General Premier League Thread 2019-20

Chuck Noland

noodler wrote: »

Nobody thinks Liverpool haven't won the league.

Did I miss something during the pandemic? When did Liverpool win the premier league? You’d think that’s something Sky would have mentioned if it happened

Hitchens

Devon Loch had the Grand National won too!

dogbert27

joeguevara wrote: »

Page has been removed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8191845/Liverpool-Premier-League-title-one-way-insists-UEFA-president.html

citytillidie

From the BBC

Summer transfer window set to move & player contracts ending 30 June set to be extended

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52188913

Shanotheslayer

8-10 wrote: »

A little different to what?

You asked a general question about 'any team ever' not anything specific to a league not being finished:

Juve didn't amass enough points to win the league by the laws of the game. So technically Inter Milan did

Rock77

8-10 wrote: »

A little different to what?

You asked a general question about 'any team ever' not anything specific to a league not being finished:

Jaysus it’s like pulling teeth with some Liverpool fans.. a little different to the current Premier League situation that we were talking about, like the first two thirds of my post that you snipped out was about, in the Premier League thread..

Forget the childish carry on will you, if you don’t want to engage with me the just ignore me. I was just looking for an opposite opinion to my own to have a debate.

A little different to what.....

Rock77

gstack166 wrote: »

It shouldn’t be always a yes but in Liverpool’s case I’d make an exception. Juventus are only 1 point clear, wouldn’t be moral to give it to them but it would be the right thing to do in the situation with Liverpool.

In my opinion the moral thing to do would be finish the season when safe and give all teams the chance to win the league, qualify for Europe and save themselves from relegation.

Not give out trophies to a team that hasn’t won that particular trophy.

I also believe that a null and void season is ridiculously unfair and I hope that doesn’t happen.

Void and Furlough. Words of the year so far!

Rock77

6 wrote: »

Void and Furlough. Words of the year so far!

Hope I never hear them again!

ERG89

Rock77 wrote: »

Hope I never hear them again!

I don't want any Liverpool fan to forget that FSG tried to furlough staff, I won't tbh. It showed how much they think of the club's reputation.

noodler

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

No team can be awarded the league title when they have not Won it mathematically.

It will just end up going on for years in the court room cause if Liverpool are deemed to have finished 1st, every other position must be declared, Euro Spots, Prize Money, Relegation etc...

Court cases by clubs against Prem League would go on for years, Man Utd for eg will def not accept and be told you are 5th end of story nó Champions League for you.

Teams have games in hand over teams etc, How would they decide who finishes were.

Nor will Leeds, west brom, Leicester, etc accept having their progress wioed by a void season.

pjohnson

ERG89 wrote: »

I don't want any Liverpool fan to forget that FSG tried to furlough staff, I won't tbh. It showed how much they think of the club's reputation.

You'll Never Walk Alone, unless it affects profits of course.

Cork Boy 53

6 wrote: »

Void and Furlough. Words of the year so far!

You forgot about VAR.

Rock77

ERG89 wrote: »

I don't want any Liverpool fan to forget that FSG tried to furlough staff, I won't tbh. It showed how much they think of the club's reputation.

My reading of it (I could be wrong) is that the owners are typical out of touch owners that made a business decision without thinking about the consequences.

However the Liverpool fans quickly made their feelings known,the owners listened and reversed their decision..

Fair play to the Liverpool fans and fair play to the owners for listening.

tayto lover

Rock77 wrote: »

My reading of it (I could be wrong) is that the owners are typical out of touch owners that made a business decision without thinking about the consequences.

However the Liverpool fans quickly made their feelings known,the owners listened and reversed their decision..

Fair play to the Liverpool fans and fair play to the owners for listening.

Hahahahaaaa.

Baggly

If only we could harvest all this salt somehow. Sell it on to the chippers when they all get fully open.

Rock77

tayto lover wrote: »

Hahahahaaaa.

I did say I could be wrong... care to enlighten me about what you think happened or are you just going to stick with hahahahaha ?

It’s like a playground in here these days

Rock77

Baggly wrote: »

If only we could harvest all this salt somehow. Sell it on to the chippers when they all get fully open.

Salt from a Man Utd fan ??

Bayern Munich back training. Germans on top of things it appears

PhilipsR

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

No team can be awarded the league title when they have not Won it mathematically.

It will just end up going on for years in the court room cause if Liverpool are deemed to have finished 1st, every other position must be declared, Euro Spots, Prize Money, Relegation etc...

