General Premier League Thread 2019-20

Cookiemunster

citytillidie wrote: »

Behind closed doors means there is not 20000-70000 people in a ground so the normal match day ambulances are not needed

An ambulance needs to be on standby incase a player or official gets badly injured.

joeguevara

I only just read that footballers have been told that they are not insured if they contract coronavirus. If they suffer diminished lung capacity they would be screwed. By putting them into contact with others in such close proximity they are playing with their futures. I wouldn’t take the risk. At every turn there is more hurdles.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8169229/Premier-League-plan-resume-season-closed-doors-start-MAY.html

~Rebel~

joeguevara wrote: »

I only just read that footballers have been told that they are not insured if they contract coronavirus. If they suffer diminished lung capacity they would be screwed. By putting them into contact with others in such close proximity they are playing with their futures. I wouldn’t take the risk. At every turn there is more hurdles.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8169229/Premier-League-plan-resume-season-closed-doors-start-MAY.html

It’s a very complicated situation, so there are hundreds if not thousands of obstacles to overcome of varying sizes.

This is one I could see being solved easier than others... clarifications and amendments can be made to insurance policies, and given that they literally can’t return to playing football as normal without changes to their insurance, (with thousands of football related interactions with fans, staff, media, international travel etc), it’ll be sorted one way or another.

The argument against it is that it’s not a direct cause of football as an on-field sport, but I’d argue that as players their professional responsibility goes far beyond their 90 minutes on the pitch, as in everything they do, and every human interaction they have, they’re acting as an ambassador of their team, their league, and the game at large. If you can bring the game into disrepute away from the field and be professionally punished for it, it stands to reason that catching the virus whilst out and about as a person in the public eye should also fall under the umbrella of footballing activity, given that being a footballer directly attracts people and attention and thus an increased risk of contraction.

Also, let’s just keep in mind that J-Lo insured her ass decades ago - insurance is malleable

All it will take is one insurer to take the lead for the publicity, and to steal a match on their competitors, and the others will fall in line. As yet, it doesn’t seem like losing ones career is going to be a widespread occurrence from this (likely much less than other incidents like ACL’s, leg breakers etc). With no football for a few months, they’ll be in a position to better understand before too long anyway.

citytillidie

Cookiemunster wrote: »

An ambulance needs to be on standby incase a player or official gets badly injured.

Yea, there is normally more that one ambulance at match days, i said normal match day ambulances

citytillidie

joeguevara wrote: »

I only just read that footballers have been told that they are not insured if they contract coronavirus. If they suffer diminished lung capacity they would be screwed. By putting them into contact with others in such close proximity they are playing with their futures. I wouldn’t take the risk. At every turn there is more hurdles.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8169229/Premier-League-plan-resume-season-closed-doors-start-MAY.html

May get those young nurses and doctors out of the hospitals then, them getting coronavirus will have a bigger impact than a footballer earning millions of pounds. If they get coronavirus they may not be able to get life insurance either so that would put an end to buying a home for them or worse.

joeguevara

citytillidie wrote: »

May get those young nurses and doctors out of the hospitals then, them getting coronavirus will have a bigger impact than a footballer earning millions of pounds. If they get coronavirus they may not be able to get life insurance either so that would put an end to buying a home for them or worse.

This is a football thread about premiership footballers. It is not a thread to discuss the risks of fantastic medical staff. But you knew that already.

Iused2likebusts

joeguevara wrote: »

The peak in the UK is expected mid June with deaths and cases rising exponentially until then. Then it will deplete for about a month. That looks like lockdown would stop near start of August, but possible resurgence in November. Really, nobody knows what is going to happen.

I think an argument that we haven’t seen (well I haven’t) is if there is going to be another resurgence in November to February which could cause a new football season to be suspended, it might be pragmatic to finish this one. There is an argument that there is no pointing voiding one and then possibly suspending a new one for 3-4 months.

This is the exact point a lot of us have been making. Why write off a 75% complete season to start another season that then also may have to be cancelled or played in a shortened version. Why have 2 seasons ruined rather than 1. Football needs to start back when things are safe . We dont know how things will look in June/ July . The population might need a distraction. Their maybe desperation from governments for economies to get back functioning as best as possible to start generating money to pay for the medical crisis.

citytillidie

joeguevara wrote: »

This is a football thread about premiership footballers. It is not a thread to discuss the risks of fantastic medical staff. But you knew that already.

