General Premier League Thread 2019-20

Guy:Incognito

Agent Coulson wrote: »

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!

Richard Branson could set it up on his island. Build one of each type of sports pitch / court / etc and have all the sportspeople fly there. Call it sports island. Have cameras everywhere broadcasting 24/7 and different sports on through the day and night. An infinitely better version of all that reality tv ****e :D

Guy:Incognito

~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.

Regardless of what way the money is put in to circulation , the taxpayer will pay somehow. If its not directly taken back in taxes, theyll pay more through inflation.

~Rebel~

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Regardless of what way the money is put in to circulation , the taxpayer will pay somehow. If its not directly taken back in taxes, theyll pay more through inflation.

It's an interesting one I've been thinking about - in terms of inflation, I wonder how much of an offset you see from this newly introduced money, against the billions of pounds simply lost from the economy through the crash. Back around March 12th according to here 160bn pounds left the British market in just one day. This furlough fund is estimated at 200bn, so I'm guessing the losses are currently higher than the introduced money. What that ratio of new money versus dead money actually ends up being, we won't know till we hit stability again I guess though. It's a smart way of doing it though, in that we'll only see inflation from it if things rebound quite well and everyone is doing ok and that lost money comes back into the economy through commerce leaving them with a net cash surplus, which feels an ok tradeoff. (I might be off on the mechanics of this though, as it's not something I'm super au-fait with, but the financial logic seems to track, right?)

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

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.

Oh I appreciate the whys.

It's just that some clubs managed to get over this by talking to players and getting then to agree a reduction or deferral to enable non playing staff be paid. And some clubs got over it by simply stumping up for the non playing staff.

But Liverpool, Spurs and others either didn't do that, or the players refused, so sought to get the wages for non playing staff off the books. And all the subsequent u turns or arguments about business practice can't change that.

It's not the worst thing ever, it reminds me of ManU screwing the Busby family over the Superstore lease, an ugly business move that will eventually be forgotten about.

KaiserGunner

https://twitter.com/mirrorfootball/status/1247609256477687813?s=21

A few Tottenham players training in a London park along with Jose Mourinho. Defying social distancing while at it.

TitianGerm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh I appreciate the whys.

It's just that some clubs managed to get over this by talking to players and getting then to agree a reduction or deferral to enable non playing staff be paid. And some clubs got over it by simply stumping up for the non playing staff.

But Liverpool, Spurs and others either didn't do that, or the players refused, so sought to get the wages for non playing staff off the books. And all the subsequent u turns or arguments about business practice can't change that.

It's not the worst thing ever, it reminds me of ManU screwing the Busby family over the Superstore lease, an ugly business move that will eventually be forgotten about.

Don't think any club in the PL has had players take a pay cut yet? The players union were in discussion about it though.

TitianGerm

TitianGerm wrote: »

Don't think any club in the PL has had players take a pay cut yet? The players union were in discussion about it though.

Think you're right, at least haven't heard of any either. So far have only heard of the managers and coaching staff at Bournemouth and Brighton.

While not all clubs have plumbed as low as Spurs and Newcastle, and Liverpool have, under pressure, pulled back from going down that route, the failure of a group of players who earn an average of Stg£3 million each to step up on this issue by reductions and deferrals is very ugly. Hence for all the hand wringing about Hancock, I'd have little sympathy for the group he targeted.

TitianGerm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Think you're right, at least haven't heard of any either. So far have only heard of the managers and coaching staff at Bournemouth and Brighton.

While not all clubs have plumbed as low as Spurs and Newcastle, and Liverpool have, under pressure, pulled back from going down that route, the failure of a group of players who earn an average of Stg£3 million each to step up on this issue by reductions and deferrals is very ugly. Hence for all the hand wringing about Hancock, I'd have little sympathy for the group he targeted.

But other clubs may well have availed of the scheme and just not have announced it. There's no published list like there is in Ireland.

There's also a taxation to consider in relation to players taking pay cuts. Most of them are probably paying 40% and the guys over £150k are paying 45%. All these PL players reduce their wages to 50% and all of a sudden there's 10s of million in taxes gone weekly.

Assuming there's 25 players per club and the average salary is £75k then HMRC is losing out on just under £10m a week from PL players taxes.

Hard to know what to do.

Mitch Connor

TitianGerm wrote: »

But other clubs may well have availed of the scheme and just not have announced it. There's no published list like there is in Ireland.