Court cases by clubs against Prem League would go on for years, Man Utd for eg will def not accept and be told you are 5th end of story nó Champions League for you.

Teams have games in hand over teams etc, How would they decide who finishes were.

I must have asked this question umpteen times now and each time the person I ask disappears. If the league isn’t completed, how do you decide league places and CL qualification and relegation etc? Because there’ll be many more court cases if the league isn’t finished.

Or are you advocating completing the current season? Your post is confusing.

ERG89

pjohnson wrote: »

You'll Never Walk Alone, unless it affects profits of course.

Fan bases have no choice in the decisions made by owners. And no there isn't any owners in the Premier League who worry about anything except profits. A lot of them are hand to mouth due to the TV deals basically saving their arses.
Had there not been any blowback on Spurs, Newcastle and Liverpool all of them would be furloughing staff. The Premier League is a business first & that's why it has been successful financially.

6 wrote: »

Bayern Munich back training. Germans on top of things it appears

The Bundesliga is aiming to return behind closed doors in early May.

Rock77

Rock77 wrote: »

It’s like a playground in here these days

It sure is...

Rock77 wrote: »

Fair play to the Liverpool fans and fair play to the owners for listening.

MD1990

pjohnson wrote: »

You'll Never Walk Alone, unless it affects profits of course.

yes Liverpool fans & ex players pushed for FSG to change their decision.

MD1990

MD1990 wrote: »

yes Liverpool fans & ex players pushed for FSG to change their decision.

In fairness, it's simony wrong to say that the outrage was limited to fans and former players.

In fact, judging by the fans here, a fair few gave them the "legitimate business decision" pass.

gimli2112

Personally, I couldn't care less about the issue but am somewhat glad it's given the rest of you something to get excited about. At least it's a distraction from the to void or not to void debate.

~Rebel~

On a tangent, I wonder is it possible to restructure the way we post subjects? Like, new news getting its own thread perhaps, instead of everything getting lumped in together? How it used to be long long ago... the big thread thing makes sense when football is actually going on, but not so much now.

We just have basically the same conversation on furlough taking place in 3+ threads for days and days, and no other smaller discussion point has any chance of blooming anywhere.

I just wonder if being able to syphon off specific hot-point discussions and have them take place in their own side thread might make the place a bit less dismal and toxic.

So for instance - a "Liverpool furlough non-playing, inactive staff" thread, and for the most part thats where that discussion lives. (that one's firmly run its course obviously, but for whatever the next inflammatory issue is.

Just a thought.

gimli2112

gimli2112 wrote: »

Personally, I couldn't care less about the issue but am somewhat glad it's given the rest of you something to get excited about. At least it's a distraction from the to void or not to void debate.

If you're saying you're above comment, someone else must be logging in under your name and adding to the debate...

gimli2112 wrote: »

They probably paid a consultant €10,000 to make the wrong decision. It was a mistake although personally I have no major issue with it. I can only guess why it has garnered so much attention.
A UK business applies for a governemtn approved grant, meh. It was still the wrong thing to do but meh.

gimli2112 wrote: »

That's a fabolous response from the club, it takes a special kind of business to understand they made the right decision for business reasons but the wrong one morally. They really don't deserve the fans they have.

Saying it was fine and praising the "fabulous response" is entering on the issue just as much as those who criticise it.

Rock77

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It sure is...

Not sure why you think it’s childish to say someone was shown the error of their ways and decided quite quickly to change their stance.

They could of said sorry lads decision has been made, they didn’t.

Was it a bad decision in the first place, yes

Did they change their decision, yes

So we should just give out about their original decision and forget they changed it?

gimli2112

who'd have thought my flipancy would have consequences but honestly I'm not invested in the issue

Rock77

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, it's simony wrong to say that the outrage was limited to fans and former players.

In fact, judging by the fans here, a fair few gave them the "legitimate business decision" pass.

Nobody said it was limited to fans and former players.. the poster stated that fans and former players pushed for the decision to be changed.

And anyone trying to defend the original decision has their Liverpool blinkers on. Then you already know that

~Rebel~

gimli2112 wrote: »

who'd have thought my flipancy would have consequences but honestly I'm not invested in the issue

Same.. like, as soon as you go beyond the absolute top line instant emotion, and think about what the program is for in a literal and practical sense, who it's for, and what this decision means in the grand (and even not very grand) scheme of things... well, without the emotive adversarial chaos swirling around it here, my reaction would be; *shrug*.

