Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2020 20:44:35 GMT
Duck me, this one escalated.
If I can't laugh at punctuation and grammar, then I owe Mr Kegan Degg a couple of years' apologies.
Vertigo, you really do have to calm down now, and stop taking Bambi so personally; this is getting ridiculous. He's starting to like you, and I swear, beneath his cantankerous, argumentative, petty, point-scoring, clichéd, predictable, moaning, repetitive, rude, grumpy, self-important, grudging, and megalomaniacal exterior there is a person inside I would even describe as tolerable.
If BRFC are paying all workers their full wage without government furlough, then I am delighted. If BRFC are furloughing workers while paying footballers too much, then I am ashamed. I don't know which is true.
Richard Branson is a philanthropist only to avoid taxation, regulation, scrutiny, and prosecution.
BRSC is the worst soap-opera-cum-farce I have ever witnessed.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Apr 11, 2020 21:11:35 GMT
I was with you all the way there in your third paragraph, Shoveler, until you got to 'tolerable'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2020 21:44:26 GMT
I have not stated that i believe wealthy people should pay more. What i said is that its unfair to target footballers. It should either be all very wealthy people pay more or nobody in my view. Lots of companies with multi millionaire owners are now using the government furlough scheme so whats so special about rovers? Firstly, your post contradicts itself, but I think I understand the point you are trying to make. Right here is where you said that wealthy people should pay more. This is also where you decided it was a good idea to have a go at Branson, despite him helping multiple charities every day, helping countless start up businesses to help youngsters fulfil their potential and pledging a fortune to good causes; So, for the 4th time, how are you going to square this with saying that our multi-millionaire owner should use public funds to pay his staff? Nothing is special about Rovers, or their owner. It's you singling out wealthy people and sticking the boot in to them, nobody else, so it's you who has to explain the obvious and irreconcilable contradiction in what you are saying. So, let's just follow through your statement above, a scheme is set up, I wealthy person (wealthy as yet not defined) doesn't agree with all of the others. What are you going to do now? Scrap an entire scheme, or on the other hand, force it on the majority? You haven't thought this through, have you. I said "its a theory that individuals earning a certain amount of money etc" its not my theory. Its related to another poster targeting football players and myself arguing that "if" we go after footballers for some reason it would only be right to go after all extremely wealthy people. I have no opinion on the government going after wealthy people. Virtually every middling and large companies have very wealthy people at the top including say topshop or bristol rovers. I do believe the amount of money at the top of business including football is a disgrace but that is outside of the scope of this discussion. Epping or maybe someone else singled out footballers as did matt hancock which to me is ridiculous. My argument is if mr hancock believes footballers should pay more then so should all currently redundant highly paid or wealthy individuals. Your misunderstanding my stand point on this subject.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2020 23:02:32 GMT
Firstly, your post contradicts itself, but I think I understand the point you are trying to make. Right here is where you said that wealthy people should pay more. This is also where you decided it was a good idea to have a go at Branson, despite him helping multiple charities every day, helping countless start up businesses to help youngsters fulfil their potential and pledging a fortune to good causes; So, for the 4th time, how are you going to square this with saying that our multi-millionaire owner should use public funds to pay his staff? Nothing is special about Rovers, or their owner. It's you singling out wealthy people and sticking the boot in to them, nobody else, so it's you who has to explain the obvious and irreconcilable contradiction in what you are saying. So, let's just follow through your statement above, a scheme is set up, I wealthy person (wealthy as yet not defined) doesn't agree with all of the others. What are you going to do now? Scrap an entire scheme, or on the other hand, force it on the majority? You haven't thought this through, have you. I said "its a theory that individuals earning a certain amount of money etc" its not my theory. Its related to another poster targeting football players and myself arguing that "if" we go after footballers for some reason it would only be right to go after all extremely wealthy people. I have no opinion on the government going after wealthy people. Virtually every middling and large companies have very wealthy people at the top including say topshop or bristol rovers. I do believe the amount of money at the top of business including football is a disgrace but that is outside of the scope of this discussion. Epping or maybe someone else singled out footballers as did matt hancock which to me is ridiculous. My argument is if mr hancock believes footballers should pay more then so should all currently redundant highly paid or wealthy individuals. Your misunderstanding my stand point on this subject. Your first line only supports what you are trying to claim now because you've cut half of the words out of the sentence. You clearly do have an opinion about wealthy people paying more, you keep mentioning it, here are just 4 from you, there are more though; And no, it's not me who criticises the fact that you use virtually no punctuation, if I ever have it was a long time ago, you'll have to scroll back through and see who it was that mentioned that to you recently. It makes your posts very difficult to understand at times, so if you know how to use capitals, commas and apostrophies, it would help. Nobody is perfect, but some punctuation would be nice.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2020 23:41:06 GMT
