What's new

Furloughing staff

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Well fingers crossed those people lose their jobs so you get to finally win this debate on an internet forum.

And yes I'm fully aware you don't want that to happen but you seem so determined not to back down that you were in the right on this matter that the tone you're taking leaves a horrible taste.

someone coming on here after a good decision was made to then say those that backed it should be ashamed:mad:

I don't want them to lose their jobs, but I'm not shameful of what Levy decided to do in the 1st place. I might have been angry if it was a certainty this will only be for a couple of months, but to be honest I was arguing because I don't

1, see this season being finished
2, I honestly don't expect much before December to be played in front of crowds,
3, not sure I think we will see any/much football at all in 2020
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2014
13,603
58,005
someone coming on here after a good decision was made to then say those that backed it should be ashamed:mad:

I don't want them to lose their jobs, but I'm not shameful of what Levy decided to do in the 1st place. I might have been angry if it was a certainty this will only be for a couple of months, but to be honest I was arguing because I don't

1, see this season being finished
2, I honestly don't expect much before December to be played in front of crowds,
3, not sure I think we will see any/much football at all in 2020

The reality is none of us know the facts, none of us know the cost of those staff, none of us know what difference that cost would have made in the short term or long term, none of us know what is going to happen to the season, none of us know when football will be back and the economic impact or whether Spurs will be in a position of strength or weakness relative to other clubs and most importantly none of us know what factors changed which made Levy change his mind. A couple of people are claiming inside information, what those people need to appreciate is that this is an internet forum and just claiming you know this person or your job is this or that doesn't mean everybody has to automatically agree with you.

I don't think anybody needs to be ashamed, I think we all need to admit that we don't have a fucking clue what is going on. I'm not thrilled that of all the clubs in the world to be embroiled in this mess it was Spurs, I wasn't a big fan of the optics but I conceded to the fact that Levy knows the facts regardless of what his motives and I don't so kept my mouth shut. However today a lot of people associated with Spurs now have more income and my belief based on my experiences of Levy is that he would only make that decision if he knew unequivocally that paying those wages up until the end of May (or whenever the furlough period ends) will not have a big negative impact on the club. So I'm taking the news as positive and ignoring all doomsday conjecture because it's nothing more than conjecture and I'm sure Levy will make the difficult decisions when he has to because he's the man for that job. If I had the opportunity to give him a suggestion, I'd tell him to provide some clarity on the impact and costs so that he we are portrayed how we have been in recent weeks.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Don;t
The BSoDL are having a bad enough day as it is.

Having spent few days defending the indefensible, they now have to either say Levy is not the good businessman they thought he was, and he is wrong to change his ways, or have to retract everything they have said over last few days.
Either is unpallatable.
Get your head out of your arse, it’s deplorable that you feel the need to goad and bait people over such a sensitive and complicated issue just because they happen to disagree with you. Your post says far more about you than about either the club or about the fans you are so smugly directing it at. Nice up there on your ivory tower, is it?

I suppose you’ve considered that those of us who have defended the initial action may well be entitled to our point of view. and in some cases (my own, furloughed by a far larger and more profitable business than Spurs) might even been speaking from a modicum of experience?

It’s rhetorical, no need to respond to that. You’re just petty and at a time when the world is in crisis, everyone is scared and people are dying who otherwise wouldn’t be, you’re getting your jollies by goading and belittling people online for the simple reason that they don’t subscribe to the bile you peddle. I hope you feel very big and fulfilled.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
The reality is none of us know the facts, none of us know the cost of those staff, none of us know what difference that cost would have made in the short term or long term, none of us know what is going to happen to the season, none of us know when football will be back and the economic impact or whether Spurs will be in a position of strength or weakness relative to other clubs and most importantly none of us know what factors changed which made Levy change his mind. A couple of people are claiming inside information, what those people need to appreciate is that this is an internet forum and just claiming you know this person or your job is this or that doesn't mean everybody has to automatically agree with you.

