|
Post by munchymagic on Jan 8, 2024 21:41:34 GMT
If we did get ten to twenty million then I would hope that at least two million would be earmarked at reducing poverty in Carlisle, build some of those pods for the homeless in CUFC colours to sleep in and sort out an infrastructure that would hopefully last years and not just a flash in the pan. I know it is their business and money but if faced with that amount of a cash windfall then spending a good whack of it on inflated fees and wages to footballers just feels wrong to me, you could still do all that minus the two million. It would fund a hell of a training facility - and pay for the waterworks to be rebuilt. You could still do that with the 18 million sitting in the account, it would still happen if you donated the money. This is free money remember, after you have blown it all by throwing it firstly at agents then straight into a footballers pocket you would still have something of value to the city in general in Carlisle colours. I couldn't see that many who would disapprove as the club would be helping the hardest hit in the community - they could even be blues themselves.
|
|
lordpiatek
Stephane Pounewatchy
Posts: 108
Likes: 51
|
Post by lordpiatek on Jan 8, 2024 21:47:10 GMT
If we did get ten to twenty million then I would hope that at least two million would be earmarked at reducing poverty in Carlisle, build some of those pods for the homeless in CUFC colours to sleep in and sort out an infrastructure that would hopefully last years and not just a flash in the pan. I know it is their business and money but if faced with that amount of a cash windfall then spending a good whack of it on inflated fees and wages to footballers just feels wrong to me, you could still do all that minus the two million. Do it your ******* self, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by munchymagic on Jan 8, 2024 21:49:54 GMT
If we did get ten to twenty million then I would hope that at least two million would be earmarked at reducing poverty in Carlisle, build some of those pods for the homeless in CUFC colours to sleep in and sort out an infrastructure that would hopefully last years and not just a flash in the pan. I know it is their business and money but if faced with that amount of a cash windfall then spending a good whack of it on inflated fees and wages to footballers just feels wrong to me, you could still do all that minus the two million. Do it your ******* self, to be honest. A bit mean spirited pal. If I had that sort of money then I would.
|
|
|
Post by Big Brother on Jan 8, 2024 22:15:15 GMT
It would fund a hell of a training facility - and pay for the waterworks to be rebuilt. You could still do that with the 18 million sitting in the account, it would still happen if you donated the money. This is free money remember, after you have blown it all by throwing it firstly at agents then straight into a footballers pocket you would still have something of value to the city in general in Carlisle colours. I couldn't see that many who would disapprove as the club would be helping the hardest hit in the community - they could even be blues themselves. All for a bit of community outreach - but investing that money (wisely) in the club could do even more for the city in the long run...
|
|
|
Post by munchymagic on Jan 8, 2024 22:30:43 GMT
You could still do that with the 18 million sitting in the account, it would still happen if you donated the money. This is free money remember, after you have blown it all by throwing it firstly at agents then straight into a footballers pocket you would still have something of value to the city in general in Carlisle colours. I couldn't see that many who would disapprove as the club would be helping the hardest hit in the community - they could even be blues themselves. All for a bit of community outreach - but investing that money (wisely) in the club could do even more for the city in the long run... You could have put it more succinctly by saying "sod the homeless".
|
|
|
Post by Big Brother on Jan 8, 2024 22:37:58 GMT
All for a bit of community outreach - but investing that money (wisely) in the club could do even more for the city in the long run... You could have put it more succinctly by saying "sod the homeless". Na, that's never been my take. Nor will it ever be. Homeless shelters would be a noble cause, and would provide welcome respite for folk in need. Conversely, investing in infrastructure and developing the club could bring money in to the club (and the city), helping to provide much needed jobs for folk in need of them. In turn, that could help reduce the number of folk who end up on the streets. Not saying which is the better option in the long term, just that the 'obvious' solution isn't always the best one.
|
|
|
Post by munchymagic on Jan 8, 2024 22:48:09 GMT
You could have put it more succinctly by saying "sod the homeless". Na, that's never been my take. Nor will it ever be. Homeless shelters would be a noble cause, and would provide welcome respite for folk in need. Conversely, investing in infrastructure and developing the club could bring money in to the club (and the city), helping to provide much needed jobs for folk in need of them. In turn, that could help reduce the number of folk who end up on the streets. Not saying which is the better option in the long term, just that the 'obvious' solution isn't always the best one. Predicting that there will be fewer homeless people if the club kept the two million is pretty bizarre. Short term there are homeless people. With that sort of money you could have your cake and eat it. It isn't my money - it is just what I would do.
|
|
|
Post by pigletphoenix on Jan 8, 2024 22:53:26 GMT
Homeless shelters don't solve the root causes of homelessness.
What you'd be doing is effectively funding a workhouse, Victorian style.
I'd argue social care is the responsibility of government not of a football club which is, in itself, a community asset.
