General Premier League Thread 2019-20

citytillidie

All you have to do is listen to the radio to hear the difference in crowd levels compared to the tv

howiya

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Still not bad going... that's over 12 million people being made happy by an entertainment thing. Be hard enough pressed to find another that would have a similar impact I'd say.

You would also have a lot in the no column that would have said no on the basis of how the question is written.

If you replaced premier league with football I'd guess that the yes percentage would increase a good bit.

DeanAustin

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Agree with this completely. But I think he's always said it's just a job to him?. I think there was an article before where he spoke about racism really effecting him and suffering with depression?

On that note, Ian Wright received some horrific messages on Instagram and believe the police got involved. Makes you think how many times this happens regularly to black footballers when they score goals against opposition racist 'supporters'

Edit: https://twitter.com/IanWright0/status/1259833040626429954?s=19

The abuse of Wright seems to an Irish teenager. It was pretty f**king sickening - I hope Wright and the police/Gardai go all the way with this. It's not acceptable to spread that abuse and it's even less acceptable to do it from behind a keyboard.

On Rose, he gets people's backs up because he's got a big mouth that's a few steps ahead of his brain but I think he's right on this one.

yourdeadwright

To be me Rose has always come across as unlikeable character ,

Everyone in England will start going back to work in the coming weeks so he's right footballers should be no different,

He will be safer than the college kids and teenagers who have been risking there life's for minimum wage in his local supermarkets and garages and so on ,

Football will only start when its seen as safe, so if its seen as safe footballers need to get on with it like everyone else will have to , Lets no forget he'll be tested far more often than nearly all other workers will be

Guy:Incognito

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Listen to the likes of NBCSN compared to Sky,the experience is completely different. Sky seem to adjust the audio to make the commentator sound more prominent.
Even on TV the crowd noise adds to it. Just listen to how a good movie score adds to it.
Honestly,tell me as a Liverpool fan that you wouldn't find it weird not to hear the kop singing or roaring as a goal is scored? Jaysus,there were posters here who haven't forgiven Martin Tyler over talking while they were singing ynwa.

Plus how will the ref know that he's a w*nker if there's no crowd chanting it at him:)

Its irrelevant whether its preferred for people to have crowd noise. That's not an option for the moment.

The debate is whether people will stop watching without the crowd noise. I cant see any reason why they would. They watch for the football. The football is still on. The potential audience is now bigger because people cant go to the match or the pub.

dundalkfc10

Mushy wrote: »

TV stations (sky) already play crowd noises over the stadium crowd, just watch any leeds game where they're chanting about Sky. You'll hear it fade out and generic noise take its place. It's more funny more than anything, and say it would be done for games if they are to go ahead.

The same is done by TV companies in many home grounds to make it sound louder.
Liverpools YNWA is always very loud, but when your at a game unless its V a top side/rival or big game, you can hear the away fans clearly during it

.G.

DeanAustin wrote: »

The abuse of Wright seems to an Irish teenager. It was pretty f**king sickening - I hope Wright and the police/Gardai go all the way with this. It's not acceptable to spread that abuse and it's even less acceptable to do it from behind a keyboard.

On Rose, he gets people's backs up because he's got a big mouth that's a few steps ahead of his brain but I think he's right on this one.

He handed himself into Gardai yesterday.

Cantona's Collars

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its irrelevant whether its preferred for people to have crowd noise. That's not an option for the moment.

The debate is whether people will stop watching without the crowd noise. I cant see any reason why they would. They watch for the football. The football is still on. The potential audience is now bigger because people cant go to the match or the pub.

I'll still watch the football but part of the experience is the crowd,the rival chants etc. Now it's going to be just a sterile atmosphere but that's what we have to put up with for a while.
We can't even go to the pub to interact with other fans

Trigger

Since getting the cochlear implant, Being able to hear the atmosphere of the games on the TV has heightened my enjoyment of the game Tenfold.

Just saying

8-10

Atmosphere in the PL has been poor for years in my experience. Especially early kick offs which for some reason are never much craic.

