Football & Coronavirus [READ MOD NOTE IN FIRST POST - updated 06-05-20]

jobeenfitz

If 5% or more of the players(Premier league) are against re-starting on safety grounds I think that's it, won't happen this season.

Even if they got 100% buy in its still not guaranteed to restart this season.

I think their eventually going to come up with some formula to end season without playing.

We should know a lot more about this virus by August or September and what's possible or not.

Drumpot

noodler wrote: »

It's been said in Ireland this week that, in the absence of a vaccine, around 70% of the population will have to get it before life can return to the way it was.

It's difficult to shake the feeling that we are all going to have to get this at some stage.

Obviously footballers, at least the top ones, won't have the same employment imperative to go back to work and so could take a more cautious stance.

They'd obviously be unable to avoid contact though at the same time though would have the best available treatment and test options.

I dunno just thoughts. I'm getting more and more of the view that we will have to get back to it here in Ireland soon enough of we want an economy to return to and everyone is going to have to take more measured risks.

I think you are correct, eventually we will have to take calculated gambles and experiment With more Techniques to see how we can live relatively normal lives while there is no vaccine.

I watched one medical video (excellent video from medcram) and the specialist said that if we can figure out natural ways of this being less severe, it might be the way forward. This would be based on and weight management as there are some reports that suggest physical health and having a strong immune system (take VIT C, D , zinc daily) may nearly be enough to reduce severe cases by 50%.

They are also spotting a lot of people dieing from blood clots which may be prevented with blood thinners for a few months.

But these things are only in their infancy of being researched. I’d say by the end of the summer we should be in a much better place to make more informed choices on sports. Maybe it will be known by that stage that healthy sports people are least likely to get a severe or long lasting dose, then games behind closed doors is a more ethical discussion to have.

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

Simples, cancel football if there are no fans

Nobody will be forced to watch games without fans...

There will be football without match going fans whether people like it or not. Not ideal, but miles bettering than "canceling football"

RasTa

6 wrote: »

Nobody will be forced to watch games without fans...

There will be football without match going fans whether people like it or not. Not ideal, but miles bettering than "canceling football"

It will be back once the cure is found. I can't watch any type of sport that looks like a Beckett play.

Imagine this being cancelled

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

It will be back once the cure is found. I can't watch any type of sport that looks like a Beckett play.

Imagine this being cancelled

Can't cancel something that's happened RasTa.

It hardly a big deal for your typical Irish PL fan if parades are cancelled in Britain.

Pictures of the Kop followed by Liverpool trophy parades. Something you need to tell us?!:D

gstack166

Collie D wrote: »

If a league restarts would there be an option to do away with dead rubbers?

Say using Liverpool as an obvious example. They need six points to win the title. They get those six points in their first two or three games. They’re still due to play Newcastle. By the time the Newcastle game comes around Newcastle have earned enough points to stay up but mathematically wont be able to improve their position to get into Europe.

Can this game just be agreed as a 0-0 draw without being played? Liverpool might not reach a record points tally and Newcastle might potentially lose out on the prize money difference between 11th and 10th place but given the circumstances they’re not particularly major issues IMO.

Apart from the title race it’s a tight enough season for European and relegation spots so there may not be too many dead rubbers but the less games required the easier it will be to see the league out with less logistical issues or contagion risk. Might even free up a venue or a fixture date to try complete FA Cup.

For the integrity of football the season has to be finished we’re told on this site, it shouldn’t be cancelled, it shouldn’t be played until it’s safe.... or just let Liverpool get there 6 points and then cancel the rest of it. This thread should be renamed the comedy thread.

Yesterday's news at the this stage but La Liga also gearing up for restart soon according to their PM.

Good to see other badly affected countries getting back on their feet.


https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11827/11982259/la-liga-to-resume-soon-says-spain-pm-pedro-sanchez

Collie D

gstack166 wrote: »

For the integrity of football the season has to be finished we’re told on this site, it shouldn’t be cancelled, it shouldn’t be played until it’s safe.... or just let Liverpool get there 6 points and then cancel the rest of it. This thread should be renamed the comedy thread.

Apologies if I misunderstood your post but if that’s aimed at me it’s not what I said. I used Liverpool as the obvious example as their fate is the one that’s easiest to predict if there’s a restart.

FWIW I don’t think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being a Liverpool fan

RasTa

6 wrote: »

Can't cancel something that's happened RasTa.

It hardly a big deal for your typical Irish PL fan if parades are cancelled in Britain.

