Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Hull City, Charlton,Oxford United and Bristol Rovers all furloughed non playing staff this summer and all four have since paid fees for players, in Hulls case they have paid £400 k for a player something not quite right is there? Taking tax payers money to pay staff and then finding large sums to plough into the playing staff.

I don’t think Charlton paid anything as they are under a transfer embargo and had to get permission to sign the two players they did. They have also been put under notice that any players coming in now need to be approved and can’t exceeed I think it was £1,250 a week.

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:23 pm Hull City, Charlton,Oxford United and Bristol Rovers all furloughed non playing staff this summer and all four have since paid fees for players, in Hulls case they have paid £400 k for a player something not quite right is there? Taking tax payers money to pay staff and then finding large sums to plough into the playing staff.

Stinks don't it...

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:48 pm I don’t think Charlton paid anything as they are under a transfer embargo and had to get permission to sign the two players they did. They have also been put under notice that any players coming in now need to be approved and can’t exceeed I think it was £1,250 a week.

Yep, Thanks Thor.

How are the two matters linked?

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 10:06 pm How are the two matters linked?

Morally maybe

kokomO wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:21 am

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 10:06 pm How are the two matters linked?

Morally maybe

Exactly that, ask the government to pay your staff through the furlough scheme, whilst planning to spend money that could have been used to pay those people on fees for players. Furlough was meant to help employers save jobs not act as a way to help clubs buy players. These clubs should pay back the Furlough monies......taking the pee.

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:48 pm I don’t think Charlton paid anything as they are under a transfer embargo and had to get permission to sign the two players they did. They have also been put under notice that any players coming in now need to be approved and can’t exceeed I think it was £1,250 a week.

Charlton definitely paid fees for the two signings they made.

Would a non football parallel be a company furloughing its staff at its outlets, and then hiring someone at head office?

First and foremost, let's make one thing clear about Furlough. This wasn't 'Government money' per se; it was tax-payers money; that's simply been temporarily loaned back to them.

How will it get repaid? There will undoubtedly be income tax hikes - except of course for large Corporations such as Facebook and Google; who will continue to get away with their usual tax-dodging, by this inept, gutless Government. Meanwhile, any meaningful wage increases will be a long way in the distance. Add into the mix the guaranteed erosion of employment rights once we completely sever links with the EU and the future isn't good. No doubt, people will be told that "they're lucky to have a job" for some considerable time to come.

Even though I have just retired following redundancy last month, I would urge ANYONE reading this - JOIN A UNION NOW! The only fight that working-class people will have is unity in numbers. Left divided, employers (supported by this Government) will absolutely crush you into the dirt. Your employment rights will become non-existent. Rest assured, this Pandemic will be used as an excuse for a variety of employment-related shortfalls for many, many years to come. Together you will be stronger!

Back in March, people hailed Rishi Sunak as a hero, with his 'Job Retention' furlough offering. In reality, there was no alternative other than to introduce such a scheme; or there would have potentially have been riots and civil unrest on the streets; if people didn't have money to buy food or pay their bills.

What is blatantly obvious is that it has been abused by unscrupulous employers; including it appears, by many wealthy parties such as football clubs, who should have had to take at least a large proportion of the financial hit. Am I surprised? No, not really. Greed generally leads to even more greed, doesn't it. Remember Branson and his ilk wanting bail-outs?

Indeed, when I first read the meat on the bones of the scheme that Sunak outlined, the potential abuse was so blatantly obvious. It was introduced with no robust checking procedures; and it was wide open for fraudulent claims.

Do I put the blame on Sunak? Not really, because I would doubt that it's even his scheme (albeit, some people were clearly under the illusion that Sunak had sat up late at night writing it himself!). In reality, it is probably something that has been sitting somewhere within a National Emergency Contingency Plan for some time. Therein lies the problem, as it is so poorly-engineered. For a start, it clearly doesn't fully address the robust checking procedures required. Lest we forget it also initally overlooked people who were self-employed!