There's also a taxation to consider in relation to players taking pay cuts. Most of them are probably paying 40% and the guys over £150k are paying 45%. All these PL players reduce their wages to 50% and all of a sudden there's 10s of million in taxes gone weekly.

Assuming there's 25 players per club and the average salary is £75k then HMRC is losing out on just under £10m a week from PL players taxes.

Hard to know what to do.

The Government should not be looking for PL players to take pay cuts (or anyone at all) as a blanket position. Its insane.

A paycut benifits the club, only. And that in of itself is not a bad thing - the clubs need to survive through this, and some will need players to take a pay cut at some point in order to survive through this.

But, as you point out, from a Government/Tax perspective, people getting paid and paying tax on it is what they should want, where it is financially possible.

TitianGerm

TitianGerm wrote: »

But other clubs may well have availed of the scheme and just not have announced it. There's no published list like there is in Ireland.

There's also a taxation to consider in relation to players taking pay cuts. Most of them are probably paying 40% and the guys over £150k are paying 45%. All these PL players reduce their wages to 50% and all of a sudden there's 10s of million in taxes gone weekly.

Assuming there's 25 players per club and the average salary is £75k then HMRC is losing out on just under £10m a week from PL players taxes.

Hard to know what to do.

Point taken, but the "we're paid such huge sums of money that a reduction will affect HMRC" angle has its weaknesses. I don't think even the bankers had the cheek to run that one.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

Point taken, but the "we're paid such huge sums of money that a reduction will affect HMRC" angle has its weaknesses. I don't think even the bankers had the cheek to run that one.

How does Marcus Rashford taking a 30% wage cut benefit the Government or NHS?

gimli2112

KaiserGunner wrote: »

A few Tottenham players training in a London park along with Jose Mourinho. Defying social distancing while at it.

Rules don't apply to the special one. Given how some players have been pillored for this it will be interesting to see how Jose reacts to criticsm. Really doesn't have a leg to stand on but I'm sure he'll have some excuse.

Unless you, as an Arsenal fan, have posted a picture from last year with which to rile me with, in which case well played Sir.

Some height of ignorance that from Spurs

Surely there should be some form of sanction for this type of idotic behaviour

The_Kew_Tour

Deleted User wrote: »

Some height of ignorance that from Spurs

Surely there should be some form of sanction for this type of idotic behaviour

Same. Deduction of points I think myself. Disappointed in Jose. Expected better from him. Not sure what they were thinking.

citytillidie

Premier League 'could lose £1bn'; while football's 'clubs and leagues in danger'

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52191973

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

How does Marcus Rashford taking a 30% wage cut benefit the Government or NHS?

The players at clubs where the players agreed a cut or deferral did so to allow non playing staff to be paid. Not to pay it to the Government or NHS, though presumably the former indirectly benefits because those non playing staff are not added to the huge list relying on the State for support.

The Premier League players could easily have followed that lead weeks ago. Clubs could easily have sat down and spoken to them about it. The whole "we'll pay then their 3 million each while getting rid of the cheap labour" may be legitimate from a business sense, obviously is based in the fact that the players are the valuable assets...but it's still very ugly.

The_Kew_Tour

It’s always seem be footballers who get shot down. Never see pressure on Golfers, F1 Drivers, top end Rugby players, Tennis etc

Now I don’t feel sorry for footballers at top earning end but still.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

The players at clubs where the players agreed a cut or deferral did so to allow non playing staff to be paid. Not to pay it to the Government or NHS, though presumably the former indirectly benefits because those non playing staff are not added to the huge list relying on the State for support.

The Premier League players could easily have followed that lead weeks ago. Clubs could easily have sat down and spoken to them about it. The whole "we'll pay then their 3 million each while getting rid of the cheap labour" may be legitimate from a business sense, obviously is based in the fact that the players are the valuable assets...but it's still very ugly.

Man United are paying the regular staff as normal. Not relying on the state at all.

So what is the benefit to the Government of Rashford taking a 30% pay cut?

As I said, players taking a pay cut benefits the finances of the Club, as a (large) cost cutting measure. That is not a bad thing itself, where needed (and it will be needed at many clubs).

But if a club can afford to pay the players and staff, why is there a call for them to take a pay cut? Why the blanket 'PL players should take a 30% cut', take.

