General Premier League Thread 2019-20

Trigger

kowloonkev wrote: »

The way he said that was a bit strange - "It's nothing to do with financial gain" - guess what he meant to say was that he's not going in regardless of the financial cost that will come his way?

That's what I thought it meant, basically he would rather his child be safe than going in and training/playing and having a financial gain(being paid)

Trigger

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Jordan Ibe is not going to play if the season restarts. His contract with Bournemouth is no more and won't be renewed.

I'd say plenty of the BAME players will be the same.

yourdeadwright

Liam O wrote: »

Liverpool's success has been based on the midfield 3 covering for the full backs and wingers basically on all out attack. It's what's solidified their defence and turned them from 3/4th best in the league to by far the best.

City are different in that they have their full backs covering in defence for basically having 2 attacking midfielders in their midfield 3. If Liverpool plan on replicating that with Havertz in there they'll have trouble with teams playing through them again imo.

All what it's at the moment though I guess.

Yes but im sure they will progress as a team and evolve ,The ability to be flexible is also part of the next stage of development

yourdeadwright

Trigger wrote: »

I'd say plenty of the BAME players will be the same.

I don't think Ibe not playing is corona related
The lad was in rehab at the start of the month ,could still be there ,

Cantona's Collars

Trigger wrote: »

I'd say plenty of the BAME players will be the same.

It's a contractual issue, basically he's a free agent (unemployed) until the transfer window opens.

kowloonkev

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

It's a contractual issue, basically he's a free agent (unemployed) until the transfer window opens.

there must be a lot of players in that situation.

yourdeadwright

kowloonkev wrote: »

there must be a lot of players in that situation.

Ibe is different its due to his behaviour ,
As I said he was in rehab could still be there for his mental health, he drove his Bentley into a café while on a driving ban,

Guy:Incognito

I assume it was fairly mutual too and neither was trying to hold on to the other?

If he turned down any decent contract offer hes silly imo. Bournmouth is his level or even slightly above it. Cant see him going up the league.

Jordan Ibe is /was in rehab this month for mental health issues. His situation doesn't seem to be related to covid19. Hopefully he's on the mend. Looks a decent prospect one time.

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ibe is different its due to his behaviour ,
As I said he was in rehab could still be there for his mental health, he drove his Bentley into a café while on a driving ban,

In rehab?

Sounds like he should be in jail...I guess he may face it yet...

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

In rehab?

Sounds like he should be in jail...I guess he may face it yet...

Now I wouldn't like to presume things but ....... it would look good if you have already taken steps to address your "problems" if you did arrive in court,

You see it all the time in normal life with people who aren't bad but get in trouble for doing something stupid, lad gets in trouble knows hes going to court so takes up helping the elderly or doing some kind of charity work which is then mentioned to judge , It was one time mistake by an other wise good member of the community ,

In this case checking into rehab could have similar effect ,Its rehab for mental issues not drink or drugs

Iused2likebusts

Liam O wrote: »

Liverpool's success has been based on the midfield 3 covering for the full backs and wingers basically on all out attack. It's what's solidified their defence and turned them from 3/4th best in the league to by far the best.

City are different in that they have their full backs covering in defence for basically having 2 attacking midfielders in their midfield 3. If Liverpool plan on replicating that with Havertz in there they'll have trouble with teams playing through them again imo.

All what it's at the moment though I guess.

Hard to tell on that one as when Liverpool had coutinho they didnt have VVD or Allison.

thebaz

JoshRosen wrote: »

Deeney has a 5 month old son who has had breathing problems. Amount of abuse he has been getting for trying to protect his family is awful. Why do some opposition fans care that much about what he does anyways?

its his right - but I assume as most Premiership players are over-payed for what they do , people like to have a go - His over physical approach on the pitch wouldnt make him popular with other fans - remember him, riling up Arsenal a few years back.

j8wk2feszrnpao

JoshRosen wrote: »

Deeney has a 5 month old son who has had breathing problems. Amount of abuse he has been getting for trying to protect his family is awful. Why do some opposition fans care that much about what he does anyways?

It might be his own fans that care most of all, esp if Watford go down without their captain playing.

I get the concern he has for himself, and if he doesn't want to play, then I don't disagree with him. He shouldn't get abuse for it. But he could go training, but keep a distance from others, keep in shape, etc.... Any concern for his family could be overcome by housing himself in a hotel for a few weeks. But this isn't going away any time soon, so he might be out of football for next season as well.

It's only keyboard warriors criticising him. Who is going to physically confront him and tell him that he's wrong for putting his sick child first? Nobody.

~Rebel~

6 wrote: »

It's only keyboard warriors criticising him. Who is going to physically confront him and tell him that he's wrong for putting his sick child first? Nobody.