I said "its a theory that individuals earning a certain amount of money etc" its not my theory. Its related to another poster targeting football players and myself arguing that "if" we go after footballers for some reason it would only be right to go after all extremely wealthy people. I have no opinion on the government going after wealthy people. Virtually every middling and large companies have very wealthy people at the top including say topshop or bristol rovers. I do believe the amount of money at the top of business including football is a disgrace but that is outside of the scope of this discussion. Epping or maybe someone else singled out footballers as did matt hancock which to me is ridiculous. My argument is if mr hancock believes footballers should pay more then so should all currently redundant highly paid or wealthy individuals. Your misunderstanding my stand point on this subject. Your first line only supports what you are trying to claim now because you've cut half of the words out of the sentence. You clearly do have an opinion about wealthy people paying more, you keep mentioning it, here are just 4 from you, there are more though; And no, it's not me who criticises the fact that you use virtually no punctuation, if I ever have it was a long time ago, you'll have to scroll back through and see who it was that mentioned that to you recently. It makes your posts very difficult to understand at times, so if you know how to use capitals, commas and apostrophies, it would help. Nobody is perfect, but some punctuation would be nice. I argue issues on here just as i would in real life. You do not do not because you would get badly hurt if you argued in person in the manner you do on here.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Apr 12, 2020 6:05:03 GMT
Bambi, you can pick apart Vertigos posts all you like, but his main points are blindingly obvious and you know it.
1. It is unfair just to pick on rich footballers when there are other people just as wealthy about.
2. The government has put in place a scheme to help companies through the current crisis and why shouldn't Rovers, being a company who are undoubtedly in a bit of a pickle, take advantage of that scheme.
Both those broadish points are something that anyone- even you- should be able to , broadly, agree or disagree with.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Furlough
Apr 12, 2020 8:14:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by vaughan on Apr 12, 2020 8:14:25 GMT
Gaschat
Thread = Bristol Rovers Supporters Club
Page 5
Gasincider who is Tote End Brian
He says that the Presidents Club wrote the letter to the EFL on 17th March and this letter was countersigned by SC.
So Knowall, who is former Chairman of Presidents Club and knows current Chairman (John Harding) well, is what Gasincider says correct?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Then the wider group of BRFC Supporters will know what actions have been taken by these organisations?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Furlough
Apr 12, 2020 8:49:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 8:49:20 GMT
Bambi, you can pick apart Vertigos posts all you like, but his main points are blindingly obvious and you know it. 1. It is unfair just to pick on rich footballers when there are other people just as wealthy about. 2. The government has put in place a scheme to help companies through the current crisis and why shouldn't Rovers, being a company who are undoubtedly in a bit of a pickle, take advantage of that scheme. Both those broadish points are something that anyone- even you- should be able to , broadly, agree or disagree with. When this is over I think the debate about resource allocation and income distribution will be in sharp relief.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on Apr 12, 2020 8:53:00 GMT
Hi Swiss - Are you saying with the equity from the Memorial Stadium now gone, Bristol Rovers can still access unsecured lending from Dwane Sports via the revolving credit facility? So effectively the internal debt just keeps going up - just that it's riskier debt to Dwane Sports as the debt is not secured solely against collateral (the Memorial Stadium). If Dwane Sports were writing out cheques to cover losses (and not IOU's +interest) - then surely we would have heard about it as this is actual proof that they are writing off some of the debt. Yes? Yes, my take on this is that Wael is arranging for cash to flow into Dwane Sports Jersey account and then onwards to Rovers credit line which now exceeds the value of the Mem by a substantial amount. In effect Wael is sacrificing some of his and perhaps another member of his family’s personal wealth to keep Rovers going because there is little chance the full amount of the loan and accrued interest will ever be repaid. But before we say “three cheers for Wael” we must ask ourselves whether any good is likely to come out of a situation where someone is prejudicing the wellbeing of their immediate family because of an infatuation with a football club. And whether we think Wael has the ability to either reduce losses to a level he can personally sustain or to find someone else who will join with him to provide funds to keep the club in existence ? Thanks Swiss. I'm genuinely surprised that "the family" are allowing an extension to the credit facility. Making unsecured loans to 3rd tier football Clubs making annual losses of £3-4mil goes against any business logic. Even slashing costs/the wage bill - they're still looking at losses £1m+ a year. Given the performance of Dwane Sports over the last 4 years - I just don't see how they can ever turn this into a profitable business. It's a money pit and they don't have unlimited funds. Bonkers.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,123
