Football & Coronavirus [READ MOD NOTE IN FIRST POST - updated 06-05-20]

yabadabado

Good to see Liverpool did the right thing and backtracked.

One question on it,wasn't it done originally to "Safe guard" the club ,was that total bull**** or what has changed ?

Mitch Connor

gstack166 wrote: »

Also have done 10x more to help Covid-19 than the billionaire owners of Liverpool. What’s your point.

People responsible for horrible human rights abuses shouldn't be cast as heroes.

Chuck Noland

sideswipe wrote: »

If you think this isn’t a numbers game you are very naive. Clubs are scrambling to protect themselves and rightly so, this will have a massive affect on him they do business.

I Never said it wasn’t a numbers game BUT you said EVERY club is looking at it. I’d like to know how you know this? Or are you speculating/making it up?

Chuck Noland

yabadabado wrote: »

Good to see Liverpool did the right thing and backtracked.

One question on it,wasn't it done originally to "Safe guard" the club ,was that total bull**** or what has changed ?

I asked this too but was ignored as it clearly is the case

sideswipe

Mitch Connor wrote: »

People responsible for horrible human rights abuses shouldn't be cast as heroes.

Was going to say something about not throwing stones but thought it might be going too far.

gstack166

Mitch Connor wrote: »

People responsible for horrible human rights abuses shouldn't be cast as heroes.

Have I seen anyone try claim they are? I compared what clubs have done. Is there only 4/5 men from the Middle East running that club making these decisions, don’t think so.

The_Kew_Tour

yabadabado wrote: »

Good to see Liverpool did the right thing and backtracked.

One question on it,wasn't it done originally to "Safe guard" the club ,was that total bull**** or what has changed ?

Sadly we are know answer to that. Get those #YNWA ready

Mitch Connor

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Yes they did but they did not say how they were going to pay them, they have only today, after seeing the backlash against Liverpool I should imagine, announced that they are not going to use the furlough scheme in place. Gary Neville on current debate on Skys Sports youtube (still on and worth watching BTW) said that every club has looked at the furlough scheme, the fact that Man U only came out now and said they will not use it speaks volumes too TBH. Would have been big news except it was gazumped by Liverpool saying they would roll back on the previous assertion that they would.

No, it speaks nothing.

All reports indicate United showed no intention of following Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool's money grabbing lead on this. And you telling yourself differently is meaningless.

Oh, well if Gary Neville said it - it must mean United were just minutes away from doing it!

I couldn't care less if United or anyone else looked at it.

"Should we scronge a small percentage of our wage bill from the goverment?". "No, don't need to".

Cool, done.

gstack166

sideswipe wrote: »

Was going to say something about not throwing stones but thought it might be going too far.

Why didn’t you? Liverpool fans are well used to throwing things.

citytillidie

6 wrote: »

You forgot

City :continued to deny financial doping. :cool:

As forgetting Liverpool donate to a food bank every home game but hey that does not count

Mitch Connor

sideswipe wrote: »

Was going to say something about not throwing stones but thought it might be going too far.

Yeah, I was formulating similar and went the other way!

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

Why didn’t you? Liverpool fans are well used to throwing things.

So are Man City fans

MD1990

Liverpoold fans & ex players all played a role in reversing this decision.

It was not a reflection on the club but the owners FSG.

In fairness they do listen to the fans but they need to think before making some a penny pinching decision.

~Rebel~

Mitch Connor wrote: »

United announced ages ago all matcvh day staff were going to be paid regarldess of postponements and cancelations.

Liverpool weren't a canary in the coal mine.

And yeah, to a large extent the damage has been done. We've seen Liverpool immediately go to the tax payer when not needed.

A small, but important caveat, that this fund/scheme/program isn't using tax payer money. It's 200bn lovely new pounds, newly printed solely and purely for just this. Which obviously is a very different thing to tax payer money, in that this money isn't coming out of anyone else's pockets or budgets, and indeed wouldn't even exist without this exact scenario.

Skylinehead

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Yep, reviewed, rectified and moved on.