Cookiemunster

Deleted User wrote: »

The players at clubs where the players agreed a cut or deferral did so to allow non playing staff to be paid. Not to pay it to the Government or NHS, though presumably the former indirectly benefits because those non playing staff are not added to the huge list relying on the State for support.

The Premier League players could easily have followed that lead weeks ago. Clubs could easily have sat down and spoken to them about it. The whole "we'll pay then their 3 million each while getting rid of the cheap labour" may be legitimate from a business sense, obviously is based in the fact that the players are the valuable assets...but it's still very ugly.

Care to name these clubs? Barca players (and players of other Spanish clubs) have had an ERTE enforced on them. They say that they agreed to it, but in reality they had no choice once the ERTE was accepted by the government. The ERTE affects all staff, but the players have agreed to put a bit extra aside to help pay the non paying staff.

Juventus players have agreed not to be paid at all for 4 months, but not the rest of the clubs players. The other 19 serie A clubs had agreed unanimously to a 30% pay cut, but the players union have rejected it. Pretty much like the PFA.

Cookiemunster

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Care to name these clubs?

Leeds United and Birmingham were the 2 in the Championship that took cuts 2 weeks ago

ozzy jr

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It’s always seem be footballers who get shot down. Never see pressure on Golfers, F1 Drivers, top end Rugby players, Tennis etc

That's probably due to the greed and coruption in the game.

Football clubs want to finish the season because they don't want to hand money back over incomplete contracts.

I seen an interview the other day with a golfer, following the announcement of the British Open being cancelled, saying "if one major is cancelled, they should all be cancelled as it's only fair".

Different mentality.

~Rebel~

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Leeds United and Birmingham were the 2 in the Championship that took cuts 2 weeks ago

I wonder if that’s apples with apples then though... championship clubs and below are in real danger of simply going bust without players taking pay cuts. It’s good of them to agree so soon (though in Leeds case, it’s not a pay cut, it’s deferred wages, which is quite a different thing), but I’ve a feeling that might be out of necessity simply due to the club not being able to keep its doors open otherwise.

And on clubs elsewhere, neither Spain nor Italy have anything like the job retention scheme, at all. They’ve gone the total other direction of giving companies extra powers to offload costs like staff. Like the UK and ourselves after the 2008 crash, they’re going for a more top down approach, rather than the UK’s new bottom up approach, and that being the case, it’s just not the same situation... English prem clubs can (for now) afford to pay their players, knowing that they can also guarantee their furloughed staff are still taken care of. In Spain (and a slightly lesser extent Italy), anyone laid off or unpaid is thrown to the wolves, so just a very different dynamic.

All that to say, all of this is more complicated than its given credit for, and quick emotive reactions don’t really do the intricacies of the situation justice. But those quick emotive reactions are something that generates good/bad PR very quickly, so should themselves be taken into account by club decision makers - as Liverpool realised all too late.
(Blegh, I’m entirely borin’ myself with my own ****e at this stage. I’ll leave the whole discussion with this - clubs are going to find themselves in all sorts of unique positions where decisions have to be made, and they’re gonna do all sorts of different things... none of them are evil, none of them are saintly. It’s all shades of grey.)

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I wonder if that’s apples with apples then though... championship clubs and below are in real danger of simply going bust without players taking pay cuts. It’s good of them to agree so soon (though in Leeds case, it’s not a pay cut, it’s deferred wages, which is quite a different thing), but I’ve a feeling that might be out of necessity simply due to the club not being able to keep its doors open otherwise.

Agree that the needs and motives may vary, even amongst the 2 clubs I referred to. Certainly the suspicion was that Birmingham had no real option but to take a cut for the sake of the club, with Leeds it was variously reported as a cut and a deferral but from the outset it was linked to paying non playing staff. The media reaction at the time was that it would trigger the rest into action, yet 2 weeks later the relative inaction of the Premier League players gets more and more egregious with every day they sit on their hands.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

Agree that the needs and motives may vary, even amongst the 2 clubs I referred to. Certainly the suspicion was that Birmingham had no real option but to take a cut for the sake of the club, with Leeds it was variously reported as a cut and a deferral but from the outset it was linked to paying non playing staff. The media reaction at the time was that it would trigger the rest into action, yet 2 weeks later the relative inaction of the Premier League players gets more and more egregious with every day they sit on their hands.

If the clubs have told the players they will go under without a cut, and the players have refused, then questions should be asked.

