Coronavirus Scare

de Pfeffel was hesitant (as usual) in his answer would the EPL continue

I cant see how football can continue after Thursday. If it does it just fosters the thoughts of how can they go outside when I cant

harvetheslayer wrote:

de Pfeffel was hesitant (as usual) in his answer would the EPL continue

I cant see how football can continue after Thursday. If it does it just fosters the thoughts of how can they go outside when I cant

As usual Harve, right on the money....

"During this next phase it has been confirmed to the League by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) that elite sport will be able to continue and EFL competitions will therefore remain as currently scheduled (in both England and Wales)."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Rickler wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

de Pfeffel was hesitant (as usual) in his answer would the EPL continue

I cant see how football can continue after Thursday. If it does it just fosters the thoughts of how can they go outside when I cant

As usual Harve, right on the money....

"During this next phase it has been confirmed to the League by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) that elite sport will be able to continue and EFL competitions will therefore remain as currently scheduled (in both England and Wales)."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No problem Rickler but doesnt change my opinion as was reading Pasoti shortly after over the same point. How can football remain on the menu. Its sending out all the wrong messages here that some can and some cant.

We're going to get to December 2nd and De Pfeffel will doubtless appear again saying "we're doing well folks must I must enforce this for a longer period"

All or nothing it should be. Across the board

harvetheslayer wrote:

Rickler wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

de Pfeffel was hesitant (as usual) in his answer would the EPL continue

I cant see how football can continue after Thursday. If it does it just fosters the thoughts of how can they go outside when I cant

As usual Harve, right on the money....

"During this next phase it has been confirmed to the League by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) that elite sport will be able to continue and EFL competitions will therefore remain as currently scheduled (in both England and Wales)."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No problem Rickler but doesnt change my opinion as was reading Pasoti shortly after over the same point. How can football remain on the menu. Its sending out all the wrong messages here that some can and some cant.

We're going to get to December 2nd and De Pfeffel will doubtless appear again saying "we're doing well folks must I must enforce this for a longer period"

All or nothing it should be. Across the board

Yet all builders and plumbers and finincial advisors can go to work why shouldn't footballers? If football is shut down again literally dozens of clubs will go to the wall before Christmas even.

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs

harvetheslayer wrote:

de Pfeffel was hesitant (as usual) in his answer would the EPL continue

I cant see how football can continue after Thursday. If it does it just fosters the thoughts of how can they go outside when I cant

YOU can go out to exercise, would it help if you knew what you were talking about?

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

Argyle sell approx 2000 Ifollow passes for each game which equates to £20k income per match times by 46 matches which comes to £920k. Could make the difference between sink or swim for many clubs.

Didn't realise Ifollow was worth that much-does all the money go to the home club?

Grovehill wrote:

Didn't realise Ifollow was worth that much-does all the money go to the home club?

I think it all goes to Argyle via the PAFC Ifollow site home or away. If I'm wrong my stalker will take great delight in pointing out any errors.

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

It doesn't. They players have contracts.

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

The “obscene” amounts are agreed by the clubs so hardly a stick to beat the players with.

harvetheslayer wrote:

de Pfeffel was hesitant (as usual) in his answer would the EPL continue

I cant see how football can continue after Thursday. If it does it just fosters the thoughts of how can they go outside when I cant

It was announced on Quest last night so hardly hesitant.

Grovehill wrote:

Didn't realise Ifollow was worth that much-does all the money go to the home club?

Earwegoagain wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Didn't realise Ifollow was worth that much-does all the money go to the home club?

I think it all goes to Argyle via the PAFC Ifollow site home or away. If I'm wrong my stalker will take great delight in pointing out any errors.

If?

What do you mean IF?   Of course you're wrong.  You're wrong about nearly everything.

Your problem is you just can't shut up.  Even when you don't have an effin clue as to what the correct answer is, you just have to open your big gob and post something.  Anything.  Hardly a post goes by without you having to offer your opinion. Invariably, you make a fool of yourself.

FYI Grovy...

"Regarding revenue distribution from iFollow match passes. For clarity, in Carabao Cup fixtures, the revenue from match passes purchased by both the home and away teams is pooled, and distributed evenly between the two clubs.

For our Sky Bet League One fixtures, the distribution is slightly different. The home club receives approximately 97% of revenue from each match pass purchased (after tax) on their website, plus a proportion of the match passes purchased by the away side, commensurate with the likely away attendance at that fixture. This figure is agreed between the two clubs in advance, on a game by game basis, using historical attendance data.

As an example, if Argyle were to sell 2000 match passes for a Sky Bet League One fixture at home, we would receive all of the revenue generated from those 2000 passes. If the away team would historically bring 200 supporters to Home Park for the game, then Argyle, as the home club, will receive the revenue generated from the first 200 passes purchased by the away team. Thereafter, the away team retains any revenues."


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Graiser wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

The “obscene” amounts are agreed by the clubs so hardly a stick to beat the players with.

Obscene when compared to the take home pay of those on furlough

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

It doesn't.  They players have contracts.