I am pointing out everyone has the same risks so more so than others

joeguevara

citytillidie wrote: »

I am pointing out everyone has the same risks so more so than others

It’s irrelevant. Footballers aren’t insured. This is a football thread. Why bring doctors and nurses into it.

citytillidie

joeguevara wrote: »

It’s irrelevant. Footballers aren’t insured. This is a football thread. Why bring doctors and nurses into it.

As they are currently the ones most at risk from it and most may not be insured against it.

joeguevara

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

This is the exact point a lot of us have been making. Why write off a 75% complete season to start another season that then also may have to be cancelled or played in a shortened version. Why have 2 seasons ruined rather than 1. Football needs to start back when things are safe . We dont know how things will look in June/ July . The population might need a distraction. Their maybe desperation from governments for economies to get back functioning as best as possible to start generating money to pay for the medical crisis.

I think every way you look at it there is arguments for and against. But it will come down to TV broadcasters. But the arguments about resurgence and modelling to back it up should be raised by football clubs. To tell you the truth, there is better arguments in this thread than what I have seen football clubs and UEFA raise in the press. I haven’t seen one argument in the press by a stakeholder citing modelled medical data. They pluck dates out of the sky without rhyme or,reason.

joeguevara

citytillidie wrote: »

As they are currently the ones most at risk from it and most may not be insured against it.

This is a foootball thread. I presume there is a different thread to discuss the risks that other professions face.

Should we discuss World Hunger here as well. how about malaria. Should we even be discussing football at all when people are being shot in the Middle East.

~Rebel~

joeguevara wrote: »

I think every way you look at it there is arguments for and against. But it will come down to TV broadcasters. But the arguments about resurgence and modelling to back it up should be raised by football clubs. To tell you the truth, there is better arguments in this thread than what I have seen football clubs and UEFA raise in the press. I haven’t seen one argument in the press by a stakeholder citing modelled medical data. They pluck dates out of the sky without rhyme or,reason.

Honestly don’t think I’ve heard a genuinely compelling argument for voiding it yet.

The strongest case I’ve heard is simply scheduling, but it’s likely scheduling is out the window anyway, and actually was going to be regardless with a winter World Cup coming up. So that one doesn’t hold too much weight imo..

joeguevara

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Honestly don’t think I’ve heard a genuinely compelling argument for voiding it yet.

The strongest case I’ve heard is simply scheduling, but it’s likely scheduling is out the window anyway, and actually was going to be regardless with a winter World Cup coming up. So that one doesn’t hold too much weight imo..

That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. For me, if delaying a new season starting puts clubs in financial risk because of no new sponsorship, new season tickets, new tv money, new corporate money, new shirt sales then it’s a compelling reason to start a new season.

But as you can see from my post above I see both sides. And as I have always said I’d prefer it completed and Liverpool get title they deserve and correct teams get promoted and relegated.

8-10

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Honestly don’t think I’ve heard a genuinely compelling argument for voiding it yet.

The strongest case I’ve heard is simply scheduling, but it’s likely scheduling is out the window anyway, and actually was going to be regardless with a winter World Cup coming up. So that one doesn’t hold too much weight imo..

Yeah I don't see the benefit.

I can see it becoming pointless after a few years if we still haven't resumed. But if we're playing soccer again by the end of this year why not play the games already postponed?

I'd definitely be less invested going forward if I know that games might not count, both in terms of attending games or watching on tv

Making a decision to null and void everything now gives us what exactly? We still can't play soccer

Guy:Incognito

ozzy jr wrote: »

Don't shoot the messenger!

The suggestion was multiple games a day, like in the World Cup (but you knew that).

You know leagues already play multiple games in a day? Shock horror, back in the dark ages, a whole matchday was played out at once at 3pm on a saturday.

The suggestions were that teams play every 3 days or so over a few weeks. Not seeing the big issue.

I know some people are suggesting people are saying they want this to occur right in the middle of the peak of people dying and that emergency services should be pulled from the front lines and leave people to die, but again, shock horror, those people are taking deliberately silly interpretations of what people say to suit their arguments when in reality the suggestions are being made for when stuff dies down and its safe for football to resume, but in all likelihood, without fans in the ground.

