- May 15, 2018
- 7,687
- 46,135
Lmao the classic 'oops my fucking terrible posts didn't go down well, I'll pretend I was fishing/joking'.
Shh - let's pretend he got away with it.
Lmao the classic 'oops my fucking terrible posts didn't go down well, I'll pretend I was fishing/joking'.
I thought numbers last week were around 1000 cases a day, 500 today look like we might. Echoing in right direction again . Fingers crossed .... I’m so in the wrong thread !The football authorities are asking for trouble having international games one week before the season starts. Infections are rising, including here in the UK with a jump of 500 cases just today. Players are going to travel all over Europe and then return just as week 1 of the PL begins ??
I thought numbers last week were around 1000 cases a day, 500 today look like we might. Echoing in right direction again . Fingers crossed .... I’m so in the wrong thread !
Thats going up. Today is 1500I thought numbers last week were around 1000 cases a day, 500 today look like we might. Echoing in right direction again . Fingers crossed .... I’m so in the wrong thread !
Lots of policies carve out pandemics - amusing property based story is that the Business interruption insurance of one of the big insurers (might have been Aviva) - didn’t cover pandemics. Lol.
No standard business interruption insurance covers pandemics.
Business interruption is to cover for losses if buildings/technology fails.
Pandemic insurance is totally different, and was massively expensive.
There was apparently only about 8 payouts for losses for Covid under insurance, and only 2 of them were sports related.
Wimbledon Tennis paid £2m a year premium for pandemic insurance, and got paid out roughly £100m.
The Open Golf also was covered (which is why both events cancelled the tournaments very early on, rather than opt to play behind closed doors).
In respect of players insurance, I expect these would be renewed by the club annually on June 30, to tie in with every players contract, and is either not an option to cover for Pandemics currently, or would be prohibitively expensive.
Would pre-COVID insurance be completely out? I'm thinking we must have insurance for act of god type stuff, plane crashes, etc. With a £60 million asset I wonder if Levy's already reading the fine print...
Well there you go. The chap that wrote an article on this seemed think it was pretty funny that an insurer would be out of pocket from its insurance policies failing to respond.
Flanders wouldn’t have this insurance. Stupid sexy Flanders.
This isn't entirely accurate. Whilst insurers are repudiating claims for Business Interruption on the premise of no material damage to buildings etc, there is a legal process in flight (ruling due mid-Sept) to challenge the legitimacy of said repudiations on certain policies with certain insurers where the policy wording is considered not specific enough or has a degree of ambiguity that may be exploited (I won't bore you with any of the detail). The cases you refer to are just examples of large insurable enterprises, but many smaller claimants are in the process of being indemnified.No standard business interruption insurance covers pandemics.
Business interruption is to cover for losses if buildings/technology fails.
Pandemic insurance is totally different, and was massively expensive.
There was apparently only about 8 payouts for losses for Covid under insurance, and only 2 of them were sports related.
Wimbledon Tennis paid £2m a year premium for pandemic insurance, and got paid out roughly £100m.
The Open Golf also was covered (which is why both events cancelled the tournaments very early on, rather than opt to play behind closed doors).
In respect of players insurance, I expect these would be renewed by the club annually on June 30, to tie in with every players contract, and is either not an option to cover for Pandemics currently, or would be prohibitively expensive.
If we could get PSG involved that would be ideal.
Milinkovic-Savic is the dream replacement
Tanguy’s coming home ??
View attachment 72386
What does he need football boots for?
This isn't entirely accurate. Whilst insurers are repudiating claims for Business Interruption on the premise of no material damage to buildings etc, there is a legal process in flight (ruling due mid-Sept) to challenge the legitimacy of said repudiations on certain policies with certain insurers where the policy wording is considered not specific enough or has a degree of ambiguity that may be exploited (I won't bore you with any of the detail). The cases you refer to are just examples of large insurable enterprises, but many smaller claimants are in the process of being indemnified.
Yeah he's much better than regular Stoof.Boom. Sexy Stoof wins again. Love that guy.
Well there you go. The chap that wrote an article on this seemed think it was pretty funny that an insurer would be out of pocket from its insurance policies failing to respond.
Flanders wouldn’t have this insurance. Stupid sexy Flanders.