Champions League is a different beast, atmosphere even for group games is incredible but for the knockouts it's phenomenal.

The CL will suffer more from behind closed doors this season especially with all the big teams left in it. I don't see the PL suffering nearly as much given the games left to play

Agent Coulson

Sean Dyche gave a great interview about getting back to football on the Ornstein & Chapman podcast today.

https://theathletic.com/podcast/144-the-ornstein-and-chapman-podcast/?episode=75

Corholio

Don't know why people are constantly comparing 'normal' jobs and footballers and the 'they'll just have to do it because people in the other jobs are'. Most peoples jobs don't include mandatory multiple time physical contact with sweating, breathing people. I know people like to constantly remind that they are multi millionaires, getting paid way more than average, they should work down the coal mines etc etc but they can have genuine grievances too.

There's a reason all sports have stopped, the GAA said they are unlikely to have any games while social distancing is in place, but haven't heard much blowback against that, which it's obvious why. Because footballers are richer, they should have to speed up their medical tolerance to this for some reason.

Fitz*

Corholio wrote: »

Don't know why people are constantly comparing 'normal' jobs and footballers and the 'they'll just have to do it because people in the other jobs are'. Most peoples jobs don't include mandatory multiple time physical contact with sweating, breathing people. I know people like to constantly remind that they are multi millionaires, getting paid way more than average, they should work down the coal mines etc etc but they can have genuine grievances too.

There's a reason all sports have stopped, the GAA said they are unlikely to have any games while social distancing is in place, but haven't heard much blowback against that, which it's obvious why. Because footballers are richer, they should have to speed up their medical tolerance to this for some reason.

Most people's jobs wont have a very high amount of constant testing, ensuring that they are only in contact with other people who have tested negatively many times in a row. Arguably, it will be the safest working environment.

8-10

They're only being asked to take the field with people who have tested negative before they start.

I'd imagine when I'm going back to work it's with people who haven't been tested and could be asymptomatic

Mushy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Is it fake crowd noise or turning down the channel from one section of the stadium and up in a section of the stadium they deem less offensive?

Sounds like a generic one, cos it can happen when theres not much noise going on otherwise. Funnier when they're trying to drown it out.

Corholio

FitzShane wrote: »

Most people's jobs wont have a very high amount of constant testing, ensuring that they are only in contact with other people who have tested negatively many times in a row. Arguably, it will be the safest working environment.

Rapid pace of results and 100% non infection rate is needed though. If one slips through, the chances are loads more will get infected, unlike a normal work environment where you are not necessarily in a constant firing line of catching it even if someone you work with has it. I'm not saying football players have it terrible or anything like that, they are privileged, but the way some talk about them you'd swear they just watch football out of spite and to have 'rich' people to moan about.

Beechwoodspark

DeanAustin wrote: »

The abuse of Wright seems to an Irish teenager. It was pretty f**king sickening - I hope Wright and the police/Gardai go all the way with this. It's not acceptable to spread that abuse and it's even less acceptable to do it from behind a keyboard.

On Rose, he gets people's backs up because he's got a big mouth that's a few steps ahead of his brain but I think he's right on this one.

Totally agree. The abuse dealt out to Ian Wright is disgusting and completely unacceptable. I hope wrighty gets justice.

He annoys me at times on motd but he was some goal scorer in his day.

.G.

Premier League clubs ‘look set to play out season at own grounds’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/premier-league-clubs-look-set-to-play-out-season-at-own-grounds-rvrsb8rk8?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1589300011

TitianGerm

Corholio wrote: »

Rapid pace of results and 100% non infection rate is needed though. If one slips through, the chances are loads more will get infected, unlike a normal work environment where you are not necessarily in a constant firing line of catching it even if someone you work with has it. I'm not saying football players have it terrible or anything like that, they are privileged, but the way some talk about them you'd swear they just watch football out of spite and to have 'rich' people to moan about.

A Madrid players tested positive for COVID a few days after the Liverpool game and some of them had antibodies in their system so probably had it before the game. Don't think any of the Liverpool players got it though? There's going to be risks for everyone until a vaccine is available.