|
Post by eppinggas on Apr 12, 2020 9:55:43 GMT
Bambi, you can pick apart Vertigos posts all you like, but his main points are blindingly obvious and you know it. 1. It is unfair just to pick on rich footballers when there are other people just as wealthy about. 2. The government has put in place a scheme to help companies through the current crisis and why shouldn't Rovers, being a company who are undoubtedly in a bit of a pickle, take advantage of that scheme. Both those broadish points are something that anyone- even you- should be able to , broadly, agree or disagree with. When this is over I think the debate about resource allocation and income distribution will be in sharp relief. I don't disagree with you Oldie (as I've mentioned before). As for 'picking' on footballers / football Clubs. Two separate issues really. I'll have a go at the former. Premiership Footballers vs Investment Bankers (this should stir things up a bit). Footballers It is impossible to quantify their "worth". Goals, assists, critical tackles... yes, they help with success on the pitch and that kind of feeds into the overall profitability of the Club. Not very directly - but you get the gist. I guess the problem I have is with the general level of basic pay. At the top level this is, I think we can all agree, obscene. There are numerous players who have not proved their worth. I give you Sanchez at manu. £500k a week. Doesn't try, sulks. On £500k a week. Now he gets that guaranteed. Mr Sanchez may not be earning many bonus payments, but he can probably limp along at £500k a week. My heart does not bleed for him should the windfall tax man come a-knocking. Mr Rooney suggests that Premiership players could face financial ruin if they lose 5% of their earnings. WTF. Only a moron of similar intelligence would concur. Premiership Footballers average wage: £3mil a year, £57k a week (assuming no bonus payments). Hours "worked" a week? A generous 6 hours a day X 5 days = 30 hours. If anyone has any data on this - please let me know, I can't find any. Investment Bankers (everyone's favourite whipping boys). I'll use bond traders as an example. Even within that small field there are numerous asset classes, levels of ability, seniority, different wage structures per institution etc etc. Average wage: £100k a year, £2k a week. Bonus has to be earned and is explicit. You make £1mil a year for your Bank, you get 10% as bonus. You don't hit your P&L targets, you lose your job. So average wage +bonus: (say) £200k a year, £4k a week. Hours worked: I would say a minimum of 55 hours a week, plus contactable at all times to deal with any out of hours issues. OK - both are generalisations. But if I was an angry socialist demanding a more equitable redistribution of income, I think I'd be going for Premiership footballers first wouldn't I? Discuss.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 9:58:01 GMT
Your first line only supports what you are trying to claim now because you've cut half of the words out of the sentence. You clearly do have an opinion about wealthy people paying more, you keep mentioning it, here are just 4 from you, there are more though; And no, it's not me who criticises the fact that you use virtually no punctuation, if I ever have it was a long time ago, you'll have to scroll back through and see who it was that mentioned that to you recently. It makes your posts very difficult to understand at times, so if you know how to use capitals, commas and apostrophies, it would help. Nobody is perfect, but some punctuation would be nice. I argue issues on here just as i would in real life. You do not do not because you would get badly hurt if you argued in person in the manner you do on here. What a truly bizarre thing to say, my only response is that you should try to find different people to socialise with, ones who don't resort to violence every time anything they say is challenged. I was genuinely interested in how the 2 apparently opposing points were going to be reconciled.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 10:06:05 GMT
Bambi, you can pick apart Vertigos posts all you like, but his main points are blindingly obvious and you know it. 1. It is unfair just to pick on rich footballers when there are other people just as wealthy about. 2. The government has put in place a scheme to help companies through the current crisis and why shouldn't Rovers, being a company who are undoubtedly in a bit of a pickle, take advantage of that scheme. Both those broadish points are something that anyone- even you- should be able to , broadly, agree or disagree with. The difference is that I'm not sticking the boot in to wealthy people. The reality is that they won't and never will pay more, there's going to be a day of reckoning on the other side of this, and anybody who thinks that people like Linekar, Lewis Hamilton, or indeed Branson will be the ones to carry the burden just hasn't been paying attention to history.