Therefore investing in the infrastructure of the club creates jobs and boosts the economy so greater tax dollars go to providing social support. In theory at least.
|
|
|
Post by Big Brother on Jan 8, 2024 22:59:51 GMT
Na, that's never been my take. Nor will it ever be. Homeless shelters would be a noble cause, and would provide welcome respite for folk in need. Conversely, investing in infrastructure and developing the club could bring money in to the club (and the city), helping to provide much needed jobs for folk in need of them. In turn, that could help reduce the number of folk who end up on the streets. Not saying which is the better option in the long term, just that the 'obvious' solution isn't always the best one. Predicting that there will be fewer homeless people if the club kept the two million is pretty bizarre. Short term there are homeless people. With that sort of money you could have your cake and eat it. It isn't my money - it is just what I would do. Using the £ to develop infrastructure and create jobs is not the same as 'keeping it' - and if done right it can lead to long term benefits for the city, including keeping people in work. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Homeless shelters are a worthy cause, but so are many others. Where do you stop? Not saying you're wrong to want to help - but it's not the club's primary responsibility to solve the ills of society. It has a role to play, but giving away 10% of what is likely to be the biggest windfall the club ever receives seems excessive to me. There are bigger businesses than Carlisle United with roots in the city. If we're looking to the private sector, we should look to stable businesses with much higher income. I doubt very much that we'll be getting anywhere near the figure (20%) being bandied about anyway, even if Branthwaite does go for anything like the £100 million people seem to be expecting. 10%? Maybe, but even then it will be in instalments, and the full amount will likely never be paid.
|
|
|
Post by munchymagic on Jan 8, 2024 23:04:25 GMT
Homeless shelters don't solve the root causes of homelessness. What you'd be doing is effectively funding a workhouse, Victorian style. I'd argue social care is the responsibility of government not of a football club which is, in itself, a community asset. Therefore investing in the infrastructure of the club creates jobs and boosts the economy so greater tax dollars go to providing social support. In theory at least. I would have agreed with you until only recently I was reading about them. No longer just a shed for shelter, they now offer better safety, health checks and a stepping stone into permanent accommodation and assistance for people with mental problems. Take a look - www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/new-homeless-pods-installed-near-8570494I understand that this is not the clubs issue, but I can think of far worse things to spend some money on.
|
|
|
Post by munchymagic on Jan 8, 2024 23:08:54 GMT
Predicting that there will be fewer homeless people if the club kept the two million is pretty bizarre. Short term there are homeless people. With that sort of money you could have your cake and eat it. It isn't my money - it is just what I would do. Using the £ to develop infrastructure and create jobs is not the same as 'keeping it' - and if done right it can lead to long term benefits for the city, including keeping people in work. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Homeless shelters are a worthy cause, but so are many others. Where do you stop? Not saying you're wrong to want to help - but it's not the club's primary responsibility to solve the ills of society. It has a role to play, but giving away 10% of what is likely to be the biggest windfall the club ever receives seems excessive to me. There are bigger businesses than Carlisle United with roots in the city. If we're looking to the private sector, we should look to stable businesses with much higher income. I doubt very much that we'll be getting anywhere near the figure (20%) being bandied about anyway, even if Branthwaite does go for anything like the £100 million people seem to be expecting. 10%? Maybe, but even then it will be in instalments, and the full amount will likely never be paid. Just posted a link, it is basically assistance to get them off the streets. Maybe I was rash and the figure to set this up is far lower. It was just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by blue22 on Jan 8, 2024 23:20:39 GMT
Move the pitch and build two end stands, build a state of the art training facility that can be used by the public also, more conference facilities in the stands that provide venues and income for the club and more jobs for people. Letting out office space might of been a goer in the past but the new work from home policy that now seems to be the way forward for many employers/employees probably negates any real demand for office space.
|
|
|
Post by Big Brother on Jan 8, 2024 23:22:43 GMT
Using the £ to develop infrastructure and create jobs is not the same as 'keeping it' - and if done right it can lead to long term benefits for the city, including keeping people in work. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Homeless shelters are a worthy cause, but so are many others. Where do you stop? Not saying you're wrong to want to help - but it's not the club's primary responsibility to solve the ills of society. It has a role to play, but giving away 10% of what is likely to be the biggest windfall the club ever receives seems excessive to me. There are bigger businesses than Carlisle United with roots in the city. If we're looking to the private sector, we should look to stable businesses with much higher income. I doubt very much that we'll be getting anywhere near the figure (20%) being bandied about anyway, even if Branthwaite does go for anything like the £100 million people seem to be expecting. 10%? Maybe, but even then it will be in instalments, and the full amount will likely never be paid. Just posted a link, it is basically assistance to get them off the streets. Maybe I was rash and the figure to set this up is far lower. It was just a thought. Nowt wrong with the thought munch, I'd love to solve homelessness - just don't think it's in the club's power (or remit) to do so. As piglet said, this is an issue only the government can solve in the long run. And it's been a long time since there was a government I had faith in to take the bull by the horns and do something to fix it - in fact, it's not happened in my lifetime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2024 0:11:37 GMT
If we’re going to invest the money we’ll inevitably get from Branthwaite, surely the priority is putting safe standing in both the Warwick, Paddock and Waterworks along with a roof.
Appreciate getting rid of the terracing wouldn’t be easy but it’s the only way to keep the current standing area in the ground rather than make it fully all seater. A very large proportion of our fan base stands on a match day, probably a bigger percentage than most clubs in the country and that’s something we should treasure.
We’ll need to make the ground ready for when we reach the championship anyway…
|
|
|
Post by northernsoul on Jan 9, 2024 0:33:50 GMT
I understood our cut to be 20% which would be a huge amount for us that could be used to fund the infractucture/ facilities/ ground etc however it is paid out it will be win win for the club when he does move which given Evertons money issues, I think will happen. I would be pretty sure that if we had 20% on it and there was talk of a 100 million fee Jenkins would have been straight on the phone to McQuarries to do a deal to get some cash straight away a long time ago.
|
|