Thursday, 20 August 2020

A Trip To The Seaside

In 2019 Val and I went on holiday to Cyprus (twice), on a cruise in Norway, on short breaks to Norwich and Folkestone, and we also went on our now traditional weekend to Center Parcs. Val went away to Tenerife with our younger daughter in January this year, but we had made no holiday plans for the rest of 2020 before coronavirus came along.

 


Bergen, where we started our Norwegian cruise in 2019 

As lockdown started to ease, Val started hankering after going away somewhere, preferably somewhere hot, although by the start of August it was hot enough at home that that didn’t mean going abroad, even if anyone who has ever spent a summer in this country knows only too well, reliability and consistency are not the hallmarks of an English summer.

 

Having a holiday abroad this year is by no means impossible, but frankly it doesn’t seem worth the hassle at present, what with restrictions at airports and resorts, and possible quarantine requirements on returning home that might even be imposed while you are away. The staycation (or ‘holiday’ as I like to call it) has become the fashion this summer, heck even Prime Minister Boris Johnson has gone to Scotland – conveniently missing out on the fall-out from the ‘A’ level debacle – and so last week we booked a short break in Eastbourne.

 

I last went on holiday to Eastbourne when I was 15 and still at school, with my parents. We stayed in a guest house – sadly I can’t remember the name, otherwise I would have looked it up when Val and I were in town. What I do remember is that almost without exception, it was misty in the mornings I spent in Eastbourne in 1973, although generally it turned out fine by lunch time. This year the weather at home had been scorching in the days before we went – up to 33˚C – but the forecast was not promising, with every day of our four day stay predicting rain, rain, heavy rain, and thunderstorms.



 

For our Eastbourne excursion, we booked an apartment on the seafront. Choosing accommodation in the time of a pandemic is interesting, one’s criteria are slightly different from normal. The apartments we booked – Beachside – declares itself compliant with all of the current Covid-19 guidelines, and their website confidently lists all of the precautions they are taking, together with a risk assessment. No doubt other hotels and guesthouses are doing the same. The proof of the pudding however…

 

As it turned out, we were reassured when we arrived at Beachside as the owners – John and Emma – have clearly been extremely thorough in their preparations. The apartment was immaculate – I don’t think I’ve ever stayed anywhere so obviously and meticulously cleaned. The bathroom looked as though it had only been installed that morning, even though it was eight years old.

 




Having somewhere so obviously well prepared put our minds at rest and made our stay completely relaxing. The apartment – which was on the ground floor and at the back of the property – lacked a sea view (something which Val is normally very keen on – it’s been known to heavily influence where we have stayed in the past), but since this time we had decided that a ground floor room was a priority, it mattered less.

 

The room could best be described as compact, but it had everything necessary. A small kitchen area with a hob, microwave oven, and toaster; a living/sleeping area with a huge bed, settee, dining table and TV, plus a wardrobe that had been sourced from a local antique shop and reminded me very much of my childhood, with matching bedside cabinets. And, of course the immaculate bathroom (shower room really, as there was no tub).

 

Would I recommend Beachside for a short break? Without hesitation. Would I recommend Eastbourne for a holiday? Yes. I’d not been there other than on a day trip since that holiday with my parents in the 1970s, and the resort has a sort of God’s Waiting Room reputation (there’s a joke that half the population are over 65 and the other half are poodles), but it seemed more lively than I had expected. And, if some of the regional accents and football shirts on display were anything to go by, holiday makers from various far-flung parts of the country had decided that it was a good place to visit.

 

Many of England’s seaside towns are in decline, and have been for a number of years. Eastbourne hasn’t avoided the effects and there are a number of empty and boarded up shops including a long since defunct TJ Hughes, and a more recently closed branch of Debenhams. There is however, a fairly vibrant main street, and a bright shopping centre – The Beacon – with many popular retailers represented. Eastbourne is not a seaside resort teeming with amusement arcades, and sadly the pier is closed at present, but the front is thronged with hotels and guesthouses, and there are plenty of places selling food and drink along the promenade. Compared with some resorts – Folkestone, for example, where Val and I spent a few days last year and which looks very down at heel – Eastbourne seems to be thriving, although according to a report on local TV news, visitor numbers have been down this year. That didn’t seem to be the case when we were there; steady rather than packed I’d say, and more people in the pubs and restaurants than I might have expected.