People shouldn't need to point out every time they make a suggestion that its in the context of when things are safe to resume, thats a given .For the most part, we're all adults here, time to act like it.

8-10

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You know leagues already play multiple games in a day? Shock horror, back in the dark ages, a whole matchday was played out at once at 3pm on a saturday.

Liverpool played 2 games this season kicking off 23hrs apart on different continents!

Guy:Incognito

joeguevara wrote: »

This is a foootball thread. I presume there is a different thread to discuss the risks that other professions face.

They may all retire so , and do away with football because its not going to just up and be eradicated any time soon.

Rock77

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah I don't see the benefit.

I can see it becoming pointless after a few years if we still haven't resumed. But if we're playing soccer again by the end of this year why not play the games already postponed?

I'd definitely be less invested going forward if I know that games might not count, both in terms of attending games or watching on tv

Making a decision to null and void everything now gives us what exactly? We still can't play soccer

I would agree with most of your post, I too do not see the benefit.

However I would not be less invested going forward. I certainly won’t be thinking ‘ah I won’t bother going to Old Trafford this year or watching Utd vs City on tv, sure there might be a worldwide pandemic and the game might not count anyway’ kind of silly thinking to be honest

~Rebel~

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. For me, if delaying a new season starting puts clubs in financial risk because of no new sponsorship, new season tickets, new tv money, new corporate money, new shirt sales then it’s a compelling reason to start a new season.

But as you can see from my post above I see both sides. And as I have always said I’d prefer it completed and Liverpool get title they deserve and correct teams get promoted and relegated.

But see this I don’t understand... because the new money they loose from not signing new deals, is likely equivalent (or less than) money lost from not fulfilling previous contracts. If you’re an existing shirt sponsor, and you’ve paid for 38 matches worth of coverage but only get 75% of them, you want your money back.

And if you have a season ticket for 19 home games but only 14 took place, you want that money back. And we already know they’re going to lose a tonne of tv money for a partially completed season... I’d argue that it’s more detrimental to have to give back money already spent than to face a slight delay on new money - speaking of which, they can still look for their fans to help out by buying advanced season tickets where they can afford it (Newcastle went way beyond this even, into jerk territory), and you can still look for new shirt sponsors for when the current deal lapses - Liverpool already have their new deal sorted for the following season.

And I know I’m entitled to my opinion, but beyond that, I’m actually looking to understand the opposing viewpoint, because I’ve still yet to hear one that holds water.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

But see this I don’t understand... because the new money they loose from not signing new deals, is likely equivalent (or less than) money lost from not fulfilling previous contracts. If you’re an existing shirt sponsor, and you’ve paid for 38 matches worth of coverage but only get 75% of them, you want your money back.

And if you have a season ticket for 19 home games but only 14 took place, you want that money back. And we already know they’re going to lose a tonne of tv money for a partially completed season... I’d argue that it’s more detrimental to have to give back money already spent than to face a slight delay on new money - speaking of which, they can still look for their fans to help out by buying advanced season tickets where they can afford it (Newcastle went way beyond this even, into jerk territory), and you can still look for new shirt sponsors for when the current deal lapses - Liverpool already have their new deal sorted for the following season.

And I know I’m entitled to my opinion, but beyond that, I’m actually looking to understand the opposing viewpoint, because I’ve still yet to hear one that holds water.

Yep, still waiting to hear or read one

Shanotheslayer

FitzShane wrote: »

How much of a strain would the games be putting on the NHS though? If you want an ambulance per game, you are looking at 5 per day. The clubs have their own doctors, so that is automatically 2 per game minimum. Maybe add in one extra per game and that makes up 5 doctors per day. It's not exactly a massive strain on resources.

As well as a morale booster for the general population, it might actually benefit society as (mostly) people would be more inclined to stay indoors in the evenings to watch the games rather than being out & about.

I don't think the volume of the strain necessarily matters when it's unnecessary
If that's the case the argument will be

Volume of Strain on NHS V Morale boost for general population? Is it worth it? Type of scenario.

I don't disagree with the boost for general population. But I highly highly highly doubt that if/when the matches do resume and Liverpool if/when they win the league. There's not a chance of people isolating.

The exact same when teams get promoted.

