Darlo Uncovered

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:02 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:To a club like ours I suppose we would have to "mothball" it. Staff would not be paid for a while, how could they be.

Presumably because they are under contract and need their wages to pay bills. But I’m sure the players are delighted you’re happy to cancel their salaries for a few weeks from behind your keyboard.

For everyone saying “It’s about health not money” try telling that to people who are about lose income for a number of weeks.

Lack of money means they have to cut back on other things to survive. Bills go unpaid. Think about the toll that takes on mental health too.

Some people are trying to simplify an incredibly complex situation into a snappy soundbite to make themselves sound clever. There are a lot of considerations to take into account before any decision is made.

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:02 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:To a club like ours I suppose we would have to "mothball" it. Staff would not be paid for a while, how could they be.

Presumably because they are under contract and need their wages to pay bills. But I’m sure the players are delighted you’re happy to cancel their salaries for a few weeks from behind your keyboard.

For everyone saying “It’s about health not money” try telling that to people who are about lose income for a number of weeks.

Lack of money means they have to cut back on other things to survive. Bills go unpaid. Think about the toll that takes on mental health too.

Some people are trying to simplify an incredibly complex situation into a snappy soundbite to make themselves sound clever. There are a lot of considerations to take into account before any decision is made.

I never said any such thing and you bloody know it, so stop being so insulting, I will not be drawn into a petty squabble over a matter as serious as this.

I'm confident D.J. will take the correct decisions about this matter at the appropriate time.

H1987 wrote:Totally irresponsible. Regardless of lessened risk outside, 1500 people in a small space is a risk we shouldn't be taking. Just because it will not harm a lot of people doesn't mean we should recklessly spread it and pass it on to others who it might.

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:34 pm

H1987 wrote:Totally irresponsible. Regardless of lessened risk outside, 1500 people in a small space is a risk we shouldn't be taking. Just because it will not harm a lot of people doesn't mean we should recklessly spread it and pass it on to others who it might.

Totally irresponsible to follow the advice of the Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer, you mean?

It’s all well and good taking the moral high ground, but these are clubs which will financially collapse without income. Shut them down for six weeks and clubs will struggle to stay afloat. That’s an inevitable consequence at this level.

If the official advice is they can go ahead, then so be it. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong by the way, more that I think calling it “totally irresponsible” is over the top, unless you’re lack a global pandemic strategy expert.

lo36789 wrote:Tbf the view from government is that cancelling these things could do more harm than good.

If I've interpreted the comms it is possible that it won't flatten the curve as they hoped - it could cause a lull and then the peak they were keen to avoid a few weeks later.

This will mean more strain on NHS and more dead.

I know nothing more than what is reported and it is telling that the medical professionals and scientists are still reasonably calm about what is to come.

murtonquakerfan wrote:

lo36789 wrote:Tbf the view from government is that cancelling these things could do more harm than good.

If I've interpreted the comms it is possible that it won't flatten the curve as they hoped - it could cause a lull and then the peak they were keen to avoid a few weeks later.

This will mean more strain on NHS and more dead.

I know nothing more than what is reported and it is telling that the medical professionals and scientists are still reasonably calm about what is to come.

I don't really understand it, but is the government at the moment just trying to delay the spread hitting it's peak right now...

Im sure I saw something in one of the newspapers the other day someone saying the Peak would have come in 10-14 days, now it seems like people are saying it will peak in 10-14 weeks

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

H1987 wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:34 pm

H1987 wrote:Totally irresponsible. Regardless of lessened risk outside, 1500 people in a small space is a risk we shouldn't be taking. Just because it will not harm a lot of people doesn't mean we should recklessly spread it and pass it on to others who it might.

Totally irresponsible to follow the advice of the Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer, you mean?

It’s all well and good taking the moral high ground, but these are clubs which will financially collapse without income. Shut them down for six weeks and clubs will struggle to stay afloat. That’s an inevitable consequence at this level.

If the official advice is they can go ahead, then so be it. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong by the way, more that I think calling it “totally irresponsible” is over the top, unless you’re lack a global pandemic strategy expert.

Nope, just common sense, and being proactive.

Better to be cautious than be dead. It’s not a moral argument, it’s recognising the severity of the situation and acting appropriately.

