I agree its business sense but I think the point really is that

morally businesses should only use it if they absolutely have to do so so that such funds can be directed to those that really need it.

Premier league football clubs should not fall into this category, not yet anyway (whilst they still have the tv monies) particularly where they are paying players hundreds of thousands of pounds each a month in most cases. I know legally nobody can compel those players to take a temporary wage reduction but morally it would be the right thing for them and he clubs to look at doing. in this context the £200,000 made available by the Norwich players is of course welcome although that would appear to be a pretty small % of their salary (probably about 5% of 1 months salary each) if that's split across the whole first team squad, senior management team and the clubs owners. I suppose the question is would the morally "right" thing for them to do be to accept say a 30% or 40% cut each for three months when they are not playing and to use that money to subsidise the wages of the other staff rather than have the government do it using taxpayers money.

I own a business although I only employ myself and my wife. I won't be using the govt scheme because we are fortunate enough to be able to continue to operate even though she won't be doing any work as she has the kids at home all day now. I don't think businesses should be using these schemes unless they need to.

Conversely the government needs to sort its f**king act out on some of these much heralded measures its introduced and get them in place quicker. Its not fair to expect people to get no money til June. There are also a shed load of business owners who take their money in dividends who have no help or businesses which are not eligible for the loans/grants. I was also told by a mate this week that it is still a requirement of the loans being offered by banks under the scheme Sunak has announced that directors or owners have to personally guarantee the loans. this was not supposed to be the case and rives a huge coach and horses through the whole thing because businesses are clearly not going to take out loans on such terms and are just going to have to stop trading and/or sack people. The government was supposed to be the guarantor.

Posted By: Jim, Apr 2, 10:21:22