'KDB: PL must stop early if it helps next season'

http://www.skysports.com/share/11967522

irelandrover

~Rebel~ wrote: »

But see this I don’t understand... because the new money they loose from not signing new deals, is likely equivalent (or less than) money lost from not fulfilling previous contracts. If you’re an existing shirt sponsor, and you’ve paid for 38 matches worth of coverage but only get 75% of them, you want your money back.

And if you have a season ticket for 19 home games but only 14 took place, you want that money back. And we already know they’re going to lose a tonne of tv money for a partially completed season... I’d argue that it’s more detrimental to have to give back money already spent than to face a slight delay on new money - speaking of which, they can still look for their fans to help out by buying advanced season tickets where they can afford it (Newcastle went way beyond this even, into jerk territory), and you can still look for new shirt sponsors for when the current deal lapses - Liverpool already have their new deal sorted for the following season.

And I know I’m entitled to my opinion, but beyond that, I’m actually looking to understand the opposing viewpoint, because I’ve still yet to hear one that holds water.

Players can hold clubs to ransom for their contracts. For instance Bournemouth lose a lot of players on 30th June. They are in a battle for relegation, in a normal season they know during contract renewals the status for at least another year. Especially if they have to keep the same squad of players then these players can demand far more than Bourne mouth can afford.

If they don't have to keep the same squad then it simply isn't the same season. Especially this year the premiership agreed to have only one transfer window during the season.

It's not important for Liverpool as they would win the league anyway. But if I'm man utd challenging Sheff utd for 5th then I definitely don't extend Henderson loan contract, I also try to buy a few more players to disrupt their squad. Now I get 5th and champions league.

Fitz*

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I don't think the volume of the strain necessarily matters when it's unnecessary
If that's the case the argument will be

Volume of Strain on NHS V Morale boost for general population? Is it worth it? Type of scenario.

I don't disagree with the boost for general population. But I highly highly highly doubt that if/when the matches do resume and Liverpool if/when they win the league. There's not a chance of people isolating.

The exact same when teams get promoted.

I can only really speak for myself here but I had a couple of trips to Liverpool booked for the remainder of the year and more than likely won't be going on these now, even if it is for the game that clinches the title. Pubs won't be open, hotels not open & airlines not flying etc. There's many like me & a lot are smart enough to not go out. It would take a massive change for me to go this calendar year again, anywhere for that matter.


As I outlined earlier, if the games are at St George's Park, it cancels out the crowd aspect while it's happening. If pubs are still closed, then where do people celebrate for 'the' game? And it would only be for one game. Are fans all going to be out on the streets with no bars open? While the country is on lockdown? You can only carry so much drink with you and drink it at any one time!! Police are already policing.

Given the figurehead that Klopp is, if he says that Liverpool will celebrate properly when safe to do so, and a big parade and celebration with festivals or whatever etc, then the vast majority of fans will wait for that moment IMO. I think that will be the big thing. Most people now can see the bigger picture and that a safer celebration is more important than getting the celebration in as early as possible.

Iused2likebusts

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Honestly don’t think I’ve heard a genuinely compelling argument for voiding it yet.

The strongest case I’ve heard is simply scheduling, but it’s likely scheduling is out the window anyway, and actually was going to be regardless with a winter World Cup coming up. So that one doesn’t hold too much weight imo..

The only way it makes sense is if the virus stopped in August and we knew for a fact that it wasnt going to comeback before the season finished. I still think that would be really unfair and they should still finish this season but I would understand the argument in that exact scenario somewhat.

~Rebel~

irelandrover wrote: »

Players can hold clubs to ransom for their contracts. For instance Bournemouth lose a lot of players on 30th June. They are in a battle for relegation, in a normal season they know during contract renewals the status for at least another year. Especially if they have to keep the same squad of players then these players can demand far more than Bourne mouth can afford.

If they don't have to keep the same squad then it simply isn't the same season. Especially this year the premiership agreed to have only one transfer window during the season.

It's not important for Liverpool as they would win the league anyway. But if I'm man utd challenging Sheff utd for 5th then I definitely don't extend Henderson loan contract, I also try to buy a few more players to disrupt their squad. Now I get 5th and champions league.

It’s a complication for sure, but is it anywhere near an insurmountable barrier that deserves to shut down the season? IMO no. In reality, it’s likely that common sense would prevail and contracts would for the most part be honoured to seasons end as was agreed at the beginning of the season. Even though it would help Utd to stop Henderson playing, it would be such a massive dick move that I doubt they’d do it.