I don't think anybody needs to be ashamed, I think we all need to admit that we don't have a fucking clue what is going on. I'm not thrilled that of all the clubs in the world to be embroiled in this mess it was Spurs, I wasn't a big fan of the optics but I conceded to the fact that Levy knows the facts regardless of what his motives and I don't so kept my mouth shut. However today a lot of people associated with Spurs now have more income and my belief based on my experiences of Levy is that he would only make that decision if he knew unequivocally that paying those wages up until the end of May (or whenever the furlough period ends) will not have a big negative impact on the club. So I'm taking the news as positive and ignoring all doomsday conjecture because it's nothing more than conjecture and I'm sure Levy will make the difficult decisions when he has to because he's the man for that job. If I had the opportunity to give him a suggestion, I'd tell him to provide some clarity on the impact and costs so that he we are portrayed how we have been in recent weeks.

the thing is with the stadium being new and unpaid for, I expect his 1st thoughts were the cost of what will happen if it's voided, he will still have to make the 1st payment which will be another big hit. the club have lost out on 3 other events rugby, boxing, and a concert and with no end date and no income 14m+ a month is a lot of bloody money in wages, and that 14+m was last seasons figures, this season will be higher due to more staff, and more pay for players with improved contacts and new players wages
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Get your head out of your arse, it’s deplorable that you feel the need to goad and bait people over such a sensitive and complicated issue just because they happen to disagree with you. Your post says far more about you than about either the club or about the fans you are so smugly directing it at. Nice up there on your ivory tower, is it?

I suppose you’ve considered that those of us who have defended the initial action may well be entitled to our point of view. and in some cases (my own, furloughed by a far larger and more profitable business than Spurs) might even been speaking from a modicum of experience?

It’s rhetorical, no need to respond to that. You’re just petty and at a time when the world is in crisis, everyone is scared and people are dying who otherwise wouldn’t be, you’re getting your jollies by goading and belittling people online for the simple reason that they don’t subscribe to the bile you peddle. I hope you feel very big and fulfilled.

I don't take notice of his attacks on me BBG, thinks he is god almighty with once-upon a time working for a big finance company so knows finances out the back of his arse apparently, then he used to do referring and he knows someone from the PGMOL. his son went to school with Dele he knows a friend of Dele, and now he knows a non 1st teamer as well. he even went as far as saying we could handle this if it went on for years, but would face problems if it reached 5. I wonder why he isn't working for that big finance company anymore
 
Last edited:

Chirpystheman

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2019
501
1,610
Ridiculous analogy.

Why is it a ridiculous anology. Joe lewis could lose billions with this financial mess. But the general consensus on here seems to be he can afford to lose it. Thats ridiculous just because someone can afford to lose it doesnt make the situation better. He he went from being worth 6bn to being worth 100m you lot would be saying well hes still got 100m. Thats dumb logic. He stands to lose a bigger % of his worth than any of us. Yet majority of the opinion that its irrelevant because hes got a lot to start with. Can you not see how that smacks of jealousy and envy. Example was someone totalling a £2m (a 2003 ferrari enzo) car compared to someone totally a car you can get for £500. Whos lost more in that scenario. Do you get my point yet
 

pagevee

Ehhhh, What's up Doc?
Oct 4, 2006
644
147
Why is it a ridiculous anology. Joe lewis could lose billions with this financial mess. But the general consensus on here seems to be he can afford to lose it. Thats ridiculous just because someone can afford to lose it doesnt make the situation better. He he went from being worth 6bn to being worth 100m you lot would be saying well hes still got 100m. Thats dumb logic. He stands to lose a bigger % of his worth than any of us. Yet majority of the opinion that its irrelevant because hes got a lot to start with. Can you not see how that smacks of jealousy and envy. Example was someone totalling a £2m (a 2003 ferrari enzo) car compared to someone totally a car you can get for £500. Whos lost more in that scenario. Do you get my point yet
I think most reasonable people understand your point. Celebrating someone facing a financial/medical tragedy is inappropriate no matter how wealthy/successful the individual affected is. I hope to never celebrate the loss of someone or something of obscene wealth. I find it as inappropriate to celebrate the loss as to villify the success.

That being said, in your example of the £2 million ferrari versus a £500 P.O.S. (piece of shit) car wreck. Person #1 takes a massive loss easily in excess of the Person #2 from a financial standpoint. From lifestyle perspective, Person #1 probably has another vehicle to get to work(if not...he/she has some eccentric priorities), has accumulated other types of diversified assets, and may not be financially ruined by the wreck (if so...why did you spend so freaking much on a car?). Person #2 may have lost their only form of transportation, could only afford the POS car, is less likely to have accumulated assets, and may be far more affected in terms of lifestyle.