With one in three employers now stating they will lay off even more staff once the scheme ends in October, it is clearly evident that the scheme has indeed been completely abused (and continues to be). Why, for Heaven sake, wasn't the caveat built in, clearly stating (for example) employers would have to refund any money claimed if, after the scheme ended, anyone was made redundant within the first six months? Afterall, this is Tax-payers money that's being stolen, isn't it? Otherwise, it was hardly a worthwhile 'Job retention scheme' after all, was it Mr. Sunak.

Sunak did sell himself as a Saviour for the Nation - particularly with his constant "whatever it takes" message. I remember thinking at the time this message is going to come back and bite you on the arse son; but you know these Tories by now - they adore their three word slogans; that in reality, have the depth of a grain of sand.

"Whatever it takes" eh? Really? We'll see.

Another thread turned into a political point scoring rally by NuneatonOs, how incredibly predictable and boring.

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:18 pm Another thread turned into a political point scoring rally by NuneatonOs, how incredibly predictable and boring.

OK, so Furlough wasn't a political decision then?

Maybe I should have just added some rhetoric such as " yeah it's a joke ennit they should pay it back"; instead of widening the debate?

That would have been meaningful and added to the discussion, wouldn't it.

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:08 pm

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:18 pm Another thread turned into a political point scoring rally by NuneatonOs, how incredibly predictable and boring.

OK, so Furlough wasn't a political decision then?

Maybe I should have just added some rhetoric such as " yeah it's a joke ennit they should pay it back"; instead of widening the debate?

That would have been meaningful and added to the discussion, wouldn't it.

You turned a thread about four football clubs using the furlough scheme in a somewhat dubious manner into a full blown political rant, the thread was centred around the football club and not the political aspect of furlough but you ignored the football aspect and ranted against the government. It's what you do and it is so f*cking boring, just stick stuff like that on the Tory watch thread so those of us trying to post about the goings on in football don't get bored off our tits reading your repetitive political crap.

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:51 pm

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:08 pm

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:18 pm Another thread turned into a political point scoring rally by NuneatonOs, how incredibly predictable and boring.

OK, so Furlough wasn't a political decision then?

Maybe I should have just added some rhetoric such as " yeah it's a joke ennit they should pay it back"; instead of widening the debate?

That would have been meaningful and added to the discussion, wouldn't it.

You turned a thread about four football clubs using the furlough scheme in a somewhat dubious manner into a full blown political rant, the thread was centred around the football club and not the political aspect of furlough but you ignored the football aspect and ranted against the government. It's what you do and it is so f*cking boring, just stick stuff like that on the Tory watch thread so those of us trying to post about the goings on in football don't get bored off our tits reading your repetitive political crap.

Make him (nun) bang right on this though and the 2 are intrinsically linked you cannot deny that. Also, greed at the top (Tory government) will permeate it’s way into all walks of life eventually so why would Football be any different. Society is rotten to the core.

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:51 pm

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:08 pm

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:18 pm Another thread turned into a political point scoring rally by NuneatonOs, how incredibly predictable and boring.

OK, so Furlough wasn't a political decision then?

Maybe I should have just added some rhetoric such as " yeah it's a joke ennit they should pay it back"; instead of widening the debate?

That would have been meaningful and added to the discussion, wouldn't it.

You turned a thread about four football clubs using the furlough scheme in a somewhat dubious manner into a full blown political rant, the thread was centred around the football club and not the political aspect of furlough but you ignored the football aspect and ranted against the government. It's what you do and it is so f*cking boring, just stick stuff like that on the Tory watch thread so those of us trying to post about the goings on in football don't get bored off our tits reading your repetitive political crap.

Furlough is a political decision. How can you discuss it without bringing in politics?

What you mean is you don’t like people criticising the tories.

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:26 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:51 pm

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:08 pm
OK, so Furlough wasn't a political decision then?

Maybe I should have just added some rhetoric such as " yeah it's a joke ennit they should pay it back"; instead of widening the debate?

That would have been meaningful and added to the discussion, wouldn't it.