It’s something the PFA will have to discuss with their players, especially those that have fallen out with their clubs, but I’ve a feeling the extreme circumstances would allow these 9 games to be played as teams were. And if not, there are other options.. a transfer window could be added - as you said, there’s already one in January, so already all things are not equal, as a player can join or leave in late January, unbalancing the idea of even half the season being equal. Or an inbetween option as is in Spain, and has even been used in England before, of emergency transfers/loans being allowed in extreme cases.

But again, for all the possibilities of upsets, in reality given what’s happened I’d bet 99% of cases would be handled just like the New Balance/Nike issue, where Nike said “yeah, we could start our shirt sponsorship on the agreed upon date, but then we’d be jerks, so of course New Balance should aer out the season, even though it’s a financial negative for us.” (Paraphrased )

jester77

I don't see anything happening for a long long time. It might make most sense to wait until Feb next year when vaccines should be available, do a pre-season, and resume competitions 1 year late. Write off a season, extend contracts for 12 months and have no transfer window.

irelandrover

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It’s a complication for sure, but is it anywhere near an insurmountable barrier that deserves to shut down the season? IMO no. In reality, it’s likely that common sense would prevail and contracts would for the most part be honoured to seasons end as was agreed at the beginning of the season. Even though it would help Utd to stop Henderson playing, it would be such a massive dick move that I doubt they’d do it.

It’s something the PFA will have to discuss with their players, especially those that have fallen out with their clubs, but I’ve a feeling the extreme circumstances would allow these 9 games to be played as teams were. And if not, there are other options.. a transfer window could be added - as you said, there’s already one in January, so already all things are not equal, as a player can join or leave in late January, unbalancing the idea of even half the season being equal. Or an inbetween option as is in Spain, and has even been used in England before, of emergency transfers/loans being allowed in extreme cases.

But again, for all the possibilities of upsets, in reality given what’s happened I’d bet 99% of cases would be handled just like the New Balance/Nike issue, where Nike said “yeah, we could start our shirt sponsorship on the agreed upon date, but then we’d be jerks, so of course New Balance should aer out the season, even though it’s a financial negative for us.” (Paraphrased )

I'm not saying it's insurmountable. But you can't force players to play beyond the end of their contract. Would you amend the rule of players only allowed play for 2 clubs in a year?

But I can see the point of view of canceling the season, if it hasn't restarted by the end of April, for instance would gives clubs clarity. It means they aren't held to ransom by players. It gives clubs clarity on their finances from this year and they can start planning. It gives players clarity on their contract situation, it doesn't force players to play during extremely stressful times. Rules can be put in place before the start of the season if next season is shortened so everyone knows where they stand at the start of the season.

It also needs all European leagues to agree to delay the champions leagues.

Iused2likebusts

jester77 wrote: »

I don't see anything happening for a long long time. It might make most sense to wait until Feb next year when vaccines should be available, do a pre-season, and resume competitions 1 year late. Write off a season, extend contracts for 12 months and have no transfer window.

Who is going to pay the players wages for 12 months

~Rebel~

irelandrover wrote: »

I'm not saying it's insurmountable. But you can't force players to play beyond the end of their contract. Would you amend the rule of players only allowed play for 2 clubs in a year?

But I can see the point of view of canceling the season, if it hasn't restarted by the end of April, for instance would gives clubs clarity. It means they aren't held to ransom by players

True, but in reality, in the cold light if day I just don’t see too many players needing to be forced to play the last few games.

Just because there is the possibility of players holding clubs to ransom in a technical sense, I just don’t see it happening under the circumstances because it would look so so so bad, and irrevocably damage their ‘brand’.

I’d bet when it came down to it, even without the league/PFA trying to strongarm players, that only a handful (if even) would out and out refuse to play, or demand some crazy contract terms for the sake of 9 games. I think most players - like most people have - will just get on with it.

It gives clubs clarity on their finances from this year and they can start planning. It gives players clarity on their contract situation, it doesn't force players to play during extremely stressful times. Rules can be put in place before the start of the season if next season is shortened so everyone knows where they stand at the start of the season.

It also needs all European leagues to agree to delay the champions leagues.

I suppose it does give them some clarity on their finances (sort of, as legal wrangling from a killed season would run for months), but it also basically guarantees them less money, with all the commitments they’d have broken, and would have to pay penalties on.