All employees have contracts.

During the first full lock down, when Matt Hancock was suggesting the highly paid make sacrifices, I understand that the players union made it clear they thought players should receive full pay and pay tax as normal rather than agree to any wage reductions/deferment.

Great for players, OK for the Treasury, but an absolute disaster option for Clubs.

Like Ozil at Arsenal, happy to sit on his arse and pocket a six figure weekly pay packet, but complains when the mascot gets laid off! Can he/they really not see the connection?

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Didn't realise Ifollow was worth that much-does all the money go to the home club?

Earwegoagain wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Didn't realise Ifollow was worth that much-does all the money go to the home club?

I think it all goes to Argyle via the PAFC Ifollow site home or away. If I'm wrong my stalker will take great delight in pointing out any errors.

If?

What do you mean IF?   Of course you're wrong.  You're wrong about nearly everything.

Your problem is you just can't shut up.  Even when you don't have an effin clue as to what the correct answer is, you just have to open your big gob and post something.  Anything.  Hardly a post goes by without you having to offer your opinion.  Invariably, you make a fool of yourself.

FYI Grovy...

"Regarding revenue distribution from iFollow match passes. For clarity, in Carabao Cup fixtures, the revenue from match passes purchased by both the home and away teams is pooled, and distributed evenly between the two clubs.

For our Sky Bet League One fixtures, the distribution is slightly different. The home club receives approximately 97% of revenue from each match pass purchased (after tax) on their website, plus a proportion of the match passes purchased by the away side, commensurate with the likely away attendance at that fixture. This figure is agreed between the two clubs in advance, on a game by game basis, using historical attendance data.

As an example, if Argyle were to sell 2000 match passes for a Sky Bet League One fixture at home, we would receive all of the revenue generated from those 2000 passes. If the away team would historically bring 200 supporters to Home Park for the game, then Argyle, as the home club, will receive the revenue generated from the first 200 passes purchased by the away team. Thereafter, the away team retains any revenues."


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wanker. I'm only wrong by 3% as Argyle receive 97% of the income from Ifollow on their website. I didn't comment or offer an opinion on the Carabao cup so feck off.

Grovehill wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

It doesn't.  They players have contracts.

All employees have contracts.

Great. In that case nobody is going to get fired, furloughed or laid off, everyone will keep all their benefits and get paid in full.

But that isn't the case is it?

Great post as usual from Rickler

Your grasp of a subject and your insight is beyond compare

Grovehill wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

The “obscene” amounts are agreed by the clubs so hardly a stick to beat the players with.

Obscene when compared to the take home pay of those on furlough

Not really

If a club or any company for that matter offers you an “obscene” wage, what do you say, “awfully sorry but thats rather too much old bean, reduce it by 3k and I might accept it ?”
No I didn’t think so.

Grovehill wrote:

Great post as usual from Rickler

Your grasp of a subject and your insight is beyond compare

In fairness I think it’s your knowledge of the subject which is a bit awry

Graiser wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Moneywise it makes very little difference whether the Clubs play or not, Clubs still have bills that have to be paid. If games are suspended, staff can be furloughed, but players seem to think it doesn't apply to them and expect to be paid obscene amounts whilst those in real need will get furloughed by the Clubs  

The “obscene” amounts are agreed by the clubs so hardly a stick to beat the players with.

Obscene when compared to the take home pay of those on furlough

Not really

If a club or any company for that matter offers you an “obscene” wage, what do you say, “awfully sorry  but thats rather too much old bean, reduce it by 3k and I might accept it ?”
No I didn’t think so.

My point is not about player salaries in normal circumstances.

But when any business is in danger of folding (as lots of EFL Clubs are claiming) due to circumstances beyond their control, I would like to think that all employees would rather share the hardship and defer a part of their pay to ensure that the business can get through the difficult period rather than insist on taking all they are due, even if it means the business/Club might fold.

Even before Covid, players at several clubs were not picking up their full pay because the Club didn't have the money.

You only have to go back a few years to see this happened at Home Park Would you rather that the likes of Seip Walton and Reid had insisted on being paid in full as per their Contracts, thereby forcing the Club to close?

Reid wasn’t at Argyle during administration.

Seip deferred wages my arse.

Simon Walton was the only player who financially helped Argyle by signing a new contract at significantly lower terms

Graiser wrote:

Reid wasn’t at Argyle during administration.

Seip deferred wages my arse.

Simon Walton was the only player who financially helped Argyle by signing a new contract at significantly lower terms

Peter Reid?

Greenskin wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Reid wasn’t at Argyle during administration.

Seip deferred wages my arse.

Simon Walton was the only player who financially helped Argyle by signing a new contract at significantly lower terms

Peter Reid?

Wrong Reid, thanks for the correction, I’m just going to beat myself up in a dark room!

Graiser wrote:

Reid wasn’t at Argyle during administration.

Seip deferred wages my arse.

Simon Walton was the only player who financially helped Argyle by signing a new contract at significantly lower terms

wasnt seip out on loan during his last year here so would have been paid regardless by the other clubs?