Just because they've rowed back on a completely stupid immoral decision doesn't mean we should forget. Actually it just reinforces that they obviously didn't need to in the first place, despite some posters' claims to the contrary.

Fair play for reversing it at least. Now for Spurs etc.

Your Airbag

Yes Liverpool have done the right thing now, without question but they have only done so after a huge public backlash from those inside and outside their own fan base, so its not exactly everything is rosy. Apologizing after trying to do wrong after the fact doesn't changed the fact they would have gone down this road if it hadn't been for the backlash, that leaves a sour taste and some won't forget it, plus there are many tribalists who just love to condemn them for it.

You can expect to see Liverpool Furlough Club banded about for a long time and LFC have mainly brought this upon themselves, the timeline of behavior is there for all to see regarding this self inflicted wound.

Your Airbag

Your Airbag wrote: »

Yes Liverpool have done the right thing now, without question but they have only done so after a huge public backlash from those inside and outside their own fan base, so its not exactly everything is rosy. Apologizing after trying to do wrong after the fact doesn't changed the fact they would have gone down this road if it hadn't been for the backlash, that leaves a sour taste and some won't forget it, plus there are many tribalists who just love to condemn them for it.

You can expect to see Liverpool Furlough Club banded about for a long time and LFC have mainly brought this upon themselves, the timeline of behavior is there for all to see regarding this self inflicted wound.

You'll never furlough alone

sideswipe

gstack166 wrote: »

Why didn’t you? Liverpool fans are well used to throwing things.

Look you might be right some Liverpool fans are scumbags, but guess what? every club has that- not every club has owners like city though....and I don’t mean that in a good way. But that’s not your fault, I’m sure you supported them before the take over and didn’t stop because of it same as I wouldn’t if the shoe was on the other foot. The truth is as fans we don’t have any control on what is essentially a business first and foremost for the owners. So what’s the point of you trying to point score by trying to paint the city owners as holier than thou because they really aren’t.

DeanAustin

Skylinehead wrote: »

Just because they've rowed back on a completely stupid immoral decision doesn't mean we should forget. Actually it just reinforces that they obviously didn't need to in the first place, despite some posters' claims to the contrary.

Fair play for reversing it at least. Now for Spurs etc.

No one I saw said they needed to unless you have seen something I haven't.

Some posters, me included, argued that they could see why they did it and that it wasn't a simple case of Liverpool or any other club having an endless pit of cash to keep going indefinitely. Some people still seem to think clubs have a magic money tree.

UrbanFret

citytillidie wrote: »

As forgetting Liverpool donate to a food bank every home game but hey that does not count

Taking food out of bins doesn't count.;)

jayo26

MD1990 wrote: »

Liverpoold fans & ex players all played a role in reversing this decision.

It was not a reflection on the club but the owners FSG.

In fairness they do listen to the fans but they need to think before making some a penny pinching decision.

It's a good job they don't read Liverpool Fans on boards then or they would be saying oh well McDonald's did it so why can't we.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

A small, but important caveat, that this fund/scheme/program isn't using tax payer money. It's 200bn lovely new pounds, newly printed solely and purely for just this. Which obviously is a very different thing to tax payer money, in that this money isn't coming out of anyone else's pockets or budgets, and indeed wouldn't even exist without this exact scenario.

Didn’t know that. Who was the British taxpayer giving it socks yesterday on here? He/She will be happy

UrbanFret

UrbanFret wrote: »

Taking food out of bins doesn't count.;)

Classy

sideswipe

The concern for British tax payers money here is much bigger than I would ever have imagined!

Chuck Noland

Skylinehead wrote: »

Just because they've rowed back on a completely stupid immoral decision doesn't mean we should forget. Actually it just reinforces that they obviously didn't need to in the first place, despite some posters' claims to the contrary.

Fair play for reversing it at least. Now for Spurs etc.

Which is my point and a few others too, that no one wants too answer. They didn’t need to do it. They tried to pull a fast one and got caught out. Pants down job.

citytillidie

UrbanFret wrote: »

Taking food out of bins doesn't count.;)

Oh dear

sideswipe

sideswipe wrote: »

The concern for British tax payers money here is much bigger than I would ever have imagined!