 

Since lockdown began, the number of miles that Val and I have walked has fallen dramatically. Before lockdown I was averaging 5.03 miles a day. Since March this year, that average had fallen to 4.93 miles, and my average during lockdown was even lower at 4.08. Our four days in Eastbourne pushed the average up slightly. We started with a trip to Birling Gap on Friday, and we walked 11.86 miles that day. On Saturday we did 14.07, dipped below ten to 9.19 miles on Sunday (the only day we had rain), but pushed the average up to 11.73 miles for the four days by completing 11.80 miles on Monday.



 

Monday was the hardest day. We walked from Eastbourne to Beachy Head; not a particularly long way in itself (from Eastbourne Pier it is only 3.5 miles), but there are two routes to walk there, one is fairly gentle (which was the way we came back), one is not so easy. There is one path we took that has such a steep gradient that looking back is vertigo inducing. I really thought at one point that I would not make it to the top, my thighs and calves were on fire.

 

Holidays in England have always suffered in comparison with trips to Spain, or Cyprus, or more distant locations due to the vagaries of domestic weather: A common factor in holidays I took as a child in this country was arriving somewhere that had allegedly not seen a cloud in the sky for months, and then having to spend a week dodging the rain, until the day we travelled home, which inevitably would be hot and sunny.

 

That comparison hasn’t changed, but this summer we have been fortunate in having generally good weather, a blessing in the circumstances: a cold, damp English summer would have restricted what people could do, although with the numbers thronging the beaches at Bournemouth and Brighton, potentially spreading the virus, perhaps that was a mixed blessing.

 

I am as happy to go on holiday in this country as I am to go abroad – happier, probably what with not having to negotiate airports – so long as the weather is reasonable, which is not something that England can guarantee; if it were I probably wouldn’t bother going abroad again.

 

 

Saturday, 8 August 2020

A Game of Two Halves – Football’s Haves and Have Nots

On the first Saturday of August 2020, when the 2020-21 FA Cup competition ought to have been kicking off, the 2019-20 version lurched to a conclusion with Arsenal beating Chelsea 2-1 at an empty Wembley Stadium, absent of fans due to COVID-19.

 

Immediately after Arsenal’s victory, speculation began as to whether they would be able to retain the services of captain and winning goal scorer Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, whose current contract sees him earn £180,000 a week. At the same time rumours began about the players that Arsenal would want to sign during the transfer window with Chelsea’s Willian and Barcelona’s Ousmane Dembele among the names mentioned:  Neither would come cheap.

 

Arsenal were in the news again a few days later, when they announced 55 redundancies among the club’s non-playing staff as a cost-cutting measure. To justify this, the club cited significant reductions in income from broadcasters, and from matchday and commercial activities. But winning the FA Cup earned the club £6,795,00 in money they would not have budgeted on receiving, a sum that amounts to more than £123,000 for each of the employees they are making redundant.                 

 

Rightly, there is indignation that Arsenal continue to fork out top-dollar to their playing staff while dispensing with the services of more than fifty less generously rewarded back-room personnel. It’s true that like players at many other Premier League clubs, the majority of Arsenal’s playing squad accepted a pay cut recently - 12.5% in their case – and those sort of savings (on Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang’s salary alone it works out at £2,250 per week, and he isn’t even Arsenal’s top paid player) ought really to have staved off the need for these redundancies.

 

Arsenal are owned by billionaire Stan Kroenke, whose net worth is estimated to be in the region of £6 billion. He – and the club - could absorb the costs of those 55 employees (there’s that £6.7m FA Cup windfall for a start), by adjusting their playing budget accordingly, causing little hardship to their playing staff in the process. But they won’t, because that is a move that the top clubs make only in extremis, and we aren’t there yet.

 

Football’s finances can be mind-boggling, the difference between the haves and the have nots widening all the time. Just as Arsenal’s playing budget versus their redundancies is extreme, Manchester this week provided another startling comparison.

