Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's their job" It’s not a job! It is a hobby for which a lucky few are very overpaid to participate in  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's their job It’s not a job! It is a hobby for which a lucky few are very overpaid to participate in "A hobby which you train for years Although tbf I was a bit surprised it hasn't been affected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals." You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals." Its actually only 200k. Oh and the money his charity has raised over the lockdown for kids is more than his own personal worth!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So its quite simple really. 1. They can afford to be tested every 3 days. They won't be ruling on the NHS. 2. They won't put strain on the NHS as they can afford to pay for treatment if required. 3. Its behind closed doors so no fans. Less risk than if the stadiums were full. 4. The risk of transmission is lower outside than in. 5. Football generates a lot of money. Every footballer, etc pays their taxes. So its partially about money too. If clubs starting going under there would be a massive blow to economy. 6. Any player who transfers from a European club is mandated to isolate for 14 days before they can join training. Mostly the long and short is because there is the money there to do so. Like TV shows are filming because again they have the money. I mean look at the US as an example. Medical care is not free... they arent locking down or really doing very much. Because it doesn't cost the government if people get sick. Sadly its wealth before health." What I hear from that is two things: It’s ok because they have money It’s not ok to let clubs go under because they generate money, and it’s ok for our clubs and other businesses to go under. The haves and have nots reign again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat." You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So its quite simple really. 1. They can afford to be tested every 3 days. They won't be ruling on the NHS. 2. They won't put strain on the NHS as they can afford to pay for treatment if required. 3. Its behind closed doors so no fans. Less risk than if the stadiums were full. 4. The risk of transmission is lower outside than in. 5. Football generates a lot of money. Every footballer, etc pays their taxes. So its partially about money too. If clubs starting going under there would be a massive blow to economy. 6. Any player who transfers from a European club is mandated to isolate for 14 days before they can join training. Mostly the long and short is because there is the money there to do so. Like TV shows are filming because again they have the money. I mean look at the US as an example. Medical care is not free... they arent locking down or really doing very much. Because it doesn't cost the government if people get sick. Sadly its wealth before health. What I hear from that is two things: It’s ok because they have money It’s not ok to let clubs go under because they generate money, and it’s ok for our clubs and other businesses to go under. The haves and have nots reign again. " Sadly it is due to money!! Which is know is sad. Im not saying its right just saying that's how it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's their job" That ball won't kick itself. Essential service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's their job It’s not a job! It is a hobby for which a lucky few are very overpaid to participate in "Of course it's a job
A hobby is an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure, like.... wanking   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat." Ohhh jealousy rearing it's ugly head | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat." You need to look harder then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Extended social "bubbles".... I really fucking hate that term... "If this isn’t about the haves and have nots why isn’t everyone allowed an extended bubble? I’m just waiting for the first high profile fuck up of the next lockdown and see how they explain it. It’s ridiculous. We are not all in this together. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids?" Omg...a scouse sticking up for a manc? Well I'll be a video assistant referee....never saw that coming  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat." Perhaps you should do some research then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Omg...a scouse sticking up for a manc? Well I'll be a video assistant referee....never saw that coming " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Extended social "bubbles".... I really fucking hate that term...
If this isn’t about the haves and have nots why isn’t everyone allowed an extended bubble?
