• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

March to June 2020 - NEWCASTLE UTD fc

Status
Not open for further replies.

citybythesea said:
Are the players wages exempt from the furlough scheme surely? I could see that being very controversial If government cash was used to pay millionaires
Click to expand...
None of the players are on the furlough scheme so its a none issue.

To me the idea behind the outrage at premier league clubs putting staff on furlough is they are rich and don't need to so its not fair.
For me you could say that about any number of companies. Barclays bank for instance are richer than any premier league club but can put staff on furlough without any kick back what so ever.

I personally don't get this thing that premier league clubs and players are held to a higher standard than the rest of us mortals.

If i owned a premier league club and the press and public was giving me flack for using the furlough scheme I would say no problem I have taken all of the staff that are not players and coaches of furlough and made them redundant instead, i hope this meets your approval.
Then just hire new people when things start going back to normal.
 
AndyH said:
None of the players are on the furlough scheme so its a none issue.

To me the idea behind the outrage at premier league clubs putting staff on furlough is they are rich and don't need to so its not fair.
For me you could say that about any number of companies. Barclays bank for instance are richer than any premier league club but can put staff on furlough without any kick back what so ever.

I personally don't get this thing that premier league clubs and players are held to a higher standard than the rest of us mortals.

If i owned a premier league club and the press and public was giving me flack for using the furlough scheme I would say no problem I have taken all of the staff that are not players and coaches of furlough and made them redundant instead, i hope this meets your approval.
Then just hire new people when things start going back to normal.
Click to expand...

as long as the players are paid furlough money......I think Norwich along with Newcastle have kept the majority of non-playing staff on furlough.
I probably wouldn’t look at it from the point of view of being rich, I think the point is if a business can afford it, they shouldn’t claim the money. I think that’s what the outrage that surrounded Liverpool and the eventual reversal on the situation. It’s like saying we can afford signings worth £10s if millions, but when it comes to us supporting our staff at a fraction of that money, we can’t afford it and the government/ taxpayers should pay. I think that is the outrage. I take your point on Barclays, if they’re got the money, they shouldn’t claim either
citybythesea said:
as long as the players aren’t paid furlough money......I think Norwich along with Newcastle have kept the majority of non-playing staff on furlough.
I probably wouldn’t look at it from the point of view of being rich, I think the point is if a business can afford it, they shouldn’t claim the money. I think that’s what the outrage that surrounded Liverpool and the eventual reversal on the situation. It’s like saying we can afford signings worth £10s if millions, but when it comes to us supporting our staff at a fraction of that money, we can’t afford it and the government/ taxpayers should pay. I think that is the outrage. I take your point on Barclays, if they’re got the money, they shouldn’t claim either
Click to expand...
citybythesea said:
as long as the players aren’t paid furlough money......I think Norwich along with Newcastle have kept the majority of non-playing staff on furlough.
I probably wouldn’t look at it from the point of view of being rich, I think the point is if a business can afford it, they shouldn’t claim the money. I think that’s what the outrage that surrounded Liverpool and the eventual reversal on the situation. It’s like saying we can afford signings worth £10s if millions, but when it comes to us supporting our staff at a fraction of that money, we can’t afford it and the government/ taxpayers should pay. I think that is the outrage. I take your point on Barclays, if they’re got the money, they shouldn’t claim either
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MADBOB THE MAKEM said:
I don't acually think it's classed as long benton its the old training ground next to blue flame the gas works
Click to expand...
Not exactly a prime site for a hotel and certainly not worth £300 million. I'd love their take over (if it happens) to be worse for them than current owner but it won't be due to any assets of the club imo. Given that the club don't really have any and due to the situation with the ground if anything its a milstone around their knecks. Which makes buying them a questionable decision at best.
 
AndyH said:
None of the players are on the furlough scheme so its a none issue.

To me the idea behind the outrage at premier league clubs putting staff on furlough is they are rich and don't need to so its not fair.
For me you could say that about any number of companies. Barclays bank for instance are richer than any premier league club but can put staff on furlough without any kick back what so ever.

I personally don't get this thing that premier league clubs and players are held to a higher standard than the rest of us mortals.

If i owned a premier league club and the press and public was giving me flack for using the furlough scheme I would say no problem I have taken all of the staff that are not players and coaches of furlough and made them redundant instead, i hope this meets your approval.
Then just hire new people when things start going back to normal.
Click to expand...

I think the only staff Barclays have placed on ‘furlough’ were those who had already been told they were going to be made redundant. Also, and here’s the important bit, the bank is paying 80% of the salary up to £2.5k. So, essentially, Barclays has adopted a scheme like furlough but with no government involvement.

And no, I don’t think it is correct NUFC furloughing staff. We, the tax payer, are funding staff in an organisation which has an obligation and the means to pay all of its staff.
 
citybythesea said:
as long as the players are paid furlough money......I think Norwich along with Newcastle have kept the majority of non-playing staff on furlough.
I probably wouldn’t look at it from the point of view of being rich, I think the point is if a business can afford it, they shouldn’t claim the money. I think that’s what the outrage that surrounded Liverpool and the eventual reversal on the situation. It’s like saying we can afford signings worth £10s if millions, but when it comes to us supporting our staff at a fraction of that money, we can’t afford it and the government/ taxpayers should pay. I think that is the outrage. I take your point on Barclays, if they’re got the money, they shouldn’t claim either
Click to expand...
There are lots of companies that could afford to pay their staff while on furlough instead of claiming what they are allowed, it's only football clubs that seem to take grief for it.

This is not a defence of Newcastle by the way, I'm more than happy for Ashley to get pelters for using the furlough scheme just on the grounds I despise the fucker.

I think if someone wants to argue the case that, if a company can afford to pay the staff wages while they are on furlough instead of being a burden on the tax payer then they should, then i think that's a valid argument.
If someones argument is it's fine for any company to make use of the furlough scheme apart from premier league football clubs then i don't think that's fair as you're holding them to a higher standard than any other business.

I think in general premier clubs and their players seem to be held to a higher standard by the public than the rest of us, i don't see the reason for it.
 
AndyH said:
There are lots of companies that could afford to pay their staff while on furlough instead of claiming what they are allowed, it's only football clubs that seem to take grief for it.

This is not a defence of Newcastle by the way, I'm more than happy for Ashley to get pelters for using the furlough scheme just on the grounds I despise the fucker.

I think if someone wants to argue the case that, if a company can afford to pay the staff wages while they are on furlough instead of being a burden on the tax payer then they should, then i think that's a valid argument.
If someones argument is it's fine for any company to make use of the furlough scheme apart from premier league football clubs then i don't think that's fair as you're holding them to a higher standard than any other business.

I think in general premier clubs and their players seem to be held to a higher standard by the public than the rest of us, i don't see the reason for it.
Click to expand...

not specifically aimed at Newcastle for using the furlough scheme but I think any business using it when they could afford not to, is just wrong. Just my opinion. The analogy would be someone claiming tax-credits or JSA when they’ve got a million quid in the bank but they do because they are entitled to it. Could or should claim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top