 

On Wednesday, Manchester City paid £40m for AFC Bournemouth defender Nathan Ake. The following day, Droylsden FC, a club located just three miles up the road from the Ethihad Stadium, announced that they had resigned from the Northern Premier League and this season’s FA Cup and FA Trophy competitions. The club made a statement in which they said, “The closing of the social club and its function rooms  since the start of the pandemic, the main income source with no indication of any restart on viable trading terms along with a loss of income from the club’s main sponsor  has left the club with no visible alternative income stream during the crisis.”

 

The transfer fee that Manchester City paid AFC Bournemouth would sustain a club like Droylsden for many, many years – decades even – illustrating that the gap between the top of the game and its lower reaches is so great that it is almost incomprehensible.

 

As I already said, as substantial as the prize money that Arsenal collected for winning the FA Cup is, it isn’t money that the club would have budgeted on receiving when the season started, and when you consider that it is less than half what they pay Mesut Orzil in a year (they pay him £350,000 per week), it becomes almost insignificant, despite the fact that it represents riches beyond compare for clubs at Droylsden’s level, the eighth tier of the English game. At that level income streams can be precarious. Most clubs rely on income from their bars and function rooms and the generosity of owners, directors and supporters, and when deprived of that income, their position becomes perilous. Gate receipts can be low, sponsorship money (if any) may be just a few thousand pounds - unlike the £64m Chevrolet pay Manchester United - and there are no lucrative TV deals. FA Cup prize money is not a given either, nor when received is it as generous as it would be for a club like Arsenal.

 

The £6m that Arsenal earned winning the FA Cup required them to win six matches. A club starting in the first round of the FA Cup last season - the Extra-Preliminary Round - and winning six matches would have earned £46,390,  a not inconsiderable sum – I know of clubs whose annual turnover is less than that – but for 2020-21, the ravages of COVID-19 mean that the prize money has halved; a club winning the first six rounds will earn just £23,194 this season.

 

To make matters worse, the first two rounds of this season’s FA Cup – the Extra-Preliminary, and Preliminary Rounds – are scheduled for 1st September and 12th September. With the Government not yet prepared to allow spectators at sporting events – recent trials of limited numbers of fans at cricket, horse-racing, and snooker were postponed – these games are likely to go ahead behind closed doors. For clubs of the status playing in the early rounds of the FA Cup, this will be expensive. Despite having no income from paying customers, they will still incur significant expense, as these genuine figures from one of last season’s FA Cup ties show:

  • Gate receipts: £557.60
  • Match officials’ expenses: £171
  • Away team expenses: £336
  • Other expenses: £64
  • Loss: £13.40

 

That same game this season, with no gate receipts, would result in a loss of £571 for the home club. In the Extra-Preliminary Round, the winners will receive £1,125 from the competition prize fund and so a side winning at home in our example would actually be £554 ahead, but if these expenses were incurred by a team losing at home (who would receive just £375), they would be £196 out of pocket. (For the sake of this argument I am assuming that clubs will still be expected to meet away teams’ expenses this season, although that could change).

 

In a further example of the difference between the haves and have nots, the rules of the FA Cup require clubs to pay the fees of the match officials in the qualifying rounds, although The FA pay the fees in the competition proper. This means that while AFC Liverpool of the North West Counties League would have to stump up for the ref’s expenses in a home FA Cup tie played behind closed doors with no income, their Premier League neighbours, Liverpool and Everton – who would likely receive TV income even if no gate receipts - would not. Does that sound fair to you?

 

On top of these costs, clubs have players’ wages (even if modest), plus rent, rates, utility bills, and sundry other expenses to cover from little or even no income.

 

I have little sympathy with Arsenal pleading poverty and trying to justify 55 redundancies that using their FA Cup prize money could avoid, instead I’ll save my sympathy for 500-odd non-League clubs who will embark on their 2020-21 FA Cup campaigns in September, and will pay handsomely for the privilege.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Thursday, 6 August 2020

Working From Home - Whose Home?

Despite the fact that as early as June 2014 Zoom had 10 million users, you would have been hard-pressed before March this year to find anyone who didn’t associate the name with an ice lolly, or a song by Fat Larry’s Band rather than a technology company. Since March that has changed and Zoom seems to have become the application of choice for anyone organising an online meeting or exercise class.