|
|
|
Furlough
Apr 12, 2020 10:17:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by a more piratey game on Apr 12, 2020 10:17:02 GMT
Gaschat Thread = Bristol Rovers Supporters Club Page 5 Gasincider who is Tote End Brian He says that the Presidents Club wrote the letter to the EFL on 17th March and this letter was countersigned by SC. So Knowall, who is former Chairman of Presidents Club and knows current Chairman (John Harding) well, is what Gasincider says correct? A simple yes or no will suffice. Then the wider group of BRFC Supporters will know what actions have been taken by these organisations? I've just read that thread. ITB does seem to have them rattled. You can almost feel the self-importance being chipped away. They don't like it up them!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Furlough
Apr 12, 2020 11:06:57 GMT
via mobile
Rex likes this
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 11:06:57 GMT
When this is over I think the debate about resource allocation and income distribution will be in sharp relief. I don't disagree with you Oldie (as I've mentioned before). As for 'picking' on footballers / football Clubs. Two separate issues really. I'll have a go at the former. Premiership Footballers vs Investment Bankers (this should stir things up a bit). Footballers It is impossible to quantify their "worth". Goals, assists, critical tackles... yes, they help with success on the pitch and that kind of feeds into the overall profitability of the Club. Not very directly - but you get the gist. I guess the problem I have is with the general level of basic pay. At the top level this is, I think we can all agree, obscene. There are numerous players who have not proved their worth. I give you Sanchez at manu. £500k a week. Doesn't try, sulks. On £500k a week. Now he gets that guaranteed. Mr Sanchez may not be earning many bonus payments, but he can probably limp along at £500k a week. My heart does not bleed for him should the windfall tax man come a-knocking. Mr Rooney suggests that Premiership players could face financial ruin if they lose 5% of their earnings. WTF. Only a moron of similar intelligence would concur. Premiership Footballers average wage: £3mil a year, £57k a week (assuming no bonus payments). Hours "worked" a week? A generous 6 hours a day X 5 days = 30 hours. If anyone has any data on this - please let me know, I can't find any. Investment Bankers (everyone's favourite whipping boys). I'll use bond traders as an example. Even within that small field there are numerous asset classes, levels of ability, seniority, different wage structures per institution etc etc. Average wage: £100k a year, £2k a week. Bonus has to be earned and is explicit. You make £1mil a year for your Bank, you get 10% as bonus. You don't hit your P&L targets, you lose your job. So average wage +bonus: (say) £200k a year, £4k a week. Hours worked: I would say a minimum of 55 hours a week, plus contactable at all times to deal with any out of hours issues. OK - both are generalisations. But if I was an angry socialist demanding a more equitable redistribution of income, I think I'd be going for Premiership footballers first wouldn't I? Discuss. Frankly? I don't think it's productive to "pick out" specific income groups. I would suggest it would be more productive to decide on the public services we value, budget for a cost that ensures the quality of service we want and then tell people what that they have to pay through taxes. To enable this I would hypothecate the tax as a fixed % of income. The arguments over "how much" people earn is not appropriate in a political debate, but what is appropriate is minimum incomes as a % of GDP.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 11:10:23 GMT
Bambi, you can pick apart Vertigos posts all you like, but his main points are blindingly obvious and you know it. 1. It is unfair just to pick on rich footballers when there are other people just as wealthy about. 2. The government has put in place a scheme to help companies through the current crisis and why shouldn't Rovers, being a company who are undoubtedly in a bit of a pickle, take advantage of that scheme. Both those broadish points are something that anyone- even you- should be able to , broadly, agree or disagree with. The difference is that I'm not sticking the boot in to wealthy people. The reality is that they won't and never will pay more, there's going to be a day of reckoning on the other side of this, and anybody who thinks that people like Linekar, Lewis Hamilton, or indeed Branson will be the ones to carry the burden just hasn't been paying attention to history. Only because of a lack of political will and the ignorant acquiescence of the general population.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Furlough