The details of the program itself were interesting enough to discuss for a while, and even the tangential role of PR, but this particular decision in context just sort of, isn't. (to me)

citytillidie

Spurs Son off to South Korea to do his 4 week mandatory military service later this month

y0ssar1an22

i struggle to get the outrage. if anyone's to blame its the government for not doing proper due diligence before implementing the scheme.

clubs are within their rights to apply for the scheme.

noodler

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i struggle to get the outrage. if anyone's to blame its the government for not doing proper due diligence before implementing the scheme.

clubs are within their rights to apply for the scheme.

As far as I can see, the scheme requires no proof of income loss on the company's behalf.

Irish one is explicit about needing it.

TitianGerm

noodler wrote: »

As far as I can see, the scheme requires no proof of income loss on the company's behalf.

Irish one is explicit about needing it.

The Irish one doesn't require proof to apply but says there may be spot checks in the coming months.

The Irish scheme is also being processed as a non taxable addition on an employees payslip resulting in tax refunds for most people. However they have also said this subsidy will be taxable when your yearly review is done and the employee will owe tax for 2020. So don't be spending your tax refunds lads because you'll owe it back later.

8-10

citytillidie wrote: »

Spurs Son off to South Korea to do his 4 week mandatory military service later this month

Think he's been there for a while already. Bergwijn is in the Netherlands too.

Cookiemunster

8-10 wrote: »

Think he's been there for a while already. Bergwijn is in the Netherlands too.

Yeah. A load of PL footballers went back to their home countries before international travel was locked down. It begs the question of how they'll get back when training restarts and raises the issue of them having to quarantine for 2 weeks when they do return.

noodler

TitianGerm wrote: »

The Irish one doesn't require proof to apply but says there may be spot checks in the coming months.

The Irish scheme is also being processed as a non taxable addition on an employees payslip resulting in tax refunds for most people. However they have also said this subsidy will be taxable when your yearly review is done and the employee will owe tax for 2020. So don't be spending your tax refunds lads because you'll owe it back later.

Actually that's not right.

It is taxable, just this one time the employer is not required to do it.

If you know anyone on the scheme, they should be informed that what they are getting is their gross pay, deductions are not made on the employers side for this.

It would be wise to keep 25% of it for the 2020 balancing (assuming one went back to normal hours at some stage this year and utilised their remaining tax credits).

Edit: nevermind. Didn't properly read the end of your post!

Mitch Connor

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i struggle to get the outrage. if anyone's to blame its the government for not doing proper due diligence before implementing the scheme.

clubs are within their rights to apply for the scheme.

they are within their legal right to do so, no one argues that.

People consider it morally incorrect to be taking fromm this fund when the club (or any business) has millions in cash (and very high paid other members) that should be ran through before taking money away from smaller businesses.

Not to say United are amazing, but the latest (spin?) from United is that the Glazers want to be seen to have done the right thing, and that the club has no need to go to the government. there is cash reserves to burn through before cost cutting is needed.

That won't be the case at every club, the lower down the league you go, the poorer the money situation is.

gimli2112

From what I've read of Malcom Glazer he was very mindful of the community at large. They did great work in Tampa around regeneration and supporting local initiatives. It doesn't surprise me the sons are the same.

Glazer devoted a significant amount of time working to make the organization more fan-friendly by greatly increasing fan activities at Buccaneers home games through the expansion of the club's community relations and special events departments. His mandate to enhance the team's visibility in the community was reflected through increased appearances by Buccaneer players,coaches, cheerleaders and front office officials in recent years. Since 1999, the team has also coordinated with the Glazer Family Foundation to host "Gameday for Kids", a program that has hosted over 13,000 underprivileged youth at Buccaneers home games, giving them an opportunity to spend pregame moments on the playing field and to cheer on the Buccaneers from exclusive seats in Raymond James Stadium.

~Rebel~

Mitch Connor wrote: »

they are within their legal right to do so, no one argues that.

People consider it morally incorrect to be taking fromm this fund when the club (or any business) has millions in cash (and very high paid other members) that should be ran through before taking money away from smaller businesses.

Not to say United are amazing, but the latest (spin?) from United is that the Glazers want to be seen to have done the right thing, and that the club has no need to go to the government. there is cash reserves to burn through before cost cutting is needed.

That won't be the case at every club, the lower down the league you go, the poorer the money situation is.

People think that, because people don't understand the point of the fund or what/who it's for, and are reacting on pure emotion and impression rather than actual information.
Don't get me wrong, there's still definitely merit to a discussion on the rights and wrongs of it even with the full information - but that's not the discussion we've been seeing take place, either here, or in the wider world.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Yeah. A load of PL footballers went back to their home countries before international travel was locked down. It begs the question of how they'll get back when training restarts and raises the issue of them having to quarantine for 2 weeks when they do return.