The Motherland

DeanAustin

DeanAustin wrote: »

No one I saw said they needed to unless you have seen something I haven't.

Some posters, me included, argued that they could see why they did it and that it wasn't a simple case of Liverpool or any other club having an endless pit of cash to keep going indefinitely. Some people still seem to think clubs have a magic money tree.

The owners are rich, the club is rich
They chanced their arm at taking money off the government they didn't need and certainly not this early into the pandemic
They got bad PR and rightly so
They backpeddled
Stop defending it

Credit has been given for backtracking on it as myself and others have said already but they chanced their arm in the first place and that doesn't change

People will criticize it

Alonso77

Best club in the world again - truly stands apart from the rest of the rabble - Klopp has acted gloriously in this - should be given keys to the city.

@Fish

@Fish that's fairly unfair speculation around uniteds stance on this just to address an earlier comment on one of your posts

https://twitter.com/RobDawsonESPN/status/1247212073827868676?s=09

Woodward actually made a common sense call
And I can't stand the man but he gets credit here and so do the club

Jimbob1977

Football clubs are just a business.

They are often put on pedestals as altruistic organisations.

Manchester United started asking Munich Air Disaster victims to move out of their houses shortly after the crash. When the club knew the players' careers were over.

Cardiff City and Nantes sued and countersued each other over Sala's plane crash. Undignified, but it's cashflow for them. Life went on.

Barcelona are always spinning the 'Mes Que Un Club" line, despite being ruthless business people that would sell their grandmothers for a euro.

sideswipe

Chuck Noland wrote: »

I Never said it wasn’t a numbers game BUT you said EVERY club is looking at it. I’d like to know how you know this? Or are you speculating/making it up?

No you’re right, they are probably having meetings to decide how to hold the moral high ground And continue with the same overheads while having their revenue stream turned off overnight.

DeanAustin

Deleted User wrote: »

The owners are rich, the club is rich
They chanced their arm at taking money off the government they didn't need and certainly not this early into the pandemic
They got bad PR and rightly so
They backpeddled
Stop defending it

Credit has been given for backtracking on it as myself and others have said already but they chanced their arm in the first place and that doesn't change

People will criticize it

The club isn't rich. I'm not advocating for what they did but there was and is an argument for it. The fact Liverpool have backtracked for PR reasons doesn't change that.

Skylinehead

DeanAustin wrote: »

No one I saw said they needed to unless you have seen something I haven't.

Some posters, me included, argued that they could see why they did it and that it wasn't a simple case of Liverpool or any other club having an endless pit of cash to keep going indefinitely. Some people still seem to think clubs have a magic money tree.

Equally, I've no idea where you saw anyone saying there was an endless pit...

They can well afford it for plenty of time, clearly.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Deleted User wrote: »

@Fish that's fairly unfair speculation around uniteds stance on this just to address an earlier comment on one of your posts

https://twitter.com/RobDawsonESPN/status/1247212073827868676?s=09

Woodward actually made a common sense call
And I can't stand the man but he gets credit here and so do the club

@Thanks It was literally announced on Sky sports 2 minutes before the rollback of position by Liverpool. If you look at the time of that tweet even it is around the same time that Liverpool announced the change of tack.

DeanAustin

Skylinehead wrote: »

Equally, I've no idea where you saw anyone saying there was an endless pit...

They can well afford it for plenty of time, clearly.

You had posters on here saying "As if a Premier League club will run out of cash", "Sure they made 125m in profit last year" which showed a complete lack of understanding of basic facts and economics.

8-10

This week's results:

Liverpool L (twice)
City W despite Kyle Walker OG
United W
Spurs L
Arsenal 4th
Newcastle L
Juventus W

About right?

8-10

8-10 wrote: »

This week's results:

Liverpool L (twice)
City W despite Kyle Walker OG
United W
Spurs L
Arsenal 4th
Newcastle L
Juventus W

About right?