Pictures of the Kop followed by Liverpool trophy parades. Something you need to tell us?!:D

Yeah I don't live in Ireland so maybe judgement clouded by being used to match days at Old Trafford. Even the atmosphere in town is different on a match day. Would be awful to see it gone.

Might as well finish the season in Belarus

gstack166

Collie D wrote: »

Apologies if I misunderstood your post but if that’s aimed st me it’s not what I said. I use Liverpool as the obvious example as their fate is the one that’s easiest to predict if there’s a restart.

FWIW I don’t think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being a Liverpool fan

No wasn’t aimed at you in particular just the suggestion is all. Not insinuating the reasons for your suggestion but there is people out there crying that for the integrity of the league it must be finished but the Same people wouldn’t give a riddlers about integrity if it’s cancelled after the 2 games, that’s more my point.

Fitz*

Myself, I think the integrity is argument is more about setting a precedent for future years.

If, let's say this current season is stopped with over 75% played and counting for nothing, then what is to stop players thinking that all future games and seasons will count for nothing also? As the precedent is set, we could have 37 games played next season when another wave hits and the season stops. That season will also have to count for nothing.

If a team is 1-0 down at half time in a game and the manager comes in saying 'come on lads, we need to win this game. Let's come back and win it and go top of the table'. What's to stop a player thinking 'well what's the point? We could come back and win this game, but the season could get called off in 6 months time and my effort won't count for anything'. Another season of putting maximum effort in, for minimal reward. That could be a team chasing a title or promotion or a play off spot etc.

A less likely scenario, but also possible, I'd players putting in minimal effort and hoping to get bailed out by a pandemic, and save their place in the league.

Playing out the remaining games is the fairest solution to the season ending for all teams. To help combat against lack of integrity in future seasons, there might have to be rules drawn up such as if between 1-12 games are played before a cancellation, then the season is void. If between 13- 27 games are played, then points per game or some other metric and if more than 28 games are played then the table is final as if all games were played and the season ends. It will make teams to play to their maximum effort to ensure they have the best possible positioning at any curtailment date and not be arguing that they could win points that are out of proportion with points they have won.

fyfe79

gstack166 wrote: »

No wasn’t aimed at you in particular just the suggestion is all. Not insinuating the reasons for your suggestion but there is people out there crying that for the integrity of the league it must be finished but the Same people wouldn’t give a riddlers about integrity if it’s cancelled after the 2 games, that’s more my point.

Not from my point of view as a Liverpool fan. Coming back to play just 2 games is a waste of everyone's time, imo, as it doesn't resolve any of the relegation or European places - and it doesn't particularly matter to me if Liverpool do get the 6 points in those 2 games as it would just confirm what everyone knows anyway. It's the same reason I'd have no issue "accepting" an awarded title if the season can't be completed. There is 0% doubt in my mind that they would've gone on to win it.

The season needs to be completed by all teams, imo. It would be great to have a 100% completed season you could draw a line under and move on from.

Rock77

FitzShane wrote: »

Myself, I think the integrity is argument is more about setting a precedent for future years.

If, let's say this current season is stopped with over 75% played and counting for nothing, then what is to stop players thinking that all future games and seasons will count for nothing also? As the precedent is set, we could have 37 games played next season when another wave hits and the season stops. That season will also have to count for nothing.

If a team is 1-0 down at half time in a game and the manager comes in saying 'come on lads, we need to win this game. Let's come back and win it and go top of the table'. What's to stop a player thinking 'well what's the point? We could come back and win this game, but the season could get called off in 6 months time and my effort won't count for anything'. Another season of putting maximum effort in, for minimal reward. That could be a team chasing a title or promotion or a play off spot etc.

A less likely scenario, but also possible, I'd players putting in minimal effort and hoping to get bailed out by a pandemic, and save their place in the league.

Playing out the remaining games is the fairest solution to the season ending for all teams. To help combat against lack of integrity in future seasons, there might have to be rules drawn up such as if between 1-12 games are played before a cancellation, then the season is void. If between 13- 27 games are played, then points per game or some other metric and if more than 28 games are played then the table is final as if all games were played and the season ends. It will make teams to play to their maximum effort to ensure they have the best possible positioning at any curtailment date and not be arguing that they could win points that are out of proportion with points they have won.

I agree the fairest thing is to finish this season when safe to do so and yes you would think they will draw up some rules so everything would be clear if something like this happens again.

However, the idea that somebody chasing a game will think to themselves at half time ah I won’t bother because even if we win the season could be called off in 6 months is insane to be honest. Have you ever played a sport? That’s just not how it works.. players, professional and amateur play the game their in, emotions run high, they are caught up in fighting for the ball in their own personal duel during the game. Absolutely nobody is thinking 6 months ahead.