Apr 12, 2020 11:20:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 11:20:23 GMT
Interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 11:56:10 GMT
The difference is that I'm not sticking the boot in to wealthy people. The reality is that they won't and never will pay more, there's going to be a day of reckoning on the other side of this, and anybody who thinks that people like Linekar, Lewis Hamilton, or indeed Branson will be the ones to carry the burden just hasn't been paying attention to history. Only because of a lack of political will and the ignorant acquiescence of the general population. Not really, it's the same forces that mean that large companies don't actually pay tax. In UK terms, if corporation tax is increased you know as well as I do that's recovered elsewhere, either in real terms wage reduction, 'efficiency' savings, price increases etc. This is how the free market operates. But the good news is there's an alternative, you can always move away from a society that places you in wealth terms probably the top 1 tenth of a % of the top 1 per-cent of all of the people who have ever lived on earth, and set up home in Laos or Cuba, you'll get some proper 'wealth redistribution' there. Let us know how that plays out for you.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Apr 12, 2020 12:06:50 GMT
Sorry Swiss, but your Doomsday scenario thinking is wearing a bit thin now. Wael has written to supporters to say that he will continue to fund the football club and he will make the model more sustainable. He does not have the funds for capital investment , but he is writing the cheques to cover the losses. There is absolutely nothing that he has said or written to indicate that he is less than committed. This is where your argument falls down. Maybe he sees Furlough as a test of his football reputation.
The fundamental change may have been that this is now his project, with sad loss of his father and disengagement of his brother. This may force him to seek external investment, but this always comes with a price in terms of control. You know this for a fact? Others say different I have posted it at least 3 times but, for those who didn’t know it was reported on points west, that we have put “some” of our staff on furlough, Yeovil have put all on it, the 82 refused to talk about it and that little old Cheltenham were not using it at all.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Furlough
Apr 12, 2020 14:24:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2020 14:24:37 GMT
Only because of a lack of political will and the ignorant acquiescence of the general population. Not really, it's the same forces that mean that large companies don't actually pay tax. In UK terms, if corporation tax is increased you know as well as I do that's recovered elsewhere, either in real terms wage reduction, 'efficiency' savings, price increases etc. This is how the free market operates. But the good news is there's an alternative, you can always move away from a society that places you in wealth terms probably the top 1 tenth of a % of the top 1 per-cent of all of the people who have ever lived on earth, and set up home in Laos or Cuba, you'll get some proper 'wealth redistribution' there. Let us know how that plays out for you. That's a bit childish, and does nothing to address the very real issues of a badly skewed income distribution curve and the chronic underfunding of our public services.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Apr 12, 2020 14:27:16 GMT
Not really, it's the same forces that mean that large companies don't actually pay tax. In UK terms, if corporation tax is increased you know as well as I do that's recovered elsewhere, either in real terms wage reduction, 'efficiency' savings, price increases etc. This is how the free market operates. But the good news is there's an alternative, you can always move away from a society that places you in wealth terms probably the top 1 tenth of a % of the top 1 per-cent of all of the people who have ever lived on earth, and set up home in Laos or Cuba, you'll get some proper 'wealth redistribution' there. Let us know how that plays out for you. That's a bit childish, and does nothing to address the very real issues of a badly skewed income distribution curve and the chronic underfunding of our public services.Luckily that's all been sorted now by the nation clapping once a week.
|
|