But the reports out at the moment do not indicate that is the effective position right now.

I've no doubt the longer this goes on the more into focus that scenario will come - but until that time it just feels like people wanting to bash the players to take a paycut for optics.

~Rebel~

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Agree that the needs and motives may vary, even amongst the 2 clubs I referred to. Certainly the suspicion was that Birmingham had no real option but to take a cut for the sake of the club, with Leeds it was variously reported as a cut and a deferral but from the outset it was linked to paying non playing staff. The media reaction at the time was that it would trigger the rest into action, yet 2 weeks later the relative inaction of the Premier League players gets more and more egregious with every day they sit on their hands.

And this is the crux of it. A very clever move on their part... it’s still good they did it of course, but they did it in the way that most benefits them - their framing of it was perfect. They understood the PR side of it much better than Liverpool did.

Given that player/management wages (as their biggest expenditure by a million miles - Bielsa alone is on 6m a year!) outweighs support staff wages by many many many many multiples, it does a loooot more than pay non playing staff. But framing it that way in their statement immediately gets that instant emotive reaction on their side in a big way, and provides an easy story to tell. Not to be too cynical, but all of this is marketing. That doesn’t mean it’s good or bad, but it’s very purposeful clever messaging to nudge the story in the direction they want it to go.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If the clubs have told the players they will go under without a cut, and the players have refused, then questions should be asked.

But the reports out at the moment do not indicate that is the effective position right now.

I've no doubt the longer this goes on the more into focus that scenario will come - but until that time it just feels like people wanting to bash the players to take a paycut for optics.

I don't think players have to wait until the clubs tell them they're going under. There is no suggestion that this was the ultimatum at Leeds. If players heard non playing staff were being furloughed, any player with sufficient backbone and a conscience could have said that should not happen, even if he and his teammates have to stump up. And maybe they did. But it's time we moved away from the whole "business decision" and "have to get an ultimatum" thinking, they are all adults and many drawing wages that dwarf those including the Minister who criticised them.

~Rebel~

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think players have to wait until the clubs tell them they're going under. There is no suggestion that this was the ultimatum at Leeds. If players heard non playing staff were being furloughed, any player with sufficient backbone and a conscience could have said that should not happen, even if he and his teammates have to stump up. And maybe they did. But it's time we moved away from the whole "business decision" and "have to get an ultimatum" thinking, they are all adults and many drawing wages that dwarf those including the Minister who criticised them.

1) why the bejesus would any player have that massive swelling of altruism in that instance? “What?! They’re getting their wages paid in full by someone else?! Noooo!”. I mean, if they felt a collective need to act, I daresay it would’ve gone a lot further to spend it on ppe and frontline support..

And 2) off the back of agreeing to defer their wages (again, not a reduction), Leeds players are all getting a 2% raise.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8197951/Leeds-players-pay-rise-Championship-season-resumes.html

It’s allll shades of grey.

Guy:Incognito

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It’s always seem be footballers who get shot down. Never see pressure on Golfers, F1 Drivers, top end Rugby players, Tennis etc

Now I don’t feel sorry for footballers at top earning end but still.

Football is the more followed sport, its in the news all the time about every move they make. They earn hugely more than Rugby players too. A lot of clubs cut all sorts almost immediately. They dont operate in the same universe as football clubs. The English top flight are looking at furloughing the players, nevermind the tea lady's.

I dont think anyone has said footballers should take a pay cut to benefit anyone other than the staff at the club. It's a bad look for a layer of lads to be earning 6 figures a week while the club claims off the government to pay the rest of its staff that earn a fraction of that a year.

I havnt heard of lay offs from F1 teams tbh, not that it might not have happened, but my thoughts would be the same if a driver is still earning 10m a year while the team is claiming for someone in the office on 20k. Golfers, tennis players etc would be different, theyre essentially self employed are they not? Theyd hardly have a large staff of direct employees.

Iused2likebusts

ozzy jr wrote: »

That's probably due to the greed and coruption in the game.

Football clubs want to finish the season because they don't want to hand money back over incomplete contracts.

I seen an interview the other day with a golfer, following the announcement of the British Open being cancelled, saying "if one major is cancelled, they should all be cancelled as it's only fair".

Different mentality.