The Person #2 scenario is more likely to have a far-reaching impact on the lower-economic demography than the Person #1 scenario. I will freely admit to not being a car person, if the Person #1 scenario causes a foreclosure/bankruptcy/eviction then they made an inappropriate decision to invest the majority of their assets in a vehicle. The Person #2 scenario causes foreclosure/bankruptcy/eviction cases in the USA where your car is not a luxury because we have allowed our public transportation services to disappear in favor of private transportation.

I will not celebrate the loss of the affluent but the losses need to be made to scale. That means the 6 billion fortune becoming a 100 million fortune is similar to your 600,000 pounds of assets dropping to just 10,000 pounds.

Option #1 changes the Standard of living to transition from obscene wealth to filthy rich.
Option #2 changes the Standard of Living from Upper/Middle Class to paycheck-to-paycheck.
Numerically the same percentage of change in wealth does not mean it is the same amount of loss or a bigger loss.

As for furlough, I am happy the wages are being restored to 100% and I still believe the furlough will be needed. I am not ashamed for wanting peoples jobs to be guaranteed or for the club accepting government funding that they have paid taxes for (hopefully will pay for again).
Please explain to me why it is appropriate for British Airways to use the furlough when they are owned by Qatar Royal family and yet not appropriate for Tottenham Hotspur, when they are owned by a British company/citizens (yes, debatable to call a tax-haven ex-pat a citizen; however, Daniel Levy pays taxes, as does the club).

Again, furlough GUARANTEES jobs at a reduced wage subsidized by the government. We are experiencing a global pandemic that may kick off a global recession. I just can't see the season being finished this summer, will be shocked if finished in 2020. I would love to be wrong and for the economy to switch back on in a couple months with no long term damage. I want nothing to do with another global recession.
 

glacierSpurs

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2013
16,163
25,472
Disagree with the U-turn.

We don’t know how long it will be before the club can start operating again.
People seem to be assuming this mess is done and dusted by the end of May. The club doesn’t know that, nobody knows that, so they have to assume the worst and plan to cut costs wherever possible in case they’re stuck with hundreds of staff and a £1bn redundant stadium. Especially when the government are offering assistance, it made sense to use it.

Secondly, some fans are celebrating that this ‘secures’ the non-playing staffs jobs. It does the opposite. They’ve just forced the club to shell out more money than they needed to,therefore increasing their losses. Losses make jobs less safe.

Thirdly, I hope the fans who demanded a u-turn, don’t send angry tweets and hashtags when the clubs spending is reduced in the transfer market as a probable consequence of the business being frozen.
Winner post. This exactly.

Too bad many people couldn't see this with so much sentiments on the way of making the best judgements for a business. Only a charity business can be run with sentiments. I am disappointed the club is caving in from all the negativities but at least the measures are short terms with constant reviews ongoing. The longer period of pandemic will vindicate their initial decision and proved to those who 'felt so ashame' of this club they supported that their perspectives were just short-sightedness.

The additional top up now for those staffs wouldn't come from thin air, and they will have to be taken from somewhere. If the inevitable of retrenchments come after May when the pandemic is still not gonna stabilise, which is really likely, the 'savings' from the government now due to the U-turn will be used for this cause in one way or another nonetheless. But at that point, those staffs whom everyone so cared for may already be jobless when they could well have at least 1-2 more months of possible job security if on the club's initial policy.

Well done to those who stuck their pitch forks in at the club - you just made these 550 staffs' means of living less stable after May. And by then if they are not, better not turn around and complain why they are still being paid 100 percent salary for doing next to nothing of what their jobs required, wasting the club resources.
 

buckley

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2012
2,595
6,073
A lot of these financial arguments are beyond my knowledge so I will not make comments then make myself look More stupid than I am .
The thing I noticed from the very beginning is something I will state again and that is the people that are the lowest of the low are the politicians who are trying to make points and political hay on the back of coronavirus . Myself I have no political allegiance but those having a go at Boris for the way this has been handed has left me dumbfounded as for me all he has done has what any reasonable person would do and that is follow what the experts advise and no one can say whether the country has done better or worse than other countries until it all over and figures can be analysed .I feel almost the same about Levy and ENIC the haters will use anything to discredit them and yes even this situation to prove their opinion or agenda they join the politicians as they have ethics lower than a smokes belly .
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,679
104,956
Winner post. This exactly.