He'd have almost been better off keeping his statement simpler than it was. Just the gist of - My kid is at risk, i'm not going to risk passing it to him, and i'm not going to leave him to go live somewhere else for months on end.

This is an entirely fair, and unarguable point.

I think he almost got himself into more trouble by saying other things, which were more easily refutable and arguable - like saying it could get to his kid through them washing his dirty kit and his kids clothes together, when the obvious answer of that is 'just dont wash your kit with other peoples clothes..'. Or when he said he didn't understand why he couldn't get a haircut but he could tussle in the box with a bunch of lads at a corner - when obviously the difference is testing. If his barber and all his barber's clients were tested 3+ times a week, haircuts wouldn't be a problem. As soon as you get into the broader and very arguable positions, you're inviting people to bite back, which maybe wouldn't have been there if he just stuck with the point about his kid.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

He'd have almost been better off keeping his statement simpler than it was. Just the gist of - My kid is at risk, i'm not going to risk passing it to him, and i'm not going to leave him to go live somewhere else for months on end.

This is an entirely fair, and unarguable point.

I think he almost got himself into more trouble by saying other things, which were more easily refutable and arguable - like saying it could get to his kid through them washing his dirty kit and his kids clothes together, when the obvious answer of that is 'just dont wash your kit with other peoples clothes..'. Or when he said he didn't understand why he couldn't get a haircut but he could tussle in the box with a bunch of lads at a corner - when obviously the difference is testing. If his barber and all his barber's clients were tested 3+ times a week, haircuts wouldn't be a problem. As soon as you get into the broader and very arguable positions, you're inviting people to bite back, which maybe wouldn't have been there if he just stuck with the point about his kid.

Sounds like he probably needs more education on the matter. He can't be alone.

Mitch Connor

I see a lot of stuff pointed at Deeney (online in general) about being in a priveledged position to be able to not work etc, which is true.

But that can really be put to one side. His questions are utterly valid, whether they have good answers or not.

He can go play 1ith 10/15 other guys and against 11 to 16, but can't go get his hair cut?
He can go train and play, but has to wash his own kit and not eat at the training ground etc?

If it is safe to play and train, why is his kit not considered safe?

They are mixed messages.

part of me would contend that the mixed messages are essentially PR moves. If they can train together safely (according to those who 'decide') then eating together etc should be fine. I do think some of the measures are for the sake of showing they are taking measures.

I see people pointing to the low numbers of deaths in a footballer age range. But that won't help older or vunerable family members if a player brings it home.

I'm not saying football can't or shouldn't return. I've argued in favour of it. But Deeney raises valid questions. Some of which either don't have answers or don't have really good answers. The first part I would argue is getting those questions out and answers out, good or bad. Players should not be ignorant of the risks and neither should clubs, and responsibility should be taken for those risks. If that means Deeney decides he is done with football then that is his choice. It isn't for me or anyone else to judge his risk assessment for his family.

I don't doubt we are going to look back on the next month, over time to come, and people will be questioned for the choices they made and opinions held.

I'm lucky in that I can work from home, my company is looking at working from home til next year for everyone, and looking to work out if there is an office in 2021 and beyond, and what that would look like. Few have that level of luck. And I don't envy anyone who has to go out to work, and the 'choice' they have to make in doing so. Footballers are no different. On big money, some, yes. But people with family and a future to consider.

At the very least, Deeney should be nothing but respected for being out there with his views.

Guy:Incognito

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He can go play 1ith 10/15 other guys and against 11 to 16, but can't go get his hair cut? .

For the reason Rebel outlined above.

kowloonkev

If you had told me that this situation would arise 6 months and that one player would be kicking up a fuss I probably would have guessed Troy Deeney.

Mitch Connor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

For the reason Rebel outlined above.

So if a club test a barber and clear them, the barber will be allowed to cut the hair of the players within the rules of the current restrictions?

yourdeadwright

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So if a club test a barber and clear them, the barber will be allowed to cut the hair of the players within the rules of the current restrictions?[/QUOTE

Yes but the club are not going to test a baber that's just messing about ,
He can't go to a normal baber because people would be in and out untested ,

Deeny should have just said he wasn't happy to play because his son has berthing problems end off, its his choice to do so

I don't think he should be respected because of his view its just his personal thoughts on his life let him do as he wishes and everyone else moves on ,

Things like kits and eating together can be done without at the moment they only need the bear minimum to happen "just incase"
Can't see the problem with that ,

Mitch Connor

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So if a club test a barber and clear them, the barber will be allowed to cut the hair of the players within the rules of the current restrictions?[/QUOTE

Yes but the club are not going to test a baber that's just messing about ,
He can't go to a normal baber because people would be in and out untested ,

Deeny should have just said he wasn't happy to play because his son has berthing problems end off, its his choice to do so

But it does go beyond that.