I’m just waiting for the first high profile fuck up of the next lockdown and see how they explain it. It’s ridiculous. We are not all in this together. "I'd hazard a guess it's because it's their jobs but yes I fully agree it's no way an essential job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky sports subscription went in the bin when I came out of contract back in the spring and I feel so good about that. It's my only little protest and gave me great pleasure when the man from sky phoned to ask me if I wanted to enrol again to sky sports because the season was restarting. I politely told him what to do with his subscription. So 22 + substitutes are allowed to run around kicking a pig skin ball for gazillion amounts of money and I am not allowed to go and have a simple game of tennis where I have the natural opportunity to socially distance in the form of a net, hey I'll even wear my marigolds if that's what it takes. And don't get me going about strictly cum dancing being allowed to continue. Of course they are in a bubble.... Bla Bla Bla. But who the is paying for the bubble in the form of our TV licence. It's to entertain the masses while we enjoy our government backed isolation. Maybe David Icke is right about one thing and the hunger games utopia is becoming reality. This current arrangement is a small step to that bright future." The latter part is becoming more apparent as things go on. He was right about savile how many decades ago? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky sports subscription went in the bin when I came out of contract back in the spring and I feel so good about that. It's my only little protest and gave me great pleasure when the man from sky phoned to ask me if I wanted to enrol again to sky sports because the season was restarting. I politely told him what to do with his subscription. So 22 + substitutes are allowed to run around kicking a pig skin ball for gazillion amounts of money and I am not allowed to go and have a simple game of tennis where I have the natural opportunity to socially distance in the form of a net, hey I'll even wear my marigolds if that's what it takes. And don't get me going about strictly cum dancing being allowed to continue. Of course they are in a bubble.... Bla Bla Bla. But who the is paying for the bubble in the form of our TV licence. It's to entertain the masses while we enjoy our government backed isolation. Maybe David Icke is right about one thing and the hunger games utopia is becoming reality. This current arrangement is a small step to that bright future. The latter part is becoming more apparent as things go on. He was right about savile how many decades ago? " ooops I think it's actually Distopia. My mistake sorry
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat." I fear you may be a touch under informed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sky sports subscription went in the bin when I came out of contract back in the spring and I feel so good about that. It's my only little protest and gave me great pleasure when the man from sky phoned to ask me if I wanted to enrol again to sky sports because the season was restarting. I politely told him what to do with his subscription. So 22 + substitutes are allowed to run around kicking a pig skin ball for gazillion amounts of money and I am not allowed to go and have a simple game of tennis where I have the natural opportunity to socially distance in the form of a net, hey I'll even wear my marigolds if that's what it takes. And don't get me going about strictly cum dancing being allowed to continue. Of course they are in a bubble.... Bla Bla Bla. But who the is paying for the bubble in the form of our TV licence. It's to entertain the masses while we enjoy our government backed isolation. Maybe David Icke is right about one thing and the hunger games utopia is becoming reality. This current arrangement is a small step to that bright future. The latter part is becoming more apparent as things go on. He was right about savile how many decades ago? " Tbf...lots of people were right about saville decades ago...just never really got a look in. Jonny rotten for one example | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So its quite simple really. 1. They can afford to be tested every 3 days. They won't be ruling on the NHS. 2. They won't put strain on the NHS as they can afford to pay for treatment if required. 3. Its behind closed doors so no fans. Less risk than if the stadiums were full. 4. The risk of transmission is lower outside than in. 5. Football generates a lot of money. Every footballer, etc pays their taxes. So its partially about money too. If clubs starting going under there would be a massive blow to economy. 6. Any player who transfers from a European club is mandated to isolate for 14 days before they can join training. Mostly the long and short is because there is the money there to do so. Like TV shows are filming because again they have the money. I mean look at the US as an example. Medical care is not free... they arent locking down or really doing very much. Because it doesn't cost the government if people get sick. Sadly its wealth before health. What I hear from that is two things: It’s ok because they have money It’s not ok to let clubs go under because they generate money, and it’s ok for our clubs and other businesses to go under. The haves and have nots reign again. " Have you the slightest idea how much tax the premiership "hobby" generates or how many hospitals it pays for ? No, I didn't think so | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals." And the tax he pays each week is enough to pay the furlough for a medium size business  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So its quite simple really. 1. They can afford to be tested every 3 days. They won't be ruling on the NHS. 2. They won't put strain on the NHS as they can afford to pay for treatment if required. 3. Its behind closed doors so no fans. Less risk than if the stadiums were full. 4. The risk of transmission is lower outside than in. 5. Football generates a lot of money. Every footballer, etc pays their taxes. So its partially about money too. If clubs starting going under there would be a massive blow to economy. 6. Any player who transfers from a European club is mandated to isolate for 14 days before they can join training. Mostly the long and short is because there is the money there to do so. Like TV shows are filming because again they have the money. I mean look at the US as an example. Medical care is not free... they arent locking down or really doing very much. Because it doesn't cost the government if people get sick. Sadly its wealth before health. What I hear from that is two things: It’s ok because they have money It’s not ok to let clubs go under because they generate money, and it’s ok for our clubs and other businesses to go under. The haves and have nots reign again. Have you the slightest idea how much tax the premiership "hobby" generates or how many hospitals it pays for ? No, I didn't think so " So that’s ok then. Rules for you oiks and special rules for the specials  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So its quite simple really. 