True, Spurs bad enough but at least going home I walk to Tottenham Hale takes a bit of it off.
You've made me remember getting home from the o2 on the Jubilee Line...
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
You've made me remember getting home from the o2 on the Jubilee Line...
"A sports lawyer, who works with Premier League agents and also represents Football League clubs, agrees. “You cannot just impose a blanket pay cut,” he says. “You need to show the players why the money needs to be saved in each individual case. It may be a certain number of weeks for a deferral, that is fair. But a 30 per cent cut just isn’t fair. Can you imagine walking in one day to Morgan Stanley and telling everyone ‘you are docked 30 per cent wages’? It just wouldn’t happen. "
It is happening though.
ESPN asked their top talent to take 15% off their pay and already cut pay to VPs between 20 and 30% depending on their level:
With Airline travel down 96% here other companies are doing the same
Edit:
I understand the players are different, they have contracts. I think they should agree to take a wage cut, but also agree that the clubs should be doing what they can to help the most vulnerable. The concessions people, the grounds crews, etc. If I see my club laying off 500 people, but not cutting wages for the executives, I'm not inclined to take a pay cut either. Instead, I'd take that 30% they want me to cut, and donate it directly to the charity of my choice.
It is happening though.
ESPN asked their top talent to take 15% off their pay and already cut pay to VPs between 20 and 30% depending on their level:
With Airline travel down 96% here other companies are doing the same
Edit:
I understand the players are different, they have contracts. I think they should agree to take a wage cut, but also agree that the clubs should be doing what they can to help the most vulnerable. The concessions people, the grounds crews, etc. If I see my club laying off 500 people, but not cutting wages for the executives, I'm not inclined to take a pay cut either. Instead, I'd take that 30% they want me to cut, and donate it directly to the charity of my choice.
Last edited:
Who was top of the league? Dublin leprechauns? Cork shamrocks? Galway shillelaghs? Craggy island magpies? Oh no they kilkenny? Guiness United? Belfast paddies?
Really?
There's also the travel to and from the stadium to consider too. Fucked if I'm going by train.
Reading the latest government press release it seems to suggest that social distancing measures could be in place until a vaccine is widely available. Most experts seem agreed that a vaccine is 15 months away.
So, no crowds at football for at least a season? I for one won't bother watching games behind closed doors, I watched a couple of serie a games before lockdown kicked in and gave up, no atmosphere, it was like watching a training game.
I feel for how many non league and lower league clubs are going to survive. Few make any money and live on a hand to mouth existence. Maybe moth balling clubs for next season is the answer and a complete reset for the following season? Money will dictate how the premier league operates but a major reset of the game must be plausible?
Sorry for the depressing view, but it's a depressing scenario for all team sports.
So, no crowds at football for at least a season? I for one won't bother watching games behind closed doors, I watched a couple of serie a games before lockdown kicked in and gave up, no atmosphere, it was like watching a training game.
I feel for how many non league and lower league clubs are going to survive. Few make any money and live on a hand to mouth existence. Maybe moth balling clubs for next season is the answer and a complete reset for the following season? Money will dictate how the premier league operates but a major reset of the game must be plausible?
Sorry for the depressing view, but it's a depressing scenario for all team sports.
I Honestly don’t think this will happen. There are talks of testing kits coming in to test fans buying tickets. If you are deemed well, you are allowed to go and mix in with crowds. This social distancing won’t last that long and we certainly won’t be playing behind closed doors for 18 months.
I can’t see how that would work. We can’t even test our NHS staff. How are we going to test hundreds of thousands of fans across the country? Do they all have to wait 15 minutes to get their results?
Even if the test was a few days before the game it would have to be for those who have already had it. No point having someone test negative for the virus hours or days before they go to a game.
The only people who could go to games would be those proven to have had it and recovered. There’s so many more people that need those tests compared to football fans.
In China now everyone has an app on their phone with their personal Covid status. It is either green, yellow or red. They let people into certain places based on the colour on their phone.
If the money is in the clubs accounts, I'd rather any employee that is on the payroll got it. It's very different than if the club is losing revenue.
If it's sat in THFC bank accounts it's doing nothing for anyone.
Pay the players and give the huge tax to the treasury.
Then encourage players to donate, publicly.
If it's sat in THFC bank accounts it's doing nothing for anyone.
Pay the players and give the huge tax to the treasury.
Then encourage players to donate, publicly.
How often do they need to check their status though? To check it before you go anywhere would require the kind of mass testing that I think will eventually happen, but the timescale I would say would be similar to that of getting a vaccine.
100%. Now let the arguments about how it’s done begin.
I'm not sure where you got the 'most experts agree 15 months' scenario from, but this article from The Lancet seems to indicate that a vaccine could be available a lot sooner than that. No specific timeframe is proposed but the author talks about clinical trials beginning in mid-May.
Surely the timeframe depends on how much and how strict testing you want to do before launching it?
Making a vaccine available without proper testing done could lead to unexpected side effects.
Wasn't it a bird flu and a ebola vaccine that were rushed out to the public where both ended up giving people narcolepsy?
It's clear in the article that trials will go through several phases, testing different age-grouped volunteers and compiling all data until a stable and reliable vaccine can be manufactured. It does state that Autumn is probably the earliest that a vaccine roll-out could be achieved.
Wow!!
I know people are struggling to comprehend that what's going on in the World is happening in 2020...
So hats off to you for making a comment that feels more like it's 1970.... that's MUCH more like it!
What's next on your outdated agenda; Pakis, Jews and Niggers?
Maybe you should binge watch THIS series...
I'm sure there's LOTS of fun facts in there for ya!
Well said, you said it much better than I could.