People have been arguing for weeks in here about the practicalities of social distancing and the accuracy of testing with regards to the return of football, and his questions are simply highlighting that.

If the players are being tested, and considered safe, and safe to play. Why do they have to wash their own kits (not that it is a hardship)? The message is the its fine to play and grapple with opponents... but your kit could be contaminated so deal with that yourself.

There are obviously precautions he could take when getting home - same as people are doing already. my wife changes out of her uniform before driving home, puts uniform in a hazard bag and directly into the washing machine along with the a wash for the clothes she drove home in. She does that because her work environment is not considered safe. If footballers are being asked to do the same the message is their work environment is not safe. But they are being told it is safe enough to return.

Again, I'm not arguing the measures, or the reasons - but it has to be acknowledged that the measures are because of a lack of safety or full confidence. Players have every right to raise that, to question it, and understand how it can affect their families.

ricero

kowloonkev wrote: »

If you had told me that this situation would arise 6 months and that one player would be kicking up a fuss I probably would have guessed Troy Deeney.

Yea not surprised by him. If i was watford i would refuse to pay his wages.

Im sure his tune would soon change.

Mitch Connor

ricero wrote: »

Yea not surprised by him. If i was watford i would refuse to pay his wages.

Im sure his tune would soon change.

Except he has said his family health is more important than money (he has enough) so it doesn't appear so.

But sure, you go about assuming he is motivated only by money. and not the life of his 5month old.

And before you may ask - if he does refuse to return and play, Watford should stop paying him and he should accept that, imo.

Shanotheslayer

ricero wrote: »

Yea not surprised by him. If i was watford i would refuse to pay his wages.

Im sure his tune would soon change.

You'd sure be wrong based on his statement.

gimli2112

It's not like he doesn't want to play football, These guys all want to play as much as they can with a few exceptions such as Michael Owen and that full back who used to play for Spurs. Deeney's come out and said he's not putting his kid at risk (I assume this is the point, I didn't see the statement). It's a valid argument and unless he's satisfied there's next to no risk he's well within his rights.

Iused2likebusts

Everyone has different circumstances to deal with and different opinions on the virus. I think we are acting way too slow in Ireland with regard to moving on to other phases. I also think football needs to find a way to get back for the industry to survive in a way that is as safe as possible. Having said that if I was in troy deeneys shoes with a 5 month old with breathing difficulties Id be doing the exact same as him.

Mitch Connor

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Everyone has different circumstances to deal with and different opinions on the virus. I think we are acting way too slow in Ireland with regard to moving on to other phases. I also think football needs to find a way to get back for the industry to survive in a way that is as safe as possible. Having said that if I was in troy deeneys shoes with a 5 month old with breathing difficulties Id be doing the exact same as him.

indeed - and beyond the speed at which goverment or industry may move, it can also simply come down to a difference of opinion.

Deeney may feel the risks are higher than, just to put a name in here, Rashford*. Doesn't mean that either are categorically correct in their judgement.

In a years time we could feel Deeney's fears were ultimately unfounded or that Rashford was an idiot, in hindsight.

*I have no idea what Rashford's opinion on returning to training this week is.

Corholio

Bizarre that some say that Deeney is a stand out guy to do something like this. I wouldn't exactly say I'm a fan of his but for a guy who's had his ups and downs, quite a bit self caused, he's pretty far away from being soft to not want to play football. The truth is if it was *insert popular and regarded as nice player* there'd almost certainly be more praise and tribal gushing over him. Regardless of him being a 'football player' and all that comes with negatively, I'm going with his human care and worry to protect his son.

ShamoBuc

Deeney is right to do what he is doing, no doubt. I find it hard to disagree with him, why would you even want to??

Cantona's Collars

I'm back at work and one of my colleagues is under doctors orders not to return to work yet due to his wife being at risk. You can't blame a man for having reservations when it comes to his family.
Deeney knows more than many about the devastating effects of the virus.

Cantona's Collars

City are appealing the transfer ban and going to the court of arbitration over it.

Nunu

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

City are appealing the transfer ban and going to the court of arbitration over it.

Welcome back from hibernation poppa bear😂

Cookiemunster

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

City are appealing the transfer ban and going to the court of arbitration over it.

The dates been set for the hearing.


https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1262755052915011589

bangkok

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The dates been set for the hearing.


https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1262755052915011589

a few brown envelopes should do the trick

y0ssar1an22

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The dates been set for the hearing.


https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1262755052915011589

can that get appealed upwards again if CAS dont rule in their favour?

