Okay Mr Pedantic. But you obviously just skipped through my post without understanding it. I was pointing out that it is a word very rarely used in the UK, but now the Yanks are using it a lot recently, it seems the sheeple of the UK has to follow suit!
What I question is the rules of the scheme which allows you to claim the government scheme up to 2500/month while voluntarily adding a further 20% to complete the 'normal' full wage, which would cover mostordinary people.
But the question is are you allowed to claim the government schme of 2500/month if you are simply able to add a huge amount to it to cover players typically muchhigher salary that goes way beyond the 20%?
This would seem contrary to what the scheme is designed for and foul play by a football club.
I appreciate the tweet but question the validity of it.
But the question is are you allowed to claim the government schme of 2500/month if you are simply able to add a huge amount to it to cover players typically muchhigher salary that goes way beyond the 20%?
This would seem contrary to what the scheme is designed for and foul play by a football club.
I appreciate the tweet but question the validity of it.
Yes you are it’s not a 20% top up you can pay a full salary of much higher
Agree it's not used much here but it's origination in this country was around the 16th century. If we want to be pedantic it's actually derived from a Dutch word, verlof, so would have originally been pronounced in a similar way.
Anyway, the reason it's being used in this instance is to differentiate from traditional layoff where you can only claim a maximum of £145 in a 3 month period (and apply for redundancy after 4 weeks).
Just a thought on this-with the already limited income streams from this season due to playing at St Andrews and the now Furloughed staff, the real possibility will be completing the season behind closed doors.
If this is the case, isn’t that going to hit the club where it hurts most as the players and whichever staff are required to complete the fixtures have then returned to work, which in turn means no Furlough and no income stream through the gates etc?
If this is the case, isn’t that going to hit the club where it hurts most as the players and whichever staff are required to complete the fixtures have then returned to work, which in turn means no Furlough and no income stream through the gates etc?
I don’t really see what being at St Andrews has to do with it and every club will be impacted the same
Well we haven’t got any stadium costs Grendel although Birmingham fans were saying to me the maintenance wasn’t taking place as it should be with their new owners. You’d think we may get some reduction for the season if we don’t play all the games too. But it will only reduce the money that Sisu need to put in to cover losses
Last edited:
promotion will offset the loss in income, but will reduce our ability to improve the squad next season
Most teams however will have a loss of income with no offset
If we are not allowed promotion, then it could become a very big problem
Most teams however will have a loss of income with no offset
If we are not allowed promotion, then it could become a very big problem
We may well do but I assume the rules regarding stadium capacity/facilities etc would still need to be met, so we'd still have to have a deal agreed with someone that we could play in.
Depends on if the stadium deal is based on a monthly fee or fixture based. Dunno if we'd have insurance to cover it.