Liverpool one overturned on VAR

6

6 wrote: »

Boom!

Thank you, great news :cool:

6 wrote: »

A city fan giving the moral speech! Cmon now

6 wrote: »

You forgot

City :continued to deny financial doping. :cool:

6 wrote: »

You'll never furlough alone

6 wrote: »

Didn’t know that. Who was the British taxpayer giving it socks yesterday on here? He/She will be happy

6 wrote: »

Classy

6 wrote: »

The Motherland

Absolutely stellar contributions

8-10

6 wrote: »

Liverpool one overturned on VAR

They'll be discussing that one in the studio at length

Skylinehead

8-10 wrote: »

This week's results:

Liverpool L (twice)
City W despite Kyle Walker OG
United W
Spurs L
Arsenal 4th
Newcastle L
Juventus W

About right?

I f'ing wish we were 4th

MD1990

crazy how some Man Utd fans on here are so obsessed with everything Liverpool.
really sad.

Skylinehead

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely stellar contributions

What the **** is this contribution meant to be then? Knock it off.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely stellar contributions

From you, that's a compliment pal

Keep up the good work. Not a good week

We're all bored by the looks of it!

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

@Thanks It was literally announced on Sky sports 2 minutes before the rollback of position by Liverpool. If you look at the time of that tweet even it is around the same time that Liverpool announced the change of tack.

My point is just because Gary Neville said something about all clubs means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things (He is worried about Salford I suspect)

Utd were one of the good behaving clubs in all of this

Unless I'm misunderstanding this comment

"the fact that Man U only came out now and said they will not use it speaks volumes too TBH."

Chuck Noland

sideswipe wrote: »

No you’re right, they are probably having meetings to decide how to hold the moral high ground And continue with the same overheads while having their revenue stream turned off overnight.

So it’s now gone from you KNOW to probably having meetings, that’s a big shift of the goal posts on your earlier statement. Actually come to think of it, it’s a completely new statement to your original one which you tried to defend a second time in a follow up post. No one knows how close United, City etc came to making that call but what we do know is Liverpool DID it. No amount of back tracking is going to save face here. NONE.

8-10

Chuck Noland wrote: »

So it’s now gone from you KNOW to probably having meetings, that’s a big shift of the goal posts on your earlier statement. Actually come to think of it, it’s a completely new statement to your original one which you tried to defend a second time in a follow up post. No one knows how close United, City etc came to making that call but what we do know is Liverpool DID it. No amount of back tracking is going to save face here. NONE.

The important thing is that the owners learn from this. The PR can be taken on the chin but let's hope the club moves on and we can draw a line under this, everyone continues their employment and get paid, and the powers that be stop and assess the situation better next time.

That's all.

~Rebel~

6 wrote: »

Didn’t know that. Who was the British taxpayer giving it socks yesterday on here? He/She will be happy

Yeah, I only realised it today myself as Second Captains went into it in more detail.

Backed up by the Bank Of England's own website anyway;
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-summary-and-minutes/2020/monetary-policy-summary-for-the-special-monetary-policy-committee-meeting-on-19-march-2020

Here's the particularly relevent bit;
"At its special meeting on 19 March, the MPC judged that a further package of measures was warranted to meet its statutory objectives. It therefore voted unanimously to increase the Bank of England’s holdings of UK government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds by £200 billion to a total of £645 billion, financed by the issuance of central bank reserves"

The_Kew_Tour

MD1990 wrote: »

crazy how some Man Utd fans on here are so obsessed with everything Liverpool.
really sad.

We have a lit of catching up to do. Still not in the phase of printing out ABL shirts like ABU ones in 90s yet x

yabadabado

~Rebel~ wrote: »

A small, but important caveat, that this fund/scheme/program isn't using tax payer money. It's 200bn lovely new pounds, newly printed solely and purely for just this. Which obviously is a very different thing to tax payer money, in that this money isn't coming out of anyone else's pockets or budgets, and indeed wouldn't even exist without this exact scenario.

Can you elaborate on this or any link to articles?

The money has been printed without anything to back it ?This is newly created money ?