 

Many people who were not familiar with Zoom would probably have heard of Skype, however, yet Zoom seems to have completely eclipsed it as the preferred video conferencing solution for virtually everyone, despite the fact that Skype was around for a decade before Zoom emerged. A couple of years ago, Val’s employers tried to set up a system to use Skype for meetings, and I got roped into trying to help to get it to work at home. It was not a success. Now, although Val’s employment status has changed, she still attends one work related meeting per month, and since COVID-19, those meetings have been online using Zoom; Skype has been abandoned in the meantime.

 

The effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the workplace has required employers and employees to adopt new and innovative solutions to keep their businesses running, and working from home is the most obvious. Working from home (WFH) has been vital during the pandemic, but as lockdown eases, the case for having people work from home rather than return to their offices diminishes.

 

Although there is now less of an argument for people working from home, that does not mean that it is a given that everyone will go back to their offices. In the past, there was an argument that working from home enabled people to skive, that the productivity and performance of home workers was difficult to monitor. In fact, that argument seems to still hold with some people. On LBC, radio host Nick Ferrari last week said, "People need to go back to their places of work. Do you know why we have offices? So you can do some damned work. What do you think is going to get this country going again? You sitting in your jim-jams not doing anything all day long?”  I would argue that while by the law of averages there must be some people who do little when they work from home (apparently the Sitel  employees, engaged by the government for the track-and-trace process are among them, making on average 0.14 calls per agent, per day according to a report on the Guardian website [1]) the majority of people are gainfully employed and productive.


Nick Ferrari

 

I’d say that Ferrari’s comments are based on prejudice and stereotyping and he has absolutely no evidence that people are lounging around in their pyjamas, doing nothing (apart from the contract tracers, but that is scarcely their fault). There again, I have a bit of a prejudice myself…against LBC. The bulk of the content on the station (which I am old enough to remember being launched back in 1973 as the London Broadcasting Company) seems to be phone-ins, for which I have no great love. My aversion to phone-ins and LBC goes back to the 1970s when my father listened to interminable call-in programmes on the station in which well-meaning but ill-informed and/or excruciatingly inarticulate callers would betray their own prejudices in calls inevitably prefaced with a statement that they were ‘a first-time caller.’

 

Like Ferrari, Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith would like people to return to their normal places of work. Last month he called on employers to get their staff back in the workplace, contradicting the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), who recommended that WFH measures should stay in place. Duncan Smith said that SAGE had no right to tell employers what to do because “most of them have never run a business.” Duncan Smith has never run a business; his career outside politics consists of six years in the armed forces. This government’s enthusiasm for ‘following the science’ seems only to apply when the science supports its own agenda.

 

Iain Duncan Smith

Given Duncan Smith’s statement this week about the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which he voted for, having assisted in hurrying it through Parliament on the basis that it had been sufficiently scrutinised, but which he now claims costs too much, denies us true independence and contains stuff that has been buried in clauses no one (including him!) has read, it’s probably just as well he has never run a business, it’s difficult to imagine he would have made a success of it.

 

The remarks by both Ferrari and Duncan Smith reveal the conflict inherent in releasing the lockdown, and the pace at which it is released – it’s a question of Health v Wealth, and there’s obviously more to it than getting workers out of their pyjamas, off their sofas, out of Zoom meetings and back into their offices. Those working from home pay no fares, buy no morning coffee, spend no money on lunch from Pret, don’t pop into the pub with colleagues after work, generally they are not spending or consuming as much as before. The fact that many people working from home are likely to be spending a good deal less than normal is a factor in the contraction of the economy, and regardless of your political hue, that cannot be a good thing.

 

If you can do your job at home as well as you can in the office (some can, some can’t), it may seem that it makes little sense to go back. But, those who would prefer to continue working from home might like to consider that if they do their job from home, then so could someone else, in their home, but not necessarily in this country. For the employer, this may have the benefit of being in a country where labour is cheaper, where there are no pension contributions, where holidays are fewer and where workers’ rights are generally weaker.

 

It’s a logical extension of offshoring and outsourcing that the jobs that remain in the UK that it has been proven can be done as effectively from home as in an office, can be equally effectively performed from a home, regardless of where that home is. Perhaps getting off that sofa and back into the office might not be a bad idea after all.

 

 

 


Readers Warned: Do This Now!

The remit of a local newspaper is quite simple, to report on news and sport and other stories relevant to the paper’s catchment area. In rec...