Too bad many people couldn't see this with so much sentiments on the way of making the best judgements for a business. Only a charity business can be run with sentiments. I am disappointed the club is caving in from all the negativities but at least the measures are short terms with constant reviews ongoing. The longer period of pandemic will vindicate their initial decision and proved to those who 'felt so ashame' of this club they supported that their perspectives were just short-sightedness.

The additional top up now for those staffs wouldn't come from thin air, and they will have to be taken from somewhere. If the inevitable of retrenchments come after May when the pandemic is still not gonna stabilise, which is really likely, the 'savings' from the government now due to the U-turn will be used for this cause in one way or another nonetheless. But at that point, those staffs whom everyone so cared for may already be jobless when they could well have at least 1-2 more months of possible job security if on the club's initial policy.

Well done to those who stuck their pitch forks in at the club - you just made these 550 staffs' means of living less stable after May. And by then if they are not, better not turn around and complain why they are still being paid 100 percent salary for doing next to nothing of what their jobs required, wasting the club resources.

On 5 live it was suggested that lots of clubs are going to cut back on youth development and cutting funds there to save money. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are having to do something like that. Like you say, the money will be coming from somewhere else in the club. What if it’s a cutback to youth recruitment and we miss the next Harry Kane and he gets picked up by Chelsea because of it?
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,351
38,294
On 5 live it was suggested that lots of clubs are going to cut back on youth development and cutting funds there to save money. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are having to do something like that. Like you say, the money will be coming from somewhere else in the club. What if it’s a cutback to youth recruitment and we miss the next Harry Kane and he gets picked up by Chelsea because of it?
I think that DL will ring fence the youth development area and prioritise it over other areas given the fact that it can potentially save the club money as opposed to spending money on transfers.
 

dudu

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
5,314
11,048
The optics of this were pretty bad in that my mates who don't even follow football sent me messages yesterday somehow thinking I, as a Spurs fan, need to be informed that the club I support were dicks for having to be in a position to do a u-turn in the first place.

Money has to be saved somewhere and I don't personally think Furloughing the staff they did was an attrocious act of greed and corruption, especially when faced with the facts.

I do think they made the decision too early though and should have waited until we know how long they were going to need to furlough.

It's just funny the moral high ground anyone in here is taking over one opinion or the other. Like anyone here knows what it's like to have to make decisions regarding a business of that size while having to worry about how the world is going to judge you.
 

jurgen

Busy ****
Jul 5, 2008
6,710
17,167
Why is it a ridiculous anology. Joe lewis could lose billions with this financial mess. But the general consensus on here seems to be he can afford to lose it. Thats ridiculous just because someone can afford to lose it doesnt make the situation better. He he went from being worth 6bn to being worth 100m you lot would be saying well hes still got 100m. Thats dumb logic. He stands to lose a bigger % of his worth than any of us. Yet majority of the opinion that its irrelevant because hes got a lot to start with. Can you not see how that smacks of jealousy and envy. Example was someone totalling a £2m (a 2003 ferrari enzo) car compared to someone totally a car you can get for £500. Whos lost more in that scenario. Do you get my point yet

He made his billions off a financial mess too, so I suppose what goes around...

A person totalling a £2m car is highly likely to have more than one means of transport, an Enzo certainly isn't purchased for practicality, while the £500 Fiesta might be someone's only way of getting to their job. What's more valuable to that person beyond a simplistic percentage calculation of wealth? Someone might lose a £50m third home but that's a bit different to losing the only roof above your head.

No offence but attitudes like yours are why the super rich love countries like the UK and US, we have a society full of people that utterly defer to class, power and wealth so much that many people actually seem to support them not paying their fair share and call anything against that unchecked wealth to be the 'politics of envy'.