As for Europe... not much clarity there... you’ve no idea who could even represent England in the CL even if you decided to kill the season and jump right into the next one. Is it last years top 4? Or the top 4 as it stands? Either way, you’re getting lawsuits all over the shop.

And I agree that the rest of the outstanding seasons in Europe would need to do the same thing, and the CL next year to be pushed, which I think they will. After all the CL want to finish this season as much as everyone else does.

citytillidie

~Rebel~ wrote: »

True, but in reality, in the cold light if day I just don’t see too many players needing to be forced to play the last few games.

Just because there is the possibility of players holding clubs to ransom in a technical sense, I just don’t see it happening under the circumstances because it would look so so so bad, and irrevocably damage their ‘brand’.

I’d bet when it came down to it, even without the league/PFA trying to strongarm players, that only a handful (if even) would out and out refuse to play, or demand some crazy contract terms for the sake of 9 games. I think most players - like most people have - will just get on with it.




I suppose it does give them some clarity on their finances (sort of, as legal wrangling from a killed season would run for months), but it also basically guarantees them less money, with all the commitments they’d have broken, and would have to pay penalties on.

As for Europe... not much clarity there... you’ve no idea who could even represent England in the CL even if you decided to kill the season and jump right into the next one. Is it last years top 4? Or the top 4 as it stands? Either way, you’re getting lawsuits all over the shop.

And I agree that the rest of the outstanding seasons in Europe would need to do the same thing, and the CL next year to be pushed, which I think they will. After all the CL want to finish this season as much as everyone else does.

Then you are opening up for those summer leagues like Ireland where teams may have had a budget for Europe this season and then missing out, it is a complete mess of a situation.

Hopefully the PL will have some answers tomorrow after their meeting on what is going to happen with the league

irelandrover

If you focus on just the premiership then all the clubs could probably afford to pay their players for the extra 9 games. But a lot of lower league teams budget on the month without those players. It gives them a break of 6 weeks wages on a number of players. I know the club I support let a lot go end of June and sign a lot in mid August. Suddenly you have 6 weeks wages of players with no extra income.

rgace

I think City should concede the title to Liverpool now and that is one less thing that needs to be worried about.

Agent Coulson

Sky and BT to a lesser extent will be pushing for the month long mini league so they can air every game for sure and they know they will dominate the TV schedule if they are the only place showing live sport for a month.

Guy:Incognito

rgace wrote: »

I think City should concede the title to Liverpool now and that is one less thing that needs to be worried about.

City dont get to make that call.

The_Kew_Tour

rgace wrote: »

I think City should concede the title to Liverpool now and that is one less thing that needs to be worried about.

You mean only thing you worry about

MD1990

https://theathletic.com/1719459/2020/04/02/premier-league-coronavirus-china-season/?source=shared-article

one PL executive to play the games in China.

An insane idea tbh.
I do think it is looking more likely that the season wont be finished & I am not sure next season will either.
At the very least I cant see games with fans until a vaccine is out.

jesus_thats_gre

Deleted User wrote: »

'KDB: PL must stop early if it helps next season'

http://www.skysports.com/share/11967522

Does anyone genuinely believe that this will be under sufficient control by August so that a new season can start?

And start with a sufficiently high degree of confidence that it can complete without hiccup?

That's the folly of the "void the season" argument.

If anything, they will complete this season in order to define a formula that will allow next season to take place in a predictable way.

jesus_thats_gre

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Sky and BT to a lesser extent will be pushing for the month long mini league so they can air every game for sure and they know they will dominate the TV schedule if they are the only place showing live sport for a month.

Imagine the viewership numbers for that!!

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52140204

Premier League: 30 April restart date to be pushed back

Some notable quotes:

"Talks about a resumption are also anticipated, when the prospect of games being played behind closed doors, potentially in a limited number of locations, will be discussed.

Training grounds have been mentioned as potentially hosting games, although it is difficult to work out how this would be a safer environment than stadiums, which, evidently, are built to host matches that, by definition, need to be broadcast in order to avoid the £750m repayment to TV companies that would be triggered by a failure to complete the current season.

That such a scenario has even been discussed underlines the overwhelming desire among Premier League clubs, which remains to complete the season in its entirety.

However, Premier League sources are equally adamant nothing will be agreed that places any unnecessary strain on medical resources at a time of national crisis.