As of yet, international travel hasn't been locked down. Just took a look, and you can fly from Amsterdam to London on Sunday for 100 quid. There are far fewer flights, since it doesn't pay for the airlines to keep flying empty planes around the place, but if you're flexible by a day or two you can still get wherever you need to be. This might change of course, but kinda figure it if they haven't done it yet, they actually just might not. Getting into the US without being a permanent resident is about the biggest issue for travel right now, but of course that doesn't matter in this instance.

Mitch Connor

~Rebel~ wrote: »

People think that, because people don't understand the point of the fund or what/who it's for, and are reacting on pure emotion and impression rather than actual information.
Don't get me wrong, there's still definitely merit to a discussion on the rights and wrongs of it even with the full information - but that's not the discussion we've been seeing take place, either here, or in the wider world.



As of yet, international travel hasn't been locked down. Just took a look, and you can fly from Amsterdam to London on Sunday for 100 quid. There are far fewer flights, since it doesn't pay for the airlines to keep flying empty planes around the place, but if you're flexible by a day or two you can still get wherever you need to be. This might change of course, but kinda figure it if they haven't done it yet, they actually just might not. Getting into the US without being a permanent resident is about the biggest issue for travel right now, but of course that doesn't matter in this instance.

It's the argument I was making. Liverpool coy d afford to not do what they did. That was my problem with it.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

People think that, because people don't understand the point of the fund or what/who it's for, and are reacting on pure emotion and impression rather than actual information.

Billionaires and multi millionaires pay premier league footballers an average of Stg£3 million each per annum. What the club owners proposed was to keep paying those players and stop paying the non playing staff and let the taxpayer step in. Now maybe you understand it better and have more information it's all fine and dandy, good for you. You can't prescribe that everyone else should think that way too.

citytillidie

~Rebel~ wrote: »

People think that, because people don't understand the point of the fund or what/who it's for, and are reacting on pure emotion and impression rather than actual information.
Don't get me wrong, there's still definitely merit to a discussion on the rights and wrongs of it even with the full information - but that's not the discussion we've been seeing take place, either here, or in the wider world.



As of yet, international travel hasn't been locked down. Just took a look, and you can fly from Amsterdam to London on Sunday for 100 quid. There are far fewer flights, since it doesn't pay for the airlines to keep flying empty planes around the place, but if you're flexible by a day or two you can still get wherever you need to be. This might change of course, but kinda figure it if they haven't done it yet, they actually just might not. Getting into the US without being a permanent resident is about the biggest issue for travel right now, but of course that doesn't matter in this instance.

Clubs will also have access to more private planes that would still fly if needed

Agent Coulson

The premier League should do what the UFC are doing and buy their own private island to play the games on.

Then fly all the teams there according to the posters in the UFC thread it only takes 15 minutes to test and get results now. So everyone that is cleared is flown to the island.


20 teams enter 1 team leaves!

~Rebel~

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It's the argument I was making. Liverpool coy d afford to not do what they did. That was my problem with it.

Again though, it's not for companies who are cash strapped... it's not for when you've no money left to pay your staff and have to let them go on furlough. It's for every company of every size who have staff members that they can't use.

Think of it this way - if you're Nissan, and you have loads of cash, and also loads of employees who can't work. Going by your rationale, they should use their cash to pay their wages and only go the furlough option once the cash is running low.

What the government(s) actually want, is for Nissan to not redistribute that cash away from whereever it would have gone (R&D etc), because ultimately that creates a loss down the line. They want businesses to be able to keep going as normal, without losing those resources, so when things come back up, those businesses (of all kinds) are in a good position to launch straight off with as little impact as possible. Which means they still want them to have had the money to progress and innovate etc, which are the first things to go with a redistribution of company finances.

The Bank of England sanctioned this stability money "financed by the issuance of central bank reserves" rather than impact the taxpayer or make companies need to deplete their own resources unnecessarily.

For me, the actual discussion on Liverpool as an entity comes more down to what would that money otherwise be put towards (for instance, if you redistribute money away from the academy, you're potentially taking money out of the economy later), and then the more interesting angle which is simply that of PR. In terms of PR, they should have known better.

Deleted User wrote: »

Billionaires and multi millionaires pay premier league footballers an average of Stg£3 million each per annum. What the club owners proposed was to keep paying those players and stop paying the non playing staff and let the taxpayer step in. Now maybe you understand it better and have more information it's all fine and dandy, good for you. You can't prescribe that everyone else should think that way too.