If you work in an office and someone has COVID and they cough into their hand and don't wash them and then proceed to make tea in the canteen then they have a chance to spread it to everyone else in the office who touches the kettle. It just takes one person to not be hygenic (sp?)

Mary in HR isn't going to be tested on her way in but Augero will be. At least Augero will know if he's virus free before he goes on the field.

thebaz

yourdeadwright wrote: »

To be me Rose has always come across as unlikeable character ,

Everyone in England will start going back to work in the coming weeks so he's right footballers should be no different,

He will be safer than the college kids and teenagers who have been risking there life's for minimum wage in his local supermarkets and garages and so on ,

Football will only start when its seen as safe, so if its seen as safe footballers need to get on with it like everyone else will have to , Lets no forget he'll be tested far more often than nearly all other workers will be

yeah, a lot of unfulfllied potential, and then constant whining, when the reality is he is well over payed for what he does , in comparison to us mere mortals - big chip on his shoulder , that he needs to lose to fulfill his undoubted talent.

Agent Coulson

A company from Hong Kong won the rights to give the private tests to the premier league clubs.

£4m for 40k tests and they started today at Wolves with non playing staff.

Wolves staff involved in PL #COVID19 pilot test gave nose + mouth swabs - uncomfortable but over in 30sec & drive-through done inside 5min. Process to be replicated at other 19 clubs, results within 24 hours. All private, cost just under £4m
@TheAthleticUK

https://twitter.com/David_Ornstein/status/1260256012356980736?s=20

ShamoBuc

That's very efficient if true.

Quazzie

Agent Coulson wrote: »

A company from Hong Kong won the rights to give the private tests to the premier league clubs.

£4m for 40k tests and they started today at Wolves with non playing staff.



https://twitter.com/David_Ornstein/status/1260256012356980736?s=20

Two million pound per premier league club, and they couldn't get a better set up than a thirty quid tent from Wish

Guy:Incognito

I wont be happy until the video is dropped of Harry , elbow on the door, leaning out getting a test at the drive through test centre outside a ground.

eigrod

TitianGerm wrote: »

A Madrid players tested positive for COVID a few days after the Liverpool game and some of them had antibodies in their system so probably had it before the game. Don't think any of the Liverpool players got it though? There's going to be risks for everyone until a vaccine is available.

If you work in an office and someone has COVID and they cough into their hand and don't wash them and then proceed to make tea in the canteen then they have a chance to spread it to everyone else in the office who touches the kettle. It just takes one person to not be hygenic (sp?)

Mary in HR isn't going to be tested on her way in but Augero will be. At least Augero will know if he's virus free before he goes on the field.

Office toilets are a real problem. You need to crap, you have to go and there’s limits as to how much decontaminating you can do yourself - even less if it’s touching cloth by the time you get to the cubicle door.

Collie D

Quazzie wrote: »

Two million pound per premier league club, and they couldn't get a better set up than a thirty quid tent from Wish

Think you might have added a zero there.

Speaking of big numbers where is this rebate to Sky coming from? Are they on some kind of sale or return contract? I would have thought the deal was you pay us (the PL) to screen the matches and it’s your job to sell subscriptions to your customers. I suppose billion euro contracts are a bit more complicated than that though but curious as to terms they’re applying.

Rayne Wooney

With European leagues starting back England are silly enough to put themselves under pressure to do the same and keep up appearances. I’d be surprised at this point if the league doesn’t start back around late June to be honest

Testing the players is just smoke, the PL won’t give a crap about corona once the ball gets rolling again. Do you think they’ll be isolating squads for two weeks or someone catches it? Of course not.

Cantona's Collars

Collie D wrote: »

Think you might have added a zero there.

Speaking of big numbers where is this rebate to Sky coming from? Are they on some kind of sale or return contract? I would have thought the deal was you pay us (the PL) to screen the matches and it’s your job to sell subscriptions to your customers. I suppose billion euro contracts are a bit more complicated than that though but curious as to terms they’re applying.