Its not the same the british open isnt 3/4 completed it hasnt started. I also dont see why other majors need to be cancelled thats stopping people from earning money if its safe to do so later in the year. It also gives people that like golf something to look forward to in the future. Football isnt some big bad industry its going to try generate money like every sensible business to the best of its ability.

Mitch Connor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Football is the more followed sport, its in the news all the time about every move they make. They earn hugely more than Rugby players too. A lot of clubs cut all sorts almost immediately. They dont operate in the same universe as football clubs. The English top flight are looking at furloughing the players, nevermind the tea lady's.

I dont think anyone has said footballers should take a pay cut to benefit anyone other than the staff at the club. It's a bad look for a layer of lads to be earning 6 figures a week while the club claims off the government to pay the rest of its staff that earn a fraction of that a year.

I havnt heard of lay offs from F1 teams tbh, not that it might not have happened, but my thoughts would be the same if a driver is still earning 10m a year while the team is claiming for someone in the office on 20k. Golfers, tennis players etc would be different, theyre essentially self employed are they not? Theyd hardly have a large staff of direct employees.

I think four of the f1 teams have cut staff pay.

Guy:Incognito

KaiserGunner wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mirrorfootball/status/1247609256477687813?s=21

A few Tottenham players training in a London park along with Jose Mourinho. Defying social distancing while at it.

If theyre going to be stupid anyway, why would they not organise it at the training ground or something? How did Jose think no one would notice them in the bloody park? Its not like theyre 4 Sunday league players no one would know

Agent Coulson

Teams in Germany back in training and the Bundesliga hoping to start behind closed doors in May and finish before the end of June.

ozzy jr

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Its not the same the british open isnt 3/4 completed it hasnt started. I also dont see why other majors need to be cancelled thats stopping people from earning money if its safe to do so later in the year. It also gives people that like golf something to look forward to in the future. Football isnt some big bad industry its going to try generate money like every sensible business to the best of its ability.

You're missing the point.

The mentality of the golfer isn't about making money. The mentality of the people that run football is to keep their snouts in the trough, at all costs.

~Rebel~

ozzy jr wrote: »

You're missing the point.

The mentality of the golfer isn't about making money. The mentality of the people that run football is to keep their snouts in the trough, at all costs.

Why are you comparing a sports person with an administrative person? One is tasked with his own career, safe in the knowledge of the money he already has, coupled with a career that spans 3 to 4 decades, the other is in charge of keeping a whole industry, with hundreds of thousands of employees, afloat. It’s just a nonsensical comparison.

Plenty of footballers themselves were very quick to say they didn’t want to play, right back at the beginning of this. That’s a fair comparison.

And if you think there aren’t golf administrators trying to figure out how to get the show back on the road as soon as it’s safely possible to do so, well, you’d be, like, wrong, and stuff.

ozzy jr

It was a golf administrator.

~Rebel~

ozzy jr wrote: »

It was a golf administrator.

Then I daresay that person is both naive, and hopefully not very impactful in their position. Who were they, and what’s their role do you know? You just called them “a golfer was interviewed”.

If I worked for any of those tournaments, or even was just from the area, and heard that being said by the higher ups, I’d be raging. It’s just a really, really stupid position to take if you’re actually in a key decision making role.

Thankfully whoever they are at least they’re in a minority, with the Masters set to take place in November, and the US Open set for September.


Would really love to get the name of that person though... not to call shenanigans, but the only even vaguely similar sounding thing to that is Rich Beem, who is just a golfer, not an administrator.
https://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12176/11969792/rich-beem-should-all-golf-majors-follow-the-open-in-cancelling

bennyineire

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Teams in Germany back in training and the Bundesliga hoping to start behind closed doors in May and finish before the end of June.

If the virus models play out as expected then England could follow 6-8 weeks later so in theory then could be finished late August/September.

Yes England look particularly bleak at the moment but they are approaching their peak now, things will look different in 4 weeks

Iused2likebusts

ozzy jr wrote: »

You're missing the point.

The mentality of the golfer isn't about making money. The mentality of the people that run football is to keep their snouts in the trough, at all costs.

Im not really you compared one golfer that has now been changed to one adminastrator to the people that run football. It was a poor comparison .

Agent Coulson

https://twitter.com/JHenderson/status/1247977956082843649?s=20

pjohnson

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I think four of the f1 teams have cut staff pay.

McLaren and Racing Point drivers included aswell as the other staff iirc.