According to the Bank Of England (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-summary-and-minutes/2020/monetary-policy-summary-for-the-special-monetary-policy-committee-meeting-on-19-march-2020), it's not tax payer money.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

According to the Bank Of England (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-summary-and-minutes/2020/monetary-policy-summary-for-the-special-monetary-policy-committee-meeting-on-19-march-2020), it's not tax payer money.

To be honest, I couldn't care where the money comes from.

The billionaires continue to pay the footballers an average of Stg£3 million each, while they dump the lowest paid. Of course that will be criticised.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest, I couldn't care where the money comes from.

The billionaires continue to pay the footballers an average of Stg£3 million each, while they dump the lowest paid. Of course that will be criticised.

Ha, sure this is it... I've no doubt the club owners would bloody love to not have to pay the 3 million each, but that's the reality of contracts. Those wages buy them the assets that are responsible for literally all the revenue at the club. If you simply decide not to pay one of them their full contracted wages without them agreeing to it, you've voided the contract, and they are now no longer your asset.

Player wages should really be thought of more as rent for vital-rare-infrastructure, rather than employee pay.

noodler

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Again though, it's not for companies who are cash strapped... it's not for when you've no money left to pay your staff and have to let them go on furlough. It's for every company of every size who have staff members that they can't use.

Think of it this way - if you're Nissan, and you have loads of cash, and also loads of employees who can't work. Going by your rationale, they should use their cash to pay their wages and only go the furlough option once the cash is running low.

What the government(s) actually want, is for Nissan to not redistribute that cash away from whereever it would have gone (R&D etc), because ultimately that creates a loss down the line. They want businesses to be able to keep going as normal, without losing those resources, so when things come back up, those businesses (of all kinds) are in a good position to launch straight off with as little impact as possible. Which means they still want them to have had the money to progress and innovate etc, which are the first things to go with a redistribution of company finances.

The Bank of England sanctioned this stability money "financed by the issuance of central bank reserves" rather than impact the taxpayer or make companies need to deplete their own resources unnecessarily.

For me, the actual discussion on Liverpool as an entity comes more down to what would that money otherwise be put towards (for instance, if you redistribute money away from the academy, you're potentially taking money out of the economy later), and then the more interesting angle which is simply that of PR. In terms of PR, they should have known better.





According to the Bank Of England (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-summary-and-minutes/2020/monetary-policy-summary-for-the-special-monetary-policy-committee-meeting-on-19-march-2020), it's not tax payer money.

Agree with a good. It of what you say apart from the analogy that the gov would not like a company to move cash from one area to another to pay wages.

They absolutely couldn't give a toss. They'd be only delighted if companies paid a currently unprofitable arm with money from another section.

The problem is, alot of rich companies don't work that way. When one arm becomes unviable they tend to make people redundant, regardless of how rich the company is overall.

~Rebel~

noodler wrote: »

Agree with a good. It of what you say apart from the analogy that the gov would not like a company to move cash from one area to another to pay wages.

They absolutely couldn't give a toss. They'd be only delighted if companies paid a currently unprofitable arm with money from another section.

The problem is, alot of rich companies don't work that way. When one arm becomes unviable they tend to make people redundant, regardless of how rich the company is overall.

I think it's a bit of both really - though the priority is definitely as you said, to simply help the people who would have been canned instantly because their manufacturing/processing/line work was no longer in action, and they no longer served a purpose for the company, regardless how much cash the company had.

But I've definitely gotten the impression that it's a 2 pronged approach - helping the employees first and foremost, but also helping in a way that actively helps the business to recover too, and that a part of the reason for not doing any means testing at all was to give companies a bit of free rein to operate as best they see fit to come back strong from this. For instance in dealing with the class of workers between "unnecessary & easily replaceable", and "vital"... effectively the middle class of their workforce. The ones who aren't normally let go right away, but are laid off in the 3rd or 4th round of redundancies... the ones that would be tougher to replace (in both money and time), but expensive to keep on without them being able to contribute in the here and now. Those are the ones where you could see companies facing the decision of stripping money from R&D etc to hang onto... but this program means they get to have their cake and eat it too - no wages in the short term, and no new hiring and (importantly) training period when things pick up, and no shutdown of more prospective projects. What draws me to this train of thought is just how much they've talked about this "steep V" economy model, of a massive drop, and a sudden rise, by working to keep the impact to companies (especially bigger ones) as small as they can.