1. They can afford to be tested every 3 days. They won't be ruling on the NHS. 2. They won't put strain on the NHS as they can afford to pay for treatment if required. 3. Its behind closed doors so no fans. Less risk than if the stadiums were full. 4. The risk of transmission is lower outside than in. 5. Football generates a lot of money. Every footballer, etc pays their taxes. So its partially about money too. If clubs starting going under there would be a massive blow to economy. 6. Any player who transfers from a European club is mandated to isolate for 14 days before they can join training. Mostly the long and short is because there is the money there to do so. Like TV shows are filming because again they have the money. I mean look at the US as an example. Medical care is not free... they arent locking down or really doing very much. Because it doesn't cost the government if people get sick. Sadly its wealth before health. What I hear from that is two things: It’s ok because they have money It’s not ok to let clubs go under because they generate money, and it’s ok for our clubs and other businesses to go under. The haves and have nots reign again. Have you the slightest idea how much tax the premiership "hobby" generates or how many hospitals it pays for ? No, I didn't think so So that’s ok then. Rules for you oiks and special rules for the specials "Yes absolutely it's ok You're being completely absurd and probably jealous. It's a BUSINESS there are lots of other BUSINESS that are open which don't involve public mixing and spreading the virus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids?" No, it's the responsibility of the parents! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? No, it's the responsibility of the parents!" So not footy players? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived." Oh no, how will he live with 100m stashed away?! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Omg...a scouse sticking up for a manc? Well I'll be a video assistant referee....never saw that coming " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Omg...a scouse sticking up for a manc? Well I'll be a video assistant referee....never saw that coming " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived. Oh no, how will he live with 100m stashed away?!" You have a point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So its quite simple really. 1. They can afford to be tested every 3 days. They won't be ruling on the NHS. 2. They won't put strain on the NHS as they can afford to pay for treatment if required. 3. Its behind closed doors so no fans. Less risk than if the stadiums were full. 4. The risk of transmission is lower outside than in. 5. Football generates a lot of money. Every footballer, etc pays their taxes. So its partially about money too. If clubs starting going under there would be a massive blow to economy. 6. Any player who transfers from a European club is mandated to isolate for 14 days before they can join training. Mostly the long and short is because there is the money there to do so. Like TV shows are filming because again they have the money. I mean look at the US as an example. Medical care is not free... they arent locking down or really doing very much. Because it doesn't cost the government if people get sick. Sadly its wealth before health." Medical care for covid is free in the states | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived." A career of 15years at £200k/year would be more than plenty for a very comfortable life. He earns far more in one year than the average person earns in 40 years. If he doesn’t piss it away his income doesn’t have to end after his playing career either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes some people clearly don't know the North West scouse and mancs get on fine many share same political views music and culture, it's just a game off football twice a year when rivalries commence. " Speak for yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived. A career of 15years at £200k/year would be more than plenty for a very comfortable life. He earns far more in one year than the average person earns in 40 years. If he doesn’t piss it away his income doesn’t have to end after his playing career either. " I'm not sure how much rashford earns is any way relevant to school kids getting fed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived." If he was on 15k per week for 15 years, hed still have enough to cover him the rest of his life, so the short career argument as to why they get 200k p.w is bollox. 15k pw over 15 years is over 10m minus tax, still about 6m, so im sure tgey could get by | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived. If he was on 15k per week for 15 years, hed still have enough to cover him the rest of his life, so the short career argument as to why they get 200k p.w is bollox. 15k pw over 15 years is over 10m minus tax, still about 6m, so im sure tgey could get by" Again This is relevant how? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m sure this will have been covered before but can anyone explain how it’s ok for a group of guys who all have separate homes to play together for 90 mins? I saw some footage of a changing room last weekend (think it might have been rugby this time) and the guys were hugging and jumping around etc." You know this is a tricky one, ultimately they are lucky that they are tested on such a regular basis, there’s nothing reckless about their behaviour. I tend to think of it as a positive, it’s a taste of normality to see a bit of sport going on and yes I can understand why it’s a bit frustrating to see players being in such a privileged position but in honesty I think what they are doing provides more good for the population than bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So that’s ok then. Rules for you oiks and special rules for the specials "In fairness... I also get tested once a week, in our own way our little nhs team have a big group hug and a macabre giggle about the fact we aren’t dying again this week. We are all missing out at the moment, everyone is enduring hardship and for professional sportspeople we can’t comprehend what it’s like to perform on stage without an audience. I think we all need to be careful about being critical of people taking what bits of joy they can currently. That’s fuelled by our individual sense of loss, to vent it at others doesn’t help anyone x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids?" It's also not the state or tax payers job to feed them either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? It's also not the state or tax payers job to feed them either. " Ermmm we are talking about young children Not being able to eat, do you have any idea how much of a c&nt that kind of flippant dismissal could paint you as? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? It's also not the state or tax payers job to feed them either. " Actually it is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? It's also not the state or tax payers job to feed them either. Actually it is" Bugger, to think of all the money I spent feeding my children as they grew up, if I had known it was the state's job to pay for their food I could have saved a fortune. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? It's also not the state or tax payers job to feed them either. Actually it is Bugger, to think of all the money I spent feeding my children as they grew up, if I had known it was the state's job to pay for their food I could have saved a fortune." Perhaps you could Google the welfare state? It will tell you all you need to know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived. A career of 15years at £200k/year would be more than plenty for a very comfortable life. He earns far more in one year than the average person earns in 40 years. If he doesn’t piss it away his income doesn’t have to end after his playing career either. " Sounds like the politics of envy. If you want to earn 200k a month, develop or learn a skill that makes you special enough to command that kind of money. Don't begrudge others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived. If he was on 15k per week for 15 years, hed still have enough to cover him the rest of his life, so the short career argument as to why they get 200k p.w is bollox. 15k pw over 15 years is over 10m minus tax, still about 6m, so im sure tgey could get by Again This is relevant how?" I was just replying to the comment about how its a short career so they should get big money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m sure this will have been covered before but can anyone explain how it’s ok for a group of guys who all have separate homes to play together for 90 mins? I saw some footage of a changing room last weekend (think it might have been rugby this time) and the guys were hugging and jumping around etc." So what is your point? Would you rather that they stopped professional sports where there is next to no risk and where they generally operate in a bubble and have no impact on the health service or others.? Ignoring that it provides entertainment and a little light relief for millions from the wall to wall covid coverage? Or is your point that professional sports people who are tested twice a week, often live in isolated bubble hotels away from partners and friends (cricketers. International Rugby International football, f1), get fined and dropped for any behaviour breaches.. Should lose their livelihoods for no good reason other than spite? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat. You realise he has been donating?? And he set up a charity which has raised over 20million. Don't see ANY of the incredibly wealth tories donating their person wealth either!! Hes on 200k a week. But do remember in around 15 years his career is over. Thats it. The money is short lived. If he was on 15k per week for 15 years, hed still have enough to cover him the rest of his life, so the short career argument as to why they get 200k p.w is bollox. 15k pw over 15 years is over 10m minus tax, still about 6m, so im sure tgey could get by Again This is relevant how? I was just replying to the comment about how its a short career so they should get big money" Ah ok Another post brought up his salary in relation to the school meals thing and couldnt see the link. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m sure this will have been covered before but can anyone explain how it’s ok for a group of guys who all have separate homes to play together for 90 mins? I saw some footage of a changing room last weekend (think it might have been rugby this time) and the guys were hugging and jumping around etc. So what is your point? Would you rather that they stopped professional sports where there is next to no risk and where they generally operate in a bubble and have no impact on the health service or others.? Ignoring that it provides entertainment and a little light relief for millions from the wall to wall covid coverage? Or is your point that professional sports people who are tested twice a week, often live in isolated bubble hotels away from partners and friends (cricketers. International Rugby International football, f1), get fined and dropped for any behaviour breaches.. Should lose their livelihoods for no good reason other than spite? " Spite? Where was that? You sure are reading a lot into it and making big assumptions! Yes this is their work. But no, no one else in a Workplace gets to hug and get that close. Anyone who can’t safely distance is told they can’t work. That’s kind of my point and query to it, not spite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes this prat gets £300000 a week, I don't see him donating his pay towards what he his asking us to feed the school kids out of our Taxes, one big over paid Prat." What he gets paid has nothing to do with the charity work he's doing and he hasn't forced anyone to donate. There are a lot of millionaires who have charities that ask people to donate money coz it's a way to help those who don't have plus he also donates he's not just asking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's their job It’s not a job! It is a hobby for which a lucky few are very overpaid to participate in "It is a job and it has nothing to do with luck,these boys start at a very young age and there's a lot of hard work that goes into it not just the 90 minutes that we watch on match day. Its talent and hard work not luck. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m sure this will have been covered before but can anyone explain how it’s ok for a group of guys who all have separate homes to play together for 90 mins? I saw some footage of a changing room last weekend (think it might have been rugby this time) and the guys were hugging and jumping around etc." I think alot of it is to do with the morale of the nation, as I am not a football supporter I don’t understand this but listening to the news about football over the last few months I totally started to realise how football is one of the pillars of our country. Its quite bizarre to me but it helps to keep people happy so mental health is improved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids?" Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's their job It’s not a job! It is a hobby for which a lucky few are very overpaid to participate in