Agent Coulson

Premier League clubs to receive millions of pounds in advanced payments

Premier League clubs will receive millions of pounds in advanced payments related to league positioning and television fees in an effort to ease their cash-flow problems.

The 20 clubs agreed to the funding to cope with the lack of income because of the coronavirus crisis, with payments expected to be in the region of £20m.

The partial release of "merit payments" is prize money that clubs would have received, while "facility fees" relate to how many matches each club had shown on live TV matches.

Clubs will also receive part of their funding for next season in the summer months.

The arrangement for this season's advanced payments, which was first reported by The Times, was decided by the clubs at last week's shareholder meeting.

Premier League football has been postponed indefinitely because of the spread of the coronavirus.

There will need to be adjustments made to these payments at the end of the season based on what the final table looks like.

BBC Sport has been told the amount of money being released has been carefully decided, based on balancing the cash-flow problems clubs are experiencing with the worst-case scenario of broadcasters demanding money back if the remaining fixtures are not played.

Sports streaming provider DAZN has told the Premier League it will be deferring its most recent payments for overseas rights until it receives clarity on when or if the season will resume.

DAZN has the rights to show Premier League action in Japan, Canada, Spain and Brazil.

The Premier League is understood to be facing potential financial losses of £762m in broadcast revenue if the season cannot resume.

Insiders have stressed that the release of merit payments should not be seen as an indication of an idea to end the season where it is now, and that the decision has been made to help clubs through this crisis.

Typically clubs receive some funding at the beginning of a new season.

It is understood the intention is still to pay clubs part of this funding for next season during the summer months, to again help tide clubs over during this period when they have no other money coming in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52228551

y0ssar1an22

re contracts expiring at the end of june, a sports lawyer says those player are free to leave regardless of what fifa say....

"Legally, they cannot be forced to continue to play for the club," De Marco, of Blackstone Chambers, told Sky Sports News.

"Nobody can force them to do so; FIFA, the FA, the club or anybody else. If they want to walk away, that's a matter for them but it will really be a matter of whether, financially, that makes sense for them".

but who in their right mind will leave, if they cannot register for another club? they will be unemployed.

i wonder what will happen the players who have been told they can leave a club, ie: their contract will not be renewed/extended by a club. will the club be compelled to offer them a short term contract? the article does not cover this.

also says wealthy clubs should benefit when window does open. ""You will have also some clubs who can afford to go out there and buy and will be able to do so on much more favourable terms, and you will have other clubs who will be, perhaps, forced to sell at under value. What that will most likely do is increase the difference between the wealthiest clubs and the rest, which is generally not a good thing for football."

most important quote i reckon: " I don't think we will really know what the solution is until we're closer to knowing when, and how, the season can resume."

source: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11971338/premier-league-players-can-walk-away-from-their-clubs-on-june-30-says-leading-sports-lawyer

Agent Coulson

The Times reporting that The FA have offered St George’s Park and Wembley to the Premier League so they can keep travel down to a minimum and play a couple of games a day in each location.

Guy:Incognito

Bit of a difference between playing out your matches in a training facility and wembley .

If Wembley was an option then surely just pick a 2nd stadium rather than St Georges park? Or the other way around, St Georges park and whoever has the next best training set up?

How quickly would one particular stadium start to resemble The National Ploughing field if it was used twice daily over a few weeks?

Rock77

Can VAR be used at a training facility? Goal line tech?

I doubt it.

Will they just play without it??

~Rebel~

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Bit of a difference between playing out your matches in a training facility and wembley .

If Wembley was an option then surely just pick a 2nd stadium rather than St Georges park? Or the other way around, St Georges park and whoever has the next best training set up?

Yeah I’m guessing it’ll be all stadiums, just because they’re already set up to broadcast. I think the FA are just saying “here’s what we have anyway, if it’s of use to ya, have at it”. The general locations make sense though, London, and up in the the North. Elland Road might be a good choice... good location and keeps it neutral along with Wembley.

gstack166

Rock77 wrote: »

Can VAR be used at a training facility? Goal line tech?

I doubt it.

Will they just play without it??

They’ve agreed it won’t be used if the season restarts before June due to social distancing etc

8-10

Hopefully that will be the end of VAR for good

Quazzie

gstack166 wrote: »

They’ve agreed it won’t be used if the season restarts before June due to social distancing etc

How is VAR affected by Social distancing?

It can literally be done from home