Not putting in effort for the whole season hoping a pandemic will save their league place... seriously??

Cantona's Collars

Several of the morning papers are saying that in order to get teams to agree to a "festival of football" in order to get the season finished in time to get the new season up and running that there'll be no relegation.
So basically this means that there's no losers. Going by that thinking,there should be no winners either.
The tournament is basically shaping up to be a series of friendlies for many teams with only the title to be mathematically confirmed and positions for European football (if that's going to be a thing) sorted.
Watford have started works on their pitch so what does that mean for them? They already said no to being one of the neutral venues that were proposed.

~Rebel~

gstack166 wrote: »

For the integrity of football the season has to be finished we’re told on this site, it shouldn’t be cancelled, it shouldn’t be played until it’s safe.... or just let Liverpool get there 6 points and then cancel the rest of it. This thread should be renamed the comedy thread.

Different opinions from different people. Who'd have thought.

Rayne Wooney

I don’t see how you can say no relegation but still play for the Euro spots to be honest.

~Rebel~

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I don’t see how you can say no relegation but still play for the Euro spots to be honest.

Yeah, playing out the full season without relegation doesn't seem to make much sense... I can understand it if you end the season now, but not after 38 games.

The Euro spots are a bit of a different matter though, since they either nominate their Euro teams, or don't get to play in Europe, so its somewhat out of the leagues hands on that one I guess.

Cantona's Collars

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I don’t see how you can say no relegation but still play for the Euro spots to be honest.

According to the athletic, the top 6 clubs said very little during the conference call the other day with Liverpool saying nothing at all.

Alonso77

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

According to the athletic, the top 6 clubs said very little during the conference call the other day with Liverpool saying nothing at all.

What should Liverpool say ?

CSF

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I don’t see how you can say no relegation but still play for the Euro spots to be honest.

Think the relegation teams are refusing to play ball on losing their home advantage with neutral venues.

I think Villa would be the one complaining the most given that Villa have won the most home games of the relegation candidates, despite having played the least home games of the relegation candidates.

The people who would talk about how those clubs need to be reasonable during these difficult times, are probably not showing adequate understanding of just how big the financial hit of relegation from the Premier League is, regardless of parachute payments.

Strumms

From everything said in this thread back and forth, the lack of clarity from the Premier League and ALL the question marks... we are in a unique situation that literally in the lifetime of our planet and therefore the sport has never happened and was never foreseen.

There is NO obviously fair answer, everything I can think of sees somebody as the looser, unfairly too.

VOID the season ? You are fûcking over Liverpool.

Say the season is over and the table stands as is ? Great for Liverpool, Liverpool ONLY...

Four teams are in a close battle to determine fourth and fifth place, Champions League and Europa League Qualification, worth truck loads of revenue and truckloads of prestige and so on.

SIX teams at the other end of the table are battling to survive relegation. There are 3 teams going down, looking at the table it’s 3 from a possible 6 ! That close !

Similar in the EFL with 1 point separating 1st and 2nd place, the relegation battle there is tighter, it will be 3 of 8 teams !

Somebody or somebodys is and are getting fûcked over.

You cancel and void the season ? Liverpool suffer, definitely. You blow the final whistle and say ok, the table as it is is final... there are MULTiPLE teams getting a bending over, Liverpool yay and so on but teams challenging for Europe, striving to avoid relegation/get promotion the same.... they’ll feel mega aggrieved.

Canceling and voiding seems fairest as you are only seeing one side..Liverpool who are loosing out... otherwise MULTIPLE teams are and in a big way.

If this was Chelsea 3 points clear, this conversation isn’t happening, which is an awful indictment on the EPL.

~Rebel~

Strumms wrote: »

From everything said in this thread back and forth, the lack of clarity from the Premier League and ALL the question marks... we are in a unique situation that literally in the lifetime of our planet and therefore the sport has never happened and was never foreseen.

There is NO obviously fair answer, everything I can think of sees somebody as the looser, unfairly too.

VOID the season ? You are fûcking over Liverpool.

Say the season is over and the table stands as is ? Great for Liverpool, Liverpool ONLY...

Four teams are in a close battle to determine fourth and fifth place, Champions League and Europa League Qualification, worth truck loads of revenue and truckloads of prestige and so on.

SIX teams at the other end of the table are battling to survive relegation. There are 3 teams going down, looking at the table it’s 3 from a possible 6 ! That close !