It is a job and it has nothing to do with luck,these boys start at a very young age and there's a lot of hard work that goes into it not just the 90 minutes that we watch on match day. Its talent and hard work not luck." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m sure this will have been covered before but can anyone explain how it’s ok for a group of guys who all have separate homes to play together for 90 mins? I saw some footage of a changing room last weekend (think it might have been rugby this time) and the guys were hugging and jumping around etc. I think alot of it is to do with the morale of the nation, as I am not a football supporter I don’t understand this but listening to the news about football over the last few months I totally started to realise how football is one of the pillars of our country. Its quite bizarre to me but it helps to keep people happy so mental health is improved." No wonder the country is in a mess then if we put people who can’t even play as a team when playing for their country as pillars of our society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m sure this will have been covered before but can anyone explain how it’s ok for a group of guys who all have separate homes to play together for 90 mins? I saw some footage of a changing room last weekend (think it might have been rugby this time) and the guys were hugging and jumping around etc. So what is your point? Would you rather that they stopped professional sports where there is next to no risk and where they generally operate in a bubble and have no impact on the health service or others.? Ignoring that it provides entertainment and a little light relief for millions from the wall to wall covid coverage? Or is your point that professional sports people who are tested twice a week, often live in isolated bubble hotels away from partners and friends (cricketers. International Rugby International football, f1), get fined and dropped for any behaviour breaches.. Should lose their livelihoods for no good reason other than spite? Spite? Where was that? You sure are reading a lot into it and making big assumptions! Yes this is their work. But no, no one else in a Workplace gets to hug and get that close. Anyone who can’t safely distance is told they can’t work. That’s kind of my point and query to it, not spite "Ah OK, then apologise for that misunderstanding. As for their goal celebrations and post match. Yes I agree. I'm sure part of the conditions of elite football restarting was... Fist bumps only, no spitting, no hugs etc... And if they showed a bit of restraint I'm sure it would help her the message through to others that may still need it. F1 for example have been good to ensure they are seen on camera to be following local rules re social distancing. That said there have been very few cases in football. The crown Prince of football Ronaldo being one of them. One big outbreak in rugby at Sale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table? "Not everyone struggling to feed their kids fritters their income of such expenses, but those who do fit that mould are shameful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table? "Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here."
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table? "Nothing like quite like baseless mass inaccurate generalizations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Football will keep an awful lot of people happy during lockdown down. Sport is a welcome escape for fans. " And so is doing it in a socially distanced way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve got some on topic (football) and off topic (kids going hungry) points... Football.. It’s not just premier league football that’s continuing, it’s all professional sport... And there is regular testing and contact tracing in place... it’s probably about as safe as things can get in a working environment right now. Contrast this with my job... I can’t work from home, and I work closely on a shift with 15 other people for a minimum of 48 hours a week... we have NO testing, but do follow the 2m distancing rule and wear masks indoors etc... but as it stands, my workplace is far more of an infection risk than a football club.... Feeding kids... Everyone brings up footballers wages when it comes to this because it’s a footballer that has shone a light on the issue... why aren’t people slating investment fund managers, CEO’s, and those with inherited wealth?.. not to mention politicians who have cushy consultancy jobs on the side?... or what about the Corporations that the government allow to pay little to know tax so that they keep people employed? There are people in this country that earn far more than footballers that pay far less in tax... As for where the help comes from... If a child is hungry because it’s parents have lost their job or are on restricted salaries because of a government’s mishandling of a pandemic response, then it’s absolutely the responsibility of the government to pick up the slack... " Simple answer Because people believe the nonsense thats printed in the likes of the mail and the rag. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve got some on topic (football) and off topic (kids going hungry) points... Football.. It’s not just premier league football that’s continuing, it’s all professional sport... And there is regular testing and contact tracing in place... it’s probably about as safe as things can get in a working environment right now. Contrast this with my job... I can’t work from home, and I work closely on a shift with 15 other people for a minimum of 48 hours a week... we have NO testing, but do follow the 2m distancing rule and wear masks indoors etc... but as it stands, my workplace is far more of an infection risk than a football club.... Feeding kids... Everyone brings up footballers wages when it comes to this because it’s a footballer that has shone a light on the issue... why aren’t people slating investment fund managers, CEO’s, and those with inherited wealth?.. not to mention politicians who have cushy consultancy jobs on the side?... or what about the Corporations that the government allow to pay little to know tax so that they keep people employed? There are people in this country that earn far more than footballers that pay far less in tax... As for where the help comes from... If a child is hungry because it’s parents have lost their job or are on restricted salaries because of a government’s mishandling of a pandemic response, then it’s absolutely the responsibility of the government to pick up the slack... Simple answer Because people believe the nonsense thats printed in the likes of the mail and the rag." Unfortunately yes... see also Migrants, Muslims, Brexit.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here.