Anyway, glad the club saw the light, hope we don't do a Leeds. :nailbiting:
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2014
13,603
58,005
Why is it a ridiculous anology. Joe lewis could lose billions with this financial mess. But the general consensus on here seems to be he can afford to lose it. Thats ridiculous just because someone can afford to lose it doesnt make the situation better. He he went from being worth 6bn to being worth 100m you lot would be saying well hes still got 100m. Thats dumb logic. He stands to lose a bigger % of his worth than any of us. Yet majority of the opinion that its irrelevant because hes got a lot to start with. Can you not see how that smacks of jealousy and envy. Example was someone totalling a £2m (a 2003 ferrari enzo) car compared to someone totally a car you can get for £500. Whos lost more in that scenario. Do you get my point yet


Because your analogy completely lacks any context whatsoever and firmly shows why you misunderstood @Colonel Dax in the first place. You're basing who you'd feel sorry for based on the value of the motor instead of what impact it has on the persons life. If the person who loses the cheap car was all he could afford, meaning they have no form of transport, meaning they lose their job and their source of income then it completely changes the perspective than if they can easily afford another car. You can't just say it's worse becauss one would be a bigger financial impact without the full context of how it affects their life hence why it's a completely ridiculous analogy.

And that was where I felt you completely misrepresented ColonelDax, he wasn't saying he doesn't give a shit if people with vast sums of money lose it out of envy. He was saying in the grand scheme of things if it comes down to people who have little keeping a roof over their head and food on the table for their families or billionaires losing a lot of money then he'd rather that billionaires lose some of their wealth to keep more families afloat.

Absolutely nothing to do with the idea that people would think it's fine for Joe Lewis to lose billions but simply prioritising those with less.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
The optics of this were pretty bad in that my mates who don't even follow football sent me messages yesterday somehow thinking I, as a Spurs fan, need to be informed that the club I support were dicks for having to be in a position to do a u-turn in the first place.

Money has to be saved somewhere and I don't personally think Furloughing the staff they did was an attrocious act of greed and corruption, especially when faced with the facts.

I do think they made the decision too early though and should have waited until we know how long they were going to need to furlough.

It's just funny the moral high ground anyone in here is taking over one opinion or the other. Like anyone here knows what it's like to have to make decisions regarding a business of that size while having to worry about how the world is going to judge you.

they announced it when the previous months salaries had been paid, and I reckon they did it so they could thoroughly run the numbers knowing that it would be better to furlough at the start of the month as doing it now would be harder to accept ie.... the staff wasn't hit with the news halfway through a month and not be prepared to receive less with only 2 weeks left in the month to rearrange their finances.
 

C1w8

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2011
567
1,075
The reality is none of us know the facts, none of us know the cost of those staff, none of us know what difference that cost would have made in the short term or long term, none of us know what is going to happen to the season, none of us know when football will be back and the economic impact or whether Spurs will be in a position of strength or weakness relative to other clubs and most importantly none of us know what factors changed which made Levy change his mind. A couple of people are claiming inside information, what those people need to appreciate is that this is an internet forum and just claiming you know this person or your job is this or that doesn't mean everybody has to automatically agree with you.

I don't think anybody needs to be ashamed, I think we all need to admit that we don't have a fucking clue what is going on. I'm not thrilled that of all the clubs in the world to be embroiled in this mess it was Spurs, I wasn't a big fan of the optics but I conceded to the fact that Levy knows the facts regardless of what his motives and I don't so kept my mouth shut. However today a lot of people associated with Spurs now have more income and my belief based on my experiences of Levy is that he would only make that decision if he knew unequivocally that paying those wages up until the end of May (or whenever the furlough period ends) will not have a big negative impact on the club. So I'm taking the news as positive and ignoring all doomsday conjecture because it's nothing more than conjecture and I'm sure Levy will make the difficult decisions when he has to because he's the man for that job. If I had the opportunity to give him a suggestion, I'd tell him to provide some clarity on the impact and costs so that he we are portrayed how we have been in recent weeks.

I get the whole "we don't know" point, but as you say the optics of what we initially did were not good.

I suppose the issue I have with the U-turn, is that I'm not sure how this situation has improved for the club to to be able to do this, and it undermines the original decision to jump on the cost saving measures if we can then turn around and say we can afford it for a couple more months.