So you’d carry on playing every division would you? That was the official line after all.

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:16 pm

H1987 wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:34 pm

H1987 wrote:Totally irresponsible. Regardless of lessened risk outside, 1500 people in a small space is a risk we shouldn't be taking. Just because it will not harm a lot of people doesn't mean we should recklessly spread it and pass it on to others who it might.

Totally irresponsible to follow the advice of the Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer, you mean?

It’s all well and good taking the moral high ground, but these are clubs which will financially collapse without income. Shut them down for six weeks and clubs will struggle to stay afloat. That’s an inevitable consequence at this level.

If the official advice is they can go ahead, then so be it. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong by the way, more that I think calling it “totally irresponsible” is over the top, unless you’re lack a global pandemic strategy expert.

Nope, just common sense, and being proactive.

Better to be cautious than be dead. It’s not a moral argument, it’s recognising the severity of the situation and acting appropriately.

So you’d carry on playing every division would you? That was the official line after all.

As I said earlier (and seemingly flew over your little head), I’m not endorsing either position. I’m just explaining the counter-argument, as set out by the leading scientific and medical minds in the country, and explaining why your “better cautious than dead” hysteria is reductionist and dangerous.

The reason competitions are being postponed is because club players themselves have had to go into isolation. It’s to do with competition integrity and protecting players and staff who have been infected, rather than reducing transmission among spectators, of which the risk is very low at this stage anyway.

You can claim “common sense” all you like, but you haven’t got any evidence for it. It’s a weak tactic and can be disregarded. Are you saying the Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer have no common sense? Come on, stop being ridiculous.

Give me scientific expertise over H1987’s keyboard-based “common sense”. When all you have is reductionist, baseless hysteria, your argument has little credibility.

All I’m saying is the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser have been pretty clear and thorough with their logic and explanations. Go too early and banning large gatherings of people when you’re well before the peak and it ends up being counter-productive. That’s because the public get fatigued and ignore the advice, and longer term it increases the likelihood of further epidemics and outbreaks, while adding strain to the NHS.

Every scientific body says this and has justified this. It’s weird you’re claiming from behind your keyboard you know better, given your lack of expertise.

Worryingly you also seem particularly satisfied for football clubs to go out of business, particularly ones like ours which would be hit worse by cancellations, as we rely on attendances to survive.

quakersfan wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:48 am

I think today will be the last game in along time. As we are run by volunteers at least we don’t have a large non playing wage bill particularly with Craig Morley now left.
If the players and football management were to take a reduction or deferred payment we can get through this. HMRC are notorious in chasing monthly PAYE hopefully that will be relaxed as well as VAT. Also is the cup run money still there or has it already been spent £100k? as this could really help us get through next few months.
I’m the short terms I’m taking 3 people who support other teams along today to boost funds.

bga wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:18 am

quakersfan wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:48 am

I think today will be the last game in along time. As we are run by volunteers at least we don’t have a large non playing wage bill particularly with Craig Morley now left.
If the players and football management were to take a reduction or deferred payment we can get through this. HMRC are notorious in chasing monthly PAYE hopefully that will be relaxed as well as VAT. Also is the cup run money still there or has it already been spent £100k? as this could really help us get through next few months.
I’m the short terms I’m taking 3 people who support other teams along today to boost funds.

"Particularly with Craig Morley now left"......could be interpreted as a dig.....do you know how much he was on? We may still be paying him.

theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:06 am

It does seem strange to hold this game today. It seems that there will be a long lay off with two options at the end of it. Either to declare a kind of ghost season or to ram a load of matches in mid summer. Either way todays game seems a bit pointless.

divas wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:23 pm

No more than a glorified friendly imo.

AndyPark wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:35 pm

divas wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:23 pm

No more than a glorified friendly imo.

Completely disagree, the league will restart again at some point. So points on the point are valuable.

I'd fully expect the team to go out there and give it the best shot of getting the 3 points.

AndyPark wrote:

divas wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:23 pm

No more than a glorified friendly imo.

Completely disagree, the league will restart again at some point. So points on the point are valuable.

I'd fully expect the team to go out there and give it the best shot of getting the 3 points.