I heard on a sports bulletin that the EPL will owe around £400 million to broadcasters regardless if they play games or not.

PhilipsR

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

With European leagues starting back England are silly enough to put themselves under pressure to do the same and keep up appearances. I’d be surprised at this point if the league doesn’t start back around late June to be honest

Testing the players is just smoke, the PL won’t give a crap about corona once the ball gets rolling again. Do you think they’ll be isolating squads for two weeks or someone catches it? Of course not.

How is testing players just smoke? They’re literally doing it to ensure any positive tests can be isolated quickly and moved away from the squad to ensure no spreading. Further, all players will then be immediately tested again to ensure no other players have it.

The two weeks quarantine is pointless and needless if the testing is there.

y0ssar1an22

Agent Coulson wrote: »

A company from Hong Kong won the rights to give the private tests to the premier league clubs.

£4m for 40k tests and they started today at Wolves with non playing staff.



https://twitter.com/David_Ornstein/status/1260256012356980736?s=20

seems like decent value at €100 per test. pittance really to the PL and the PL clubs.

i wonder what will happen roy? he's in the age bracket of people who should be cocooning.

y0ssar1an22

PhilipsR wrote: »

How is testing players just smoke? They’re literally doing it to ensure any positive tests can be isolated quickly and moved away from the squad to ensure no spreading. Further, all players will then be immediately tested again to ensure no other players have it.

The two weeks quarantine is pointless and needless if the testing is there.

presume he means once the league gets going, its going to completion regardless of how many may test positive

5starpool

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

I heard on a sports bulletin that the EPL will owe around £400 million to broadcasters regardless if they play games or not.

I've seen stories (don't know how true) that they'd look for a large rebate if they are played over the summer behind closed doors, but could look for a much larger refund if games don't restart at all. All just speculation though I'm sure. I have no idea what the actual truth in this is.

Mitch Connor

5starpool wrote: »

I've seen stories (don't know how true) that they'd look for a large rebate if they are played over the summer behind closed doors, but could look for a much larger refund if games don't restart at all. All just speculation though I'm sure. I have no idea what the actual truth in this is.

On this type of talk, I wonder how much of it is just negotiations and trying to shape the final narrative.

Talk about rebates no matter what is done, and then Sky and BT look like the good guys when they agree to not claw back as long as they get to show all of the matches. For example.

5starpool

Mitch Connor wrote: »

On this type of talk, I wonder how much of it is just negotiations and trying to shape the final narrative.

Talk about rebates no matter what is done, and then Sky and BT look like the good guys when they agree to not claw back as long as they get to show all of the matches. For example.

I'd imagine there is definitely an element of scaremongering, or kite flying about it, although it could easily come under the banner of 'paper never refuses ink' either.

One thing is for sure though, all future tv and sponsor contracts, as ell as ticket sales probably, will have new clauses in them to deal with this type of situation.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

On this type of talk, I wonder how much of it is just negotiations and trying to shape the final narrative.

Talk about rebates no matter what is done, and then Sky and BT look like the good guys when they agree to not claw back as long as they get to show all of the matches. For example.

That’s what I was thinking, I really don’t think sky want to get money back if the games are played, they really do need to show the football. Use the rebate thing to get all the games and they are the FTA providers. Shame really as I’d like to see some games on ITV and BBC.

Fitz*

Mitch Connor wrote: »

On this type of talk, I wonder how much of it is just negotiations and trying to shape the final narrative.

Talk about rebates no matter what is done, and then Sky and BT look like the good guys when they agree to not claw back as long as they get to show all of the matches. For example.

There's a lot of nonsense being spouted in the public that I would not be surprised is just an attempt at scaremongering by various people associated with either the PL, or football clubs, so that when it returns it seems like there was so much attempts at made at compromise or that the 'normal' game is actually better than what was to be expected.

Look away when tackling
No spitting & celebrating
Halves less than 45 minutes
Neutral Venues
TV rebate

All of a sudden, when a game (let's just say Brighton v Norwich at the Amex Stadium) takes place as normal at the Amex Stadium with normal rules etc, just with no fans present, it almost seems better and more appealing now than it would have been a few weeks ago when there was all these rumours about changes being made.