Similar in the EFL with 1 point separating 1st and 2nd place, the relegation battle there is tighter, it will be 3 of 8 teams !

Somebody or somebodys is and are getting fûcked over.

You cancel and void the season ? Liverpool suffer, definitely. You blow the final whistle and say ok, the table as it is is final... there are MULTiPLE teams getting a bending over, Liverpool yay and so on but teams challenging for Europe, striving to avoid relegation/get promotion the same.... they’ll feel mega aggrieved.

Canceling and voiding seems fairest as you are only seeing one side..Liverpool who are loosing out... otherwise MULTIPLE teams are and in a big way.

If this was Chelsea 3 points clear, this conversation isn’t happening, which is an awful indictment on the EPL.

Think you're missing out on a lot of things there, and perhaps have the repercussions a little backwards... if you void the season instead of simply ending it, you totally screw over teams going for European places, particularly Leicester and Utd, whilst rewarding Spurs and Chelsea for the achievements of a year ago. Also of course if you're voiding it, it means no-one goes down, and the championship is also voided, so you're screwing over the teams that are vying for the most valuable spots in pretty much all of football. Leeds and West Brom would likely never recover from it. West Brom are in their final year of parachute payments, so they can't afford another run like this, and if Leeds don't get promoted they'll have likely lost their shot with Bielsa leaving (doubtful they could even afford him for another year in the championship even if he wanted to stay, which he likely wouldn't).

There are literally no benefits to voiding it over simply ending it. At least ending it, whatever decisions you make are made on merit. You can even choose what you want to do with relegation/promotion. If you absolutely don't want to relegate teams unfairly, you can still bring Leeds and West Brom up to make a 22 team league as a one off - an option that isn't available if you void (by its very definition).

Ending it lets you keep all the options of sporting merit on the table, and you can pick between which ones make sense. It gives you choices. Voiding it throws sporting merit out the window. It sounds like voiding it has never been an option anyway, which is consistent with all the other leagues, where they've either looked to continue, or have ended it in different ways whilst keeping this season's results intact.

8-10

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

According to the athletic, the top 6 clubs said very little during the conference call the other day with Liverpool saying nothing at all.

The rumour is that the top 6 were pre-briefed on the discussion or potentially having side discussions themselves.

fyfe79

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Several of the morning papers are saying that in order to get teams to agree to a "festival of football" in order to get the season finished in time to get the new season up and running that there'll be no relegation.
So basically this means that there's no losers. Going by that thinking,there should be no winners either.
The tournament is basically shaping up to be a series of friendlies for many teams with only the title to be mathematically confirmed and positions for European football (if that's going to be a thing) sorted.
Watford have started works on their pitch so what does that mean for them? They already said no to being one of the neutral venues that were proposed.

Why would they do this in early May? Even if the season was unaffected by the virus, it still wouldn't be over. It would be their own fault if they lost home advantage because their pitch was dug up!

Cantona's Collars

fyfe79 wrote: »

Why would they do this in early May? Even if the season was unaffected by the virus, it still wouldn't be over. It would be their own fault if they lost home advantage because their pitch was dug up!

I found this odd,but that's what one of the papers said. I think Rangers were doing the same in Scotland.

fyfe79

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

I found this odd,but that's what one of the papers said. I think Rangers were doing the same in Scotland.

Just thinking that maybe they had asked the PL at the start of the season to plan fixtures accordingly - I guess it's possible their last 3 or 4 games might have been all away from home. I remember Liverpool ages ago starting one season with their first 4 or 5 games all away from home due to groundworks.

Cantona's Collars

8-10 wrote: »

The rumour is that the top 6 were pre-briefed on the discussion or potentially having side discussions themselves.

That's a dick move by the EPL if that's true.

@ Alonso 77, that answers your question on why Liverpool stayed silent so.

Trigger

fyfe79 wrote: »

Just thinking that maybe they had asked the PL at the start of the season to plan fixtures accordingly - I guess it's possible their last 3 or 4 games might have been all away from home. I remember Liverpool ages ago starting one season with their first 4 or 5 games all away from home due to groundworks.

5 of their last 9 games at home, they have 5 home
games in a row then Away last game of season..

Edit: Think that way it's set out is just the PL site

citytillidie

If the season had not of stopped Watford were due to play Man City this coming weekend at home so they have gone ahead with the pitch work now at their own risk

PhilipsR

Where’s the article on Watford doing pitch work? Reason I ask is I’d read an article during the week about them giving vicarage road to the NHS and the pics didn’t suggest any pitch work?