If we were able to run until the end of May in this manner, it should've been the original play.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,679
104,956

Not a bad article. Seems we are pushing for a player wage cut rather than a deferral at this stage. I suppose you'd start your negotiating position there and then hope to end up with a deferral.
 

Maxtremist

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2014
1,530
3,300
I completely get the business sense of furloughing. As a business we're taking a massive hit as our incomings are going to be drastically down on what they normally are so getting any kind of help to ease that makes a lot of business sense.

The issue is, though, that as one of the richest football clubs in the world we should have/are perceived to have a lot of money so reaching out for government aid in this time seems very misguided and morally questionable, especially as this effects the lowest paid workers whilst we're still paying the players a stupidly high amount per month. The scheme seems to generally have been put in place to save smaller business' so such a big business like us using it seems to wrong.

In terms of this affecting future transfer windows etc... what I am yet to understand is that every post seems to almost suggest/imply to some form that it'd only affect us. As if every other club in the league is totally fine and unaffected but we're the ones in a dire situation that had to pick either or. I'm not gonna pretend to know the clubs finance situation but I truly find it near impossible to believe that paying the staff's wages for a few months will destroy out transfer budget.

As for this going beyond May, if it does we re-evaluate then. This is an every changing situation and we can't predict what happens and if in two months us (and a lot of other clubs) realise we can't take the burden of this and then go to Furlogh our staff then fair play. It should, in my opinion, only be a last resort option. It shouldn't be the go to.

There's a few who have mentioned to deal with a lot of this, we may be cutting money on youth recruitment or scouting etc... I do have to wonder with that why do you think this would only affect us? I'd imagine other premier league clubs are dealing with the exact same thing and looking at where to cut costs/save money now so why would we be unique on saving money with youth?

Ultimately it's all just a mess we could have avoided. If we'd just kept on paying our staff and changed nothing... we get no debate. No negative PR etc... We're fine with that. If we TRULY needed to furlogh our staff then we would have and would have stuck with that and expressed that and then the PR wouldn't have been as big a hit if we were in that bad a financial place. But it would seem we didn't need to furlogh the staff. We're proving now we can survive a couple months without it whilst still paying our players pretty much their full wages.

TLDR: We shouldn't have furloughed in the first place, glad we've reversed that decision. Not sure why people think us paying our staff now will change our summer transfer budget and why it seems like it'd only affect us and not other clubs.
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
12,668
16,712
haven't China not long come out of lockdown and another case has happened? until there's a vaccine for this that is affordable to everybody which is a lot of vaccines and in some cases people will think Nah not paying for it due to cost and then it can start again

I mean it's a lot more complicated than that, however i can't see leaders of the major countries in the world being able to sit out a further 6 months of lockdown, the economies of the countries will crumble if that's the case.

At some point a calculation will be made regarding the cost of life vs cost to economy (which in itself will also lead to a loss of life) and things will have to re-open again.

However it's much more likely we discover better ways of treating the virus that reduces the death toll before a vaccine is widely available.

Either way if the UK / Europe sits in lockdown for another 6 months then football will probably be the least of everyone's worries.
 

Maxtremist

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2014
1,530
3,300
I mean it's a lot more complicated than that, however i can't see leaders of the major countries in the world being able to sit out a further 6 months of lockdown, the economies of the countries will crumble if that's the case.

At some point a calculation will be made regarding the cost of life vs cost to economy (which in itself will also lead to a loss of life) and things will have to re-open again.

However it's much more likely we discover better ways of treating the virus that reduces the death toll before a vaccine is widely available.

Either way if the UK / Europe sits in lockdown for another 6 months then football will probably be the least of everyone's worries.

I don't believe anyone is saying lockdown as it exists will continue for another 6 months. More just social distancing and some regulations will be kept in place. Essentially we're not gonna just go back to normal straight away, it'll just be a more gradual thing.

With regards to Furlogh for that (to keep it on topic) I'd imagine we'd get empty arena games before we get fans at the stadium which would get some form of revenue coming back to the club (if anything mainly TV deals) which would ease the burden on the club.

Though as you said, this could and probably would be the least of our worries.
 
Top