I haven't included the rule about 5 subs, in 3 substitution slots, as I think that that rule actually could be useful in both the short terms and long term. There is already the rule about the 4th substitution slot in games that go to Extra Time so it's not exactly a massive change to the rules overall in worldwide football at all levels.

Mitch Connor

I have a big concern about the looking away when tackling thing.

I don't think it is realistic - and would actually be downright dangerous for players to do so, in terms of injury risk.

But is it something authorities would look to use against a player who contracts Covid-19? (You didn't look away like we told you to, so its kinda on you kid!)

The wife is a nurse, and she would always comment on guidelines the hospital will have on paper, but not be able to properly enforce - but if something happens and the guidelines were not followed to the letter, the hospital have an easy out to hide behind.

HalloweenJack

Looking away while tackling is definitely going to cause more problems. It effectively removes tackling as you can't do it safely if you're not looking.

bangkok

looking away when tackling?

that is surely a late April fools joke

.G.

If they can't let them play football normally with all that entails then they can't let them play at all. The looking away thing is ludicrous. How will corners and free kicks be conducted when normally they are a load of blokes of groping and manhandling while being in people's faces.

Cantona's Collars

The FA have taken FIFA to court over Chelsea's transfer ban.

y0ssar1an22

the article is a bit scant on detail:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/11987558/fa-case-against-fifa-over-chelsea-transfer-ban-to-be-heard-in-june

i wonder what happened, and why the appeal is only happening now?

As for the above, looking away while tackling? what crackpot suggested that? deserved to be sacked for that ****ing stupidity

TitianGerm

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

The FA have taken FIFA to court over Chelsea's transfer ban.

Why are the FA taking them to court and not Chelsea themselves?

Actually did Chelsea not appeal the ban anyway?

y0ssar1an22

TitianGerm wrote: »

Why are the FA taking them to court and not Chelsea themselves?

Actually did Chelsea not appeal the ban anyway?

the fa were sanctioned as well for registering players they shouldn't of had

TitianGerm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the fa were sanctioned as well for registering players they shouldn't of had

Ah that makes more sense. They hardly have a case though when Chelsea's ban was upheld by CAS?

ebbsy

So Norwich think if they finish in the bottom 3 and the top 2 in the championship go up as is, they shouldn't be relegated ?

Dont think that makes any sense, and doesn't make me want to bat for Norwich either. They already had access to Prem league riches and look where they are.

Mushy

ebbsy wrote: »

So Norwich think if they finish in the bottom 3 and the top 2 in the championship go up as is, they shouldn't be relegated ?

Dont think that makes any sense, and doesn't make me want to bat for Norwich either. They already had access to Prem league riches and look where they are.

I think that's if the pl play their games and the championship dont finish it on the pitch. But either way they wouldnt be in the pl next year (unless go on a great run)

ebbsy

Mushy wrote: »

I think that's if the pl play their games and the championship dont finish it on the pitch. But either way they wouldnt be in the pl next year (unless go on a great run)

Certainly that announcement yesterday about the league finishing on sporting merit has certainly not helped all the bottom teams. All bar 3 would be happy.

And if it was points per game then West Ham would go down. How ironic for Karen Brady.

poppers

ebbsy wrote: »

Certainly that announcement yesterday about the league finishing on sporting merit has certainly not helped all the bottom teams. All bar 3 would be happy.

And if it was points per game then West Ham would go down. How ironic for Karen Brady.

how does that work
villa 25 from 28 is 0.892857ppg
watford/west ham and bournmouth 27 from 29 is 0.931034ppg and west ham have better goal difference?

yourdeadwright

Here is a question
For next season not this , would most grounds be able to seat season ticket holders at a 2 meter gap ?
I know a few clubs wouldn't be able to do it but I sure many would ,
Old Trafford hold 72 thousand and there is only 53 thousand season tickets sold, Take into account not everyone would be able to travel ,

Could be an idea to get football back to some kinda norm next season ,