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though."No but now you draw the comparison. The person we elect to run the country gets paid just over 3k a week. That would nt even get him in the top 500 footballers. Worth reflecting on where our values are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here.
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though.
No but now you draw the comparison. The person we elect to run the country gets paid just over 3k a week. That would nt even get him in the top 500 footballers. Worth reflecting on where our values are.
"Football is big business, big business that creates alot of jobs directly and indirectly. Clubs can create alot of wealth for their owners and shareholders. By speculating to accumulate they can create themselves even more wealth. The players are entitled to their share imo. It's rather pathetic how footballers are these days seen as pariahs due to their salary. It's used as a stick to beat them with continually and as a barometer against other salaries etc when fact is it has absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever. All this crap at start of covid from MPs demanding footballers put a share of their wage into the NHS. No they shouldn't, that's purely the job of the MPs. Maybe they should look at themselves rather than create scapegoats in footballers for the shortfalls they've created in society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here.
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though.
No but now you draw the comparison. The person we elect to run the country gets paid just over 3k a week. That would nt even get him in the top 500 footballers. Worth reflecting on where our values are.
Football is big business, big business that creates alot of jobs directly and indirectly. Clubs can create alot of wealth for their owners and shareholders. By speculating to accumulate they can create themselves even more wealth. The players are entitled to their share imo. It's rather pathetic how footballers are these days seen as pariahs due to their salary. It's used as a stick to beat them with continually and as a barometer against other salaries etc when fact is it has absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever. All this crap at start of covid from MPs demanding footballers put a share of their wage into the NHS. No they shouldn't, that's purely the job of the MPs. Maybe they should look at themselves rather than create scapegoats in footballers for the shortfalls they've created in society."Don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting anything about footballers... Or indeed our elected mps who in theory are our elected leadership team and opposition. What I'm highlighting is that one is a leisure pursuit which is marketed and sold rather well to millions of people and the other a more serious matter of running and defending the nation . And the fact that one group are paid 100 times more than the others. We sometimes find it easier to defend the mistakes of a footballer as an example who has a party, in breach of guidelines than an MP who does something similar. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here.
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though.
No but now you draw the comparison. The person we elect to run the country gets paid just over 3k a week. That would nt even get him in the top 500 footballers. Worth reflecting on where our values are.
Football is big business, big business that creates alot of jobs directly and indirectly. Clubs can create alot of wealth for their owners and shareholders. By speculating to accumulate they can create themselves even more wealth. The players are entitled to their share imo. It's rather pathetic how footballers are these days seen as pariahs due to their salary. It's used as a stick to beat them with continually and as a barometer against other salaries etc when fact is it has absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever. All this crap at start of covid from MPs demanding footballers put a share of their wage into the NHS. No they shouldn't, that's purely the job of the MPs. Maybe they should look at themselves rather than create scapegoats in footballers for the shortfalls they've created in society.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting anything about footballers... Or indeed our elected mps who in theory are our elected leadership team and opposition. What I'm highlighting is that one is a leisure pursuit which is marketed and sold rather well to millions of people and the other a more serious matter of running and defending the nation . And the fact that one group are paid 100 times more than the others. We sometimes find it easier to defend the mistakes of a footballer as an example who has a party, in breach of guidelines than an MP who does something similar. "What's the difference between premier league football and coronation streets eastenders or any other tv program ? People get paid to entertain us Some like football others like shite like that dance program. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here.