Agent Coulson

I wonder would it make more sense that the first games played would be the game week in hand games between City, Sheff Utd, Arsenal & Villa to bring all the teams to 29 games played.

JoshRosen

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

City are appealing the transfer ban and going to the court of arbitration over it.

Didn’t realise they got a transfer ban.

Guy:Incognito

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The dates been set for the hearing.


https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1262755052915011589

That was bloody quick

Guy:Incognito

Few lads sweating on contract tracing leading back to a few brassers

https://twitter.com/neiljonesgoal/status/1262761153672949760

Cantona's Collars

Nunu wrote: »

Welcome back from hibernation poppa bear😂

See above posts about it baby bear.

jobeenfitz

kowloonkev wrote: »

If you had told me that this situation would arise 6 months and that one player would be kicking up a fuss I probably would have guessed Troy Deeney.

Players may have good reasons for not wanting to play, that's fair enough.

If I had to guess one player, my money would have been on Rose. So glad he left Spurs.

Mitch Connor

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Players may have good reasons for not wanting to play, that's fair enough.

If I had to guess one player, my money would have been on Rose. So glad he left Spurs.

I've heard of his attitude problems.

But taking a higher level view where a player treats football like any other job they have an application for rather than a 'love'.... isn't their opinion and reluctance to play just as, if not more, valid than anyone elses?

They are more likely to be taking a pragmatic view rather than an emotive one, as opposed to players labled as 'competitors' who 'just want to get out there'

TitianGerm

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Players may have good reasons for not wanting to play, that's fair enough.

If I had to guess one player, my money would have been on Rose. So glad he left Spurs.

Rose is still at Spurs isn't he

Okon

He was on loan at Newcastle last time I looked... not sure how all that works now though.

Fitz*

Okon wrote: »

He was on loan at Newcastle last time I looked... not sure how all that works now though.

If the 3 parties agree to it, he stays at Newcastle for the rest of the season. Otherwise he goes back to Spurs. Newcastle hold his registration so I don't think he can play for Spurs again this season. It's in his interest to stay at Newcastle. Spurs keep him off the wage bill too, rather than paying him to not play.

As fair as I remember, the only players that can be newly-registered for the remainder of the season are those that were initially registered with a club for the 1st half of the season and then left out of the squad for the 2nd half of the season due to injury, like Tom Heaton. No transfers involved.

Agent Coulson

Has there been an issue in Manchester with fans turning up at old trafford during lockdown that National newspaper is picking up on this.

Manchester United urge their fans to stay away from stadiums

Prospect of crowds gathering has been a concern
‘Keep your friends, family and all United fans safe’

@JamieJackson___

Manchester United have urged supporters to stay away from behind-closed-doors games if the season restarts.

The prospect of crowds gathering has been a significant concern for police amid the coronavirus pandemic and such messages from clubs are regarded as important if games are to go ahead, particularly without the use of neutral grounds.

“We ask for your co-operation not to travel to any stadiums at which we are playing on matchdays,” United wrote to season-ticket holders. “By supporting from home and following government guidance, you will be playing your part to keep your friends, your family and all United fans safe. This united effort to stay at home will give us the best chance of protecting the health of everyone in our community.” United also confirmed a refund on the remaining home games for season-ticket holders.

On Wednesday Ole Gunnar Solskjær’s squad are due to return to training at their Carrington base, where they will work in small groups that are physically distanced. That was permitted by the Premier League from Tuesday after a vote by the clubs and the hope is to restart matches in mid-June.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/19/manchester-united-urge-their-fans-to-stay-away-from-stadiums

davemckenna25

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Has there been an issue in Manchester with fans turning up at old trafford during lockdown that National newspaper is picking up on this.

Manchester United urge their fans to stay away from stadiums

Prospect of crowds gathering has been a concern
‘Keep your friends, family and all United fans safe’

@JamieJackson___



https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/19/manchester-united-urge-their-fans-to-stay-away-from-stadiums

Not that has been mentioned anywhere and I'm sure if there had been, we would have heard lots about it.

I think it sounds more like the club acting correctly in their correspondence with fans, when informing them of a refund for the remainder of their season tickets.

Some clubs just like to proactive in a positive way.

Rock77

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Has there been an issue in Manchester with fans turning up at old trafford during lockdown that National newspaper is picking up on this.

Manchester United urge their fans to stay away from stadiums

Prospect of crowds gathering has been a concern
‘Keep your friends, family and all United fans safe’

@JamieJackson___



https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/19/manchester-united-urge-their-fans-to-stay-away-from-stadiums

Why would you you assume there has been an issue? It just says the club urge their fans to stay away if games go ahead..