You turned a thread about four football clubs using the furlough scheme in a somewhat dubious manner into a full blown political rant, the thread was centred around the football club and not the political aspect of furlough but you ignored the football aspect and ranted against the government. It's what you do and it is so f*cking boring, just stick stuff like that on the Tory watch thread so those of us trying to post about the goings on in football don't get bored off our tits reading your repetitive political crap.

Furlough is a political decision. How can you discuss it without bringing in politics?

What you mean is you don’t like people criticising the tories.

As always you are completely wrong I'm not. Tory. Not discussing furlough itself as a political decision,but the apparent abuse of the system by four football clubs who appear to have abused the system.

Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:26 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:51 pm

You turned a thread about four football clubs using the furlough scheme in a somewhat dubious manner into a full blown political rant, the thread was centred around the football club and not the political aspect of furlough but you ignored the football aspect and ranted against the government. It's what you do and it is so f*cking boring, just stick stuff like that on the Tory watch thread so those of us trying to post about the goings on in football don't get bored off our tits reading your repetitive political crap.

Furlough is a political decision. How can you discuss it without bringing in politics?

What you mean is you don’t like people criticising the tories.

As always you are completely wrong I'm not. Tory. Not discussing furlough itself as a political decision,but the apparent abuse of the system by four football clubs who appear to have abused the system.

Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

So, would you call any company who invest in new equipment to keep them competitive as abusing the system if they used lawfully the government furlough scheme to pay their wages?

If so, then you are effectively condemning all companies who used furlough scheme to decline and oblivion as they are no longer able to compete.

Its the same with these football clubs, they are investing in new equipment - players in this case .

If you are going to force these businesses to be non competitive, then they will inevitably fail and jobs will be lost, so there is no point in a furlough scheme as you are making any company who takes part in it fail as they are not able to invest in their business

Yours is the first voice I have heard demanding companies are not allowed to reinvest in their businesses to keep them competitive

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:26 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:51 pm

You turned a thread about four football clubs using the furlough scheme in a somewhat dubious manner into a full blown political rant, the thread was centred around the football club and not the political aspect of furlough but you ignored the football aspect and ranted against the government. It's what you do and it is so f*cking boring, just stick stuff like that on the Tory watch thread so those of us trying to post about the goings on in football don't get bored off our tits reading your repetitive political crap.

Furlough is a political decision. How can you discuss it without bringing in politics?

What you mean is you don’t like people criticising the tories.

As always you are completely wrong I'm not. Tory. Not discussing furlough itself as a political decision,but the apparent abuse of the system by four football clubs who appear to have abused the system.

Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

Have to agree with your original post. It is indeed scandalous if clubs furlough staff then fork out money for transfer fees.

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:06 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:26 am

Furlough is a political decision. How can you discuss it without bringing in politics?

What you mean is you don’t like people criticising the tories.

As always you are completely wrong I'm not. Tory. Not discussing furlough itself as a political decision,but the apparent abuse of the system by four football clubs who appear to have abused the system.

Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

So, would you call any company who invest in new equipment to keep them competitive as abusing the system if they used lawfully the government furlough scheme to pay their wages?

If so, then you are effectively condemning all companies who used furlough scheme to decline and oblivion as they are no longer able to compete.

Its the same with these football clubs, they are investing in new equipment - players in this case .

If you are going to force these businesses to be non competitive, then they will inevitably fail and jobs will be lost, so there is no point in a furlough scheme as you are making any company who takes part in it fail as they are not able to invest in their business

Yours is the first voice I have heard demanding companies are not allowed to reinvest in their businesses to keep them competitive

Top’s voice may be the first, but not the last.

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am
Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

BUT THE CJRS IS POLITICS!!!

They've done nothing wrong.

What should have happened, obviously, is the roll out of UBI in some format to protect people, not businesses. But that would only have happened under a socialist Labour government, there was no chance of the tories entertaining such a notion.

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:06 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:26 am

Furlough is a political decision. How can you discuss it without bringing in politics?

What you mean is you don’t like people criticising the tories.

As always you are completely wrong I'm not. Tory. Not discussing furlough itself as a political decision,but the apparent abuse of the system by four football clubs who appear to have abused the system.

Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

So, would you call any company who invest in new equipment to keep them competitive as abusing the system if they used lawfully the government furlough scheme to pay their wages?

If so, then you are effectively condemning all companies who used furlough scheme to decline and oblivion as they are no longer able to compete.

Its the same with these football clubs, they are investing in new equipment - players in this case .

If you are going to force these businesses to be non competitive, then they will inevitably fail and jobs will be lost, so there is no point in a furlough scheme as you are making any company who takes part in it fail as they are not able to invest in their business

Yours is the first voice I have heard demanding companies are not allowed to reinvest in their businesses to keep them competitive

I'm sorry but that is a complete & utter load of old ******s which I now wish I hadn't bothered reading

kokomO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:53 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:06 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am

As always you are completely wrong I'm not. Tory. Not discussing furlough itself as a political decision,but the apparent abuse of the system by four football clubs who appear to have abused the system.

Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

So, would you call any company who invest in new equipment to keep them competitive as abusing the system if they used lawfully the government furlough scheme to pay their wages?

If so, then you are effectively condemning all companies who used furlough scheme to decline and oblivion as they are no longer able to compete.

Its the same with these football clubs, they are investing in new equipment - players in this case .

If you are going to force these businesses to be non competitive, then they will inevitably fail and jobs will be lost, so there is no point in a furlough scheme as you are making any company who takes part in it fail as they are not able to invest in their business

Yours is the first voice I have heard demanding companies are not allowed to reinvest in their businesses to keep them competitive

I'm sorry but that is a complete & utter load of old ******s which I now wish I hadn't bothered reading

So, instead of pointless abuse, what is it that I have posted that is wrong?

RedO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:15 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am
Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

BUT THE CJRS IS POLITICS!!!

They've done nothing wrong.

What should have happened, obviously, is the roll out of UBI in some format to protect people, not businesses. But that would only have happened under a socialist Labour government, there was no chance of the tories entertaining such a notion.

How would that fantasy prevent job losses?

kokomO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:53 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:06 am

Top of the JES wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:59 am

As always you are completely wrong I'm not. Tory. Not discussing furlough itself as a political decision,but the apparent abuse of the system by four football clubs who appear to have abused the system.

Sad that people feel compelled to bring everything back to politics, make assumptions and generally miss the point.

So, would you call any company who invest in new equipment to keep them competitive as abusing the system if they used lawfully the government furlough scheme to pay their wages?

If so, then you are effectively condemning all companies who used furlough scheme to decline and oblivion as they are no longer able to compete.

Its the same with these football clubs, they are investing in new equipment - players in this case .

If you are going to force these businesses to be non competitive, then they will inevitably fail and jobs will be lost, so there is no point in a furlough scheme as you are making any company who takes part in it fail as they are not able to invest in their business

Yours is the first voice I have heard demanding companies are not allowed to reinvest in their businesses to keep them competitive

I'm sorry but that is a complete & utter load of old ******s which I now wish I hadn't bothered reading

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:15 am

kokomO wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:53 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:06 am


So, would you call any company who invest in new equipment to keep them competitive as abusing the system if they used lawfully the government furlough scheme to pay their wages?

If so, then you are effectively condemning all companies who used furlough scheme to decline and oblivion as they are no longer able to compete.

Its the same with these football clubs, they are investing in new equipment - players in this case .

If you are going to force these businesses to be non competitive, then they will inevitably fail and jobs will be lost, so there is no point in a furlough scheme as you are making any company who takes part in it fail as they are not able to invest in their business

Yours is the first voice I have heard demanding companies are not allowed to reinvest in their businesses to keep them competitive

I'm sorry but that is a complete & utter load of old ******s which I now wish I hadn't bothered reading

So, instead of pointless abuse, what is it that I have posted that is wrong?

Don't be precious, that wasn't abuse , I was only stating that IN MY OPINION what you had written was a load of rubbish and wished that I hadn't wasted precious time reading it. If you take that as being abuse , then I apologise.