Even in a sterile environment it is acknowledged how bad it would look for the game if a player needed hospital treatment for a broken leg at a time when significant numbers of the general population were dying of coronavirus.

So, alternative options are being discussed, in England and across Europe.

Insiders at European football's governing body Uefa have confirmed that places reserved in next season's Europa League for domestic cup winners would revert to league positions if those tournaments were not completed."

MD1990

games played at training grounds lol.

That would be embarrasing. Just play at the stadiums when it is safe. You can forget about 20/21 season being completed atm anyway.

Unless an emergency vaccine is out next september or drugs are developed.

rgace

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

City dont get to make that call.

As the only team that could mathematically catch Liverpool, they should be able to concede the title.

windy shepard henderson

Ok away from this seasons outcome, dose anyone know why sky are not showing multiple re runs of the season so far even just super Sundays and Monday night football, i am seriously getting sick of watching Derby County vs Nottingham Forrest re runs

Blazer

rgace wrote: »

As the only team that could mathematically catch Liverpool, they should be able to concede the title.

I think they conceded the title months ago but it doesn't make it any different. Either the games go ahead or the season gets voided. And the longer this goes on the more of a farce it becomes.
Especially in the UK which is heading to be a cluster**** of epic proportions.
Make the decision, void the season and put players on half wages etc and start the next season whenever they can. And even then it probably won't start until 2021 I reckon.
At least by taking the decision now...each club can isolate all necessary staff and players and they can start preparations for next season behind closed doors.
Expecting players to start playing again in a week or two after nearly having a month off is just asking for a shedload of injuries etc.

Hammer Archer

A break from the monotony, this happened 10 years ago today. I feel old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdjBaChdBA

Blazer

I was only watching that the other day on youtube. Hard to believe its already that long ago.

Still utterly hilarious....I thought they were subbing him off Jeff

Drumpot

Blazer wrote: »

I think they conceded the title months ago but it doesn't make it any different. Either the games go ahead or the season gets voided. And the longer this goes on the more of a farce it becomes.
Especially in the UK which is heading to be a cluster**** of epic proportions.
Make the decision, void the season and put players on half wages etc and start the next season whenever they can. And even then it probably won't start until 2021 I reckon.
At least by taking the decision now...each club can isolate all necessary staff and players and they can start preparations for next season behind closed doors.
Expecting players to start playing again in a week or two after nearly having a month off is just asking for a shedload of injuries etc.

I am not sure they have to make any decisions yet , this really is a situation that is changing regularly. What if the league is ready to start up next march, cancelling the season would of looked stupid as you can just finish it off from then. I think it all depends on when the league can theoretically start back up.

I think by August, there may be a chance they can do something (play games behind closed doors or in training pitches etc). My suggestion is to forget about every other cup and just play the remaining 9 league fixtures as a pre season over 20 days. Its not perfect, but there is nothing perfect about whats going on so its going to just have to work. If Uefa want to squeeze in Europe, has to be done over one week, one off games at neutral venues.

Cancel League Cup next season (or exempt all teams in Europe), make CL entirely knockout or have maybe all cup knockouts to semis in neutral venues (one off games).

Would they change the Calender entirely because of the world cup ? I think not, that would be foolish for just one tournament as no other world cup will be on in wintertime.

rgace

Blazer wrote: »

I think they conceded the title months ago but it doesn't make it any different. Either the games go ahead or the season gets voided. And the longer this goes on the more of a farce it becomes.
Especially in the UK which is heading to be a cluster**** of epic proportions.
Make the decision, void the season and put players on half wages etc and start the next season whenever they can. And even then it probably won't start until 2021 I reckon.
At least by taking the decision now...each club can isolate all necessary staff and players and they can start preparations for next season behind closed doors.
Expecting players to start playing again in a week or two after nearly having a month off is just asking for a shedload of injuries etc.

Why not finish the season in 2021 then?

We will have to wait and see when football can restart again i suppose but I believe Liverpool will be awarded the title either way, professional teams are not as petty as fans and can accept being beaten by the better team.

is_that_so

rgace wrote: »

Why not finish the season in 2021 then?

We will have to wait and see when football can restart again i suppose but I believe Liverpool will be awarded the title either way, professional teams are not as petty as fans and can accept being beaten by the better team.

The biggest problem is contracts expiring and the ability of players to be able to move.