struggling massively to cover wages with matchday income had we not had any restrictions so to now expect streaming to plug that gap doesn't seem so reasonable.

10k divided by say 25 players and staff. I'd be surprised if its not a fair amount more than that!

Streaming income to cover wages, Chairman to cover away travel, and other such items. If that suggestion was switched around so the Chairman covered the wages and the streaming covered the other expenses, we could be in with a chance. Having said that, has anyone got any idea what sort of figures the streaming of games has attracted so far?

At £10 a game, we would need 2,000 people to stream each home game.

General Discussion / Re: Could be 1000 allowed in on opening day
« on: September 22, 2020, 02:32:28 PM »
if the under 21s can still have supporters surely it would pay to have them back at the walks.

I'd have thought so!   :dontknow:

General Discussion / Re: Could be 1000 allowed in on opening day
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:46:10 PM »
From what I can make of it listening to Boris just now, plans for supporters being allowed back in on 1st October have now been officially postponed.


"Sports are now being warned to brace themselves for several months without fans........................"

"Calls for Premier League to help prop up the football pyramid will also intensify"

General Discussion / Re: Could be 1000 allowed in on opening day
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:36:19 PM »
Given the 6 months mentioned in the scientists broadcast yesterday, there’s an argument for mothballing the whole non-league system for the season.

At least one Club has asked for that to be done.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47