Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] The Furlough Argument



Lenny Rider

Well-known member
Sep 15, 2010
5,364
In the last 24 hours or so, two names have been thrown into the bear pit by the media, Mike Tindall, Prince Anne's son in law and James Matthews, Prince Williams brother in law, who have both been criticised for putting members of their staff into the furlough scheme.

But surely if everything is above board, they shouldn't be slagged off for doing this? I'm sure both of them have paid enough personal and corporation tax and NI over the years, its not like they are taking out when they haven't paid into the system?
 

Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,584
In the last 24 hours or so, two names have been thrown into the bear pit by the media, Mike Tindall, Prince Anne's son in law and James Matthews, Prince Williams brother in law, who have both been criticised for putting members of their staff into the furlough scheme.

But surely if everything is above board, they shouldn't be slagged off for doing this? I'm sure both of them have paid enough personal and corporation tax and NI over the years, its not like they are taking out when they haven't paid into the system?

I assume neither are on the civil list?
If so, then it's entirely up to them what they do isn't it?
 

blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
If its OK for pl football clubs to use it than I don't see why not minor royals

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
Feb 23, 2009
22,771
Brighton factually.....
In the last 24 hours or so, two names have been thrown into the bear pit by the media, Mike Tindall, Prince Anne's son in law and James Matthews, Prince Williams brother in law, who have both been criticised for putting members of their staff into the furlough scheme.

But surely if everything is above board, they shouldn't be slagged off for doing this? I'm sure both of them have paid enough personal and corporation tax and NI over the years, its not like they are taking out when they haven't paid into the system?

You seem bored Mr Lenny Rider :)
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,237
if their business qualify for furlough that should be the end of it. or are we suppose to have special treatment for some people?
 

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,499
If I was one of the 3 million that has missed on both the employment furlough and the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme grant - and therefore lived off fresh air for 10 months - I would not be happy about this.
 


JBizzle

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2010
5,779
Seaford
If I was one of the 3 million that has missed on both the employment furlough and the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme grant - and therefore lived off fresh air for 10 months - I would not be happy about this.

True, but at the same time, if you're one of Mike Tindall's employees and have to be laid off because "it doesn't look good" for your boss to legitimately use the furlough scheme, how would you feel then?
 

A1X

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Sep 1, 2017
17,423
Deepest, darkest Sussex
If the company (which it will be) can prove it needs to do it for financial reasons then I don't care who it is. Where people have a (legitimate) problem is when companies are quite obviously taking the piss (e.g. furloughing a load of staff from a major PL football club then signing a new player on massive wages the next day).
 

Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
69,788
In the last 24 hours or so, two names have been thrown into the bear pit by the media, Mike Tindall, Prince Anne's son in law and James Matthews, Prince Williams brother in law, who have both been criticised for putting members of their staff into the furlough scheme.

But surely if everything is above board, they shouldn't be slagged off for doing this? I'm sure both of them have paid enough personal and corporation tax and NI over the years, its not like they are taking out when they haven't paid into the system?

This. Both were non-royals long before they were sort of half-arsed royals-in-law. They both presumably paid into the system long before they envisaged who they might marry. So IMHO they both deserve treating exactly the same as the rest of us :shrug:
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Mar 27, 2013
51,892
Burgess Hill
Non-story. They aren't on the Civil List as far as I know so shouldn't act or be treated any differently running their businesses.
 

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,237
True, but at the same time, if you're one of Mike Tindall's employees and have to be laid off because "it doesn't look good" for your boss to legitimately use the furlough scheme, how would you feel then?

curious to know the answer to this. the furlough scheme benefits the employee after all, not necessarily the employer.
 

Cheshire Cat

The most curious thing..
I believe the granny is a little short of the readies these days. She is having to see her portraits for pennies

2d3dd5d3-404c-4627-a254-44ec075edeff.jpg
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,499
True, but at the same time, if you're one of Mike Tindall's employees and have to be laid off because "it doesn't look good" for your boss to legitimately use the furlough scheme, how would you feel then?

I'd probably feel why is my employer having to be baled out by the taxpayer when his wife's gran is the wealthiest woman on earth.
 

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,499
I'd probably feel why is my employer having to be baled out by the taxpayer when his wife's gran is the wealthiest woman on earth.

It would be a drop in the ocean for the Queen to cover salary costs of her extended family's businesses for a few months. She's happy to spunk millions on her extravagant hobby of owning race horses.

Forbes estimated the British monarchy was worth £72.5 billion.

I'm not saying get rid of them, but if we did and left them with 10% of their wealth to live on then EVERY person in the UK could receive £1,000 of 'Royal Dividend' as a result, or our NHS facilities could be upgraded to be state of the art and everyone would benefit.
 
Last edited:

Grizz

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
1,244
There is no such thing as the Civil List anymore, was done away with when the Sovereign Grant came in in 2012. This gives a percentage of the Crown Estate monies to the Royal Household to perform their duties for that year, so neither of them will more than likely benefit from it. So yeah, complete non story.
 

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,177
It would be a drop in the ocean for the Queen to cover salary costs of her extended family's businesses for a few months. She's happy to spunk millions on her extravagant hobby of owning race horses.

Forbes estimated the British monarchy was worth £72.5 billion.

I'm not saying get rid of them, but if we did and left them with 10% of their wealth to live on then EVERY person in the UK could receive £1,000 of 'Royal Dividend' as a result, or our NHS facilities could be upgraded to be state of the art and everyone would benefit.
I dare say, but I suspect that if the Queen sold Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, they wouldn't let her keep the proceeds.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 11, 2003
59,073
The Fatherland
or our NHS facilities could be upgraded to be state of the art and everyone would benefit.

No need as Brexit has seen to this....I read it on a bus.

I’d still chop their heads off, mind.
 

Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
I dare say, but I suspect that if the Queen sold Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels, they wouldn't let her keep the proceeds.

Buckingham Palace belongs to the state. She owns Windsor Castle and Sandringham.

As has been said, these quoted aren't royal, but married minor royals.

Ps Don't read the Daily Mail. Wikipedia banned references to the DM as it is unreliable.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here