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though.
No but now you draw the comparison. The person we elect to run the country gets paid just over 3k a week. That would nt even get him in the top 500 footballers. Worth reflecting on where our values are.
"I do get what you are trying to say and I agree many peoples values are questionable. Boris choose to take the job of PM though and surely he has other money and doesnt have to rely solely on his salary. There are also many perks he and other MPs of all parties get too. I also think many would be very happy earning around £3000 a week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here.
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though.
No but now you draw the comparison. The person we elect to run the country gets paid just over 3k a week. That would nt even get him in the top 500 footballers. Worth reflecting on where our values are.
I do get what you are trying to say and I agree many peoples values are questionable.
Boris choose to take the job of PM though and surely he has other money and doesnt have to rely solely on his salary.
There are also many perks he and other MPs of all parties get too.
I also think many would be very happy earning around £3000 a week.
"I suspected Boris name would come up. Whether it is Boris or any other prime minister or MP is not the relevant point. So we expect excellent leadership from a prime minister, from MPs, from a leader of the opposition and opposition MPs, and we hang them out to dry because they have a subsidised bar. Who get paid less than a 100th of a 20 year old footballer. Now substitute the footballer (see what I did there?) for a ftse 250 company ceo... The same is true. And yet we expect them to all be excellent at their job, to sway to public opinion every 5 minutes, whilst being under the closest of public scrutiny....if we have such high expectations perhaps we should recruit better people.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can anyone moan about what football have I’m Sure all hungry families and kids that are hungry ain’t sat thinking what footballer earns Their happy to receive a meal And thanks to him bigger company with more wealth are helping " He's done amazing stuff in a really mature way for such a young man... And he isn't bad at kicking a ball either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here.
Footballers are overpaid but Marcus Rashord wasnt elected to run the country and look after people when they fall on hard times the goverment was . And lets be honest if you were offered £300,000 a week to do your job would you turn it down even if you though you were being grossly overpaid .I think not . That could be a very big assumption on my part though.
No but now you draw the comparison. The person we elect to run the country gets paid just over 3k a week. That would nt even get him in the top 500 footballers. Worth reflecting on where our values are.
I do get what you are trying to say and I agree many peoples values are questionable.
Boris choose to take the job of PM though and surely he has other money and doesnt have to rely solely on his salary.
There are also many perks he and other MPs of all parties get too.
I also think many would be very happy earning around £3000 a week.
I suspected Boris name would come up. Whether it is Boris or any other prime minister or MP is not the relevant point. So we expect excellent leadership from a prime minister, from MPs, from a leader of the opposition and opposition MPs, and we hang them out to dry because they have a subsidised bar. Who get paid less than a 100th of a 20 year old footballer. Now substitute the footballer (see what I did there?) for a ftse 250 company ceo... The same is true.
And yet we expect them to all be excellent at their job, to sway to public opinion every 5 minutes, whilst being under the closest of public scrutiny....if we have such high expectations perhaps we should recruit better people.?
"Just because you might not think its relevant that doesnt make it so and Im sure there are more perks than just a subsidised bar. I dont expect exellence from all MPs or the PM . What I do expect is for them to try their best. To be honest up-front trustworthy and even humble, admit when they get things wrong not try to pass the buck or cover up for people when it suits there agenda . At the end of the day peoples lives and liveihoods are at stake here. I dont expect them to sway to public opinion either. I think they would be much better thought of if they hadent dithered and changed their minds and the rules so often. Simple and clear instructions that most could understand and follow instead of trying to complicate things. See what I did there ........I had my own opinion
You are entitled to yours too so I think we should just agree to disagree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Marcus Rashford still needs to get his £300,000 a week while telling the Government to give free school meals. You realise it's not the responsibility of a footballer to feed school kids? Nope that should fall to the parents. Maybe if they cancelled their Sky, mobile phone contracts and gave up The cigarettes, they could put food on the table?
Rather judgemental stereotyping there. Staggering how many people here are trying to justify kids going hungry. Some folk can put up as many glamorous photos as they like but should look at how ugly they are on the inside. Some absolutely shameful morals and comments here."Well as we both grew up from this background, think we know the reality rather than the picture painted by those justifying it!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
