no but the state can and does and i certainly can have an opinion on people who when faced with the choice of feeding his family in winter or paying to watch football.
state has intervened for at least 40 years to my certain knowledge to protect families vital services i.e. water , fuel and tbh i'm staggered you think this is a bad thing .
Let's go back to the beginning of this conversation. You said you could see people not going back to football when it returns because of financial restrictions. I said that I didn't think it would alter, less money or not, they will continue to go to the game. You then said they need to get their priorities straight and I said you can't decide other people's priorities for them. You said the state already has and I questioned - wow, the state is telling people what they can and can't spend their money on? I'm genuinely puzzled by your last comment. I'm not sure what point you're making and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think 'is a bad thing '. All I know is that there are no restrictions, from the government or anyone else I can think of, on how you choose to spend your money. There are plenty of people on very low incomes who will choose to go to a football match or out drinking or gambling when their families may need the money spent on them. Do I think it's right that some people choose to spend money on themselves when their families are in need, no, I don't think it's right at all. But I do believe that it's their choice and other than personally counselling someone on 'doing the right thing ' if the opportunity presented itself to me, there's nothing I can do about it. You seem to know something I don't so maybe you can tell me what the government are doing to show these people what order their priorities should be.
its fairly simple when people who are in receipt of certain bills are unable to pay their utility bills part of their benefit can be used to pay the utility companies directly . My point was and remains a lot of people are going to find themselves in a financial problems and many of them may have little or no experience of means tested benefits .I believe many will make the choice to only spend money on the essentials until things hopefully pick up .
I don't agree with your last sentence. Just my opinion, no big deal. I still hold that you can't tell people what their priorities 'should' be by replacing their values with yours. Sorry that staggered you
seriously you think a family of 4 with 2 young children should have their heating and water cut off as the father is an alcoholic / gambler /feckless twat rather than the state paying a proportion of their benefit directly to the suppliers . It really comes down to that simple decision .
People's priorities are a tough one. I see plenty of young families in my line of work whose priorities are simply wrong. Pouring money into pubs, football tickets, latest phones,sky subscriptions, fast foot, etc whilst their kids wear shoes to school with holes in (literally), have atrocious diets or suggest they can't afford to wash their clothes every week (yes, this has been said). Knocks me sick. Whether it's to do with uneducation, unawareness a lack or caring is irrelevant. There's a case to be made about people's right to choose for themselves how they spend 'their' money, but there's a case to be made about some people needing to be dictated to about what their priorities have to be. I know there are many who do well with little but sadly this isn't always the situation; this is why blanket rules don't work, why there'll be complaints either way and why nothing will change. How football financially changes will be interesting though. Will TV subs be increased so that clubs can make up partly for loss of ticket revenue? Probably not, and people are already stretched financially, but don't underestimate the greed of broadcasters and club owners. On a different note: Some clubs seem very against the idea of playing at neutral stadiums with no fans...Can someone explain to me the benefits of a home stadium when there's no home support? At the end of the day, a stadium is a patch of grass with four sides. It's the fans which make the difference between home and away primarily. The only other consideration I could think of is players' travelling to and from the stadiums, but then I thought the whole idea was the blitz out the games quickly and they'd all be isolated from non-football people anyway so going home wouldn't be an option either
You can make up as many scenarios as you like, I'm not saying what's right or wrong, I'm just saying it as it is. No matter how much you or me or the government or anyone else think that paying your bills and looking after your family comes first, not all people hold that as their number one priority. It should be, of course it should be but not everyone sees it like that. Out of interest is there anyone in your life with drink, drugs or gambling problem that you've tried to advise? If there is how well did it go?
advised financially no but i have redirected peoples benefits to the water board etc without a qualm .
Very well thought out post. I agree entirely that some people will be guided into doing the right thing but there are probably as many who won't. In terms of the complainants about neutral venues, you only have to look at who it is who's complaining, the bottom 6. They have tried everything to stop any solution to finishing the league that sees them possibly relegated. They don't want to play out the season because there are more important things to be concerned about .... what's that , no relegation .... of course we'll play .....This is just the latest ruse to save themselves.
Thanx for that. I hate the DM too, but that was the point of the ****ing post. I'm answering on here as I'm staying away from the Prem boards now!
Why do you need to play at neutral venues? Both teams still have to travel, even if they play it behind closed doors at a neutral ground so just let the home teams play at their home ground.
The only argument I've heard is they want venues in the middle of nowhere with lots of parking space because everyone will be arriving in their own car for social distancing.
Of course the bottom 6 aren’t happy with the idea. Home advantage is crucial in the relegation run in, especially if they’ve got some of the better sides to play. As it’s generally home form that is the key for sides battling the drop to escape. The reverse fixtures were played under normal circumstances, so they’re at a massive disadvantage playing the remaining fixtures at neutral locations minus fans. Calling it a ‘ruse’ is completely ignoring their actual point, that’s a valid one. Hence the reason the rumour is that the neutral venue solution, to include relegation, won’t get the backing of 14 of the clubs, so it seems others agree with them.
Nobody will have home advantage so it's a completely irrelevant point, not valid at all. Home advantage is only an advantage anyway because of the fans. Nobody knows what will be put to a vote so it's all speculation atm. Here's another one though if you're interested in rumours ' Sky and BT will pay the tv money only if promotions and relegations go ahead.