One thing the article said is that many of the rooms have been given to the NHS so I’d assume that’d be a bigger obstacle in using their ground.

howiya

PhilipsR wrote: »

Where’s the article on Watford doing pitch work? Reason I ask is I’d read an article during the week about them giving vicarage road to the NHS and the pics didn’t suggest any pitch work?

One thing the article said is that many of the rooms have been given to the NHS so I’d assume that’d be a bigger obstacle in using their ground.

Its on the athletic. Can't figure out how to copy the link from the app. Maybe someone else can post.

Southampton and Bournemouth also mentioned.

If Watford have given the stadium over to the NHS it'd make sense to have work done on the pitch while it's closed.

gstack166

PhilipsR wrote: »

Where’s the article on Watford doing pitch work? Reason I ask is I’d read an article during the week about them giving vicarage road to the NHS and the pics didn’t suggest any pitch work?

One thing the article said is that many of the rooms have been given to the NHS so I’d assume that’d be a bigger obstacle in using their ground.

A lot of teams have done it. It’s due to the short time frame clubs expect in the summer to do it.

https://twitter.com/superbiaproeiia/status/1248272623827652610?s=21

gstack166

https://twitter.com/superbiaproeiia/status/1257260376317661184?s=21

Looks like it’s touch and go if it’ll get the vote

8-10

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

That's a dick move by the EPL if that's true.

@ Alonso 77, that answers your question on why Liverpool stayed silent so.

I assumed you were reading the same Athletic article I did

The representatives of the “big six” clubs were said to have been particularly quiet on the call. It has been suggested to The Athletic that they may have been briefed of the details discussed ahead of time, and there is even a suggestion that the Premier League’s elite clubs have formed a separate group to discuss the issues at hand.

8-10

gstack166 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/superbiaproeiia/status/1257260376317661184?s=21

Looks like it’s touch and go if it’ll get the vote

Yeah 14 needed for the vote but also depends on what the alternative is. Teams can be against the idea, but if the alternative is not finishing the season that night we enough to persuade them to vote for it

Rock77

Why neutral venues? To reduce travel for squads?

Also I find it bizarre that city have dug up their pitch and say it’s because they believe they won’t have time in the summer due to the likely hood of a shortened break. What about the rest of this season if the prem restarts in the following weeks? Or if it’s needed as a neutral venue?

gstack166

Rock77 wrote: »

Why neutral venues? To reduce travel for squads?

Also I find it bizarre that city have dug up their pitch and say it’s because they believe they won’t have time in the summer due to the likely hood of a shortened break. What about the rest of this season if the prem restarts in the following weeks? Or if it’s needed as a neutral venue?

It’s dated April 9th. It’s been finished a couple weeks now.

8-10

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah 14 needed for the vote but also depends on what the alternative is. Teams can be against the idea, but if the alternative is not finishing the season a big hit in revenue that night we enough to persuade them to vote for it

FYP (probably)

Loafing Oaf

Rock77 wrote: »

Why neutral venues? To reduce travel for squads?

Something to do with policing numbers. Don't really understand...

Mitch Connor

Rock77 wrote: »

Why neutral venues? To reduce travel for squads?

Also I find it bizarre that city have dug up their pitch and say it’s because they believe they won’t have time in the summer due to the likely hood of a shortened break. What about the rest of this season if the prem restarts in the following weeks? Or if it’s needed as a neutral venue?

Concentration of resources. Potentially a lot less staff and infrastructure requirements for 8 stadiums than 20.

If you can concentrate teams to particular locations, I logistics become easier.

8 stadiums likely won't be city centre, so easier policing. Same reasoning as fans are less likely to travel to another clubs stadium for a match behind closed doors than there own.

It's also, seemingly, been seen as a test for how they would run all 20 behind closed doors next season.

ShamoBuc

Neutral venues will surely help with the number of fans that would gather at or near the stadiums, thus helping policing.

~Rebel~

Rock77 wrote: »

Why neutral venues? To reduce travel for squads?

I’m guessing it’s a bunch of reasons... one big one might be for the efficiency of support stuff - say you need 150 people to do stadium stuff and tv stuff and medical stuff, if you use neutral venues you could play 3 matches in one day with that one crew and one stadium. Over a game week you’d probably reduce the number of people needed for the 10 games by 60+%

And I think you’re right on travel too... I’m sure they’ll want to remove any air travel and overnight stays, so if the venue can be somewhere between any two clubs it helps a lot I bet.

Also as a bonus I guess it mitigates against fears of fans gathering for ‘home games’ since the team won’t be there.

8-10

Would also be different cities, e.g. Everton are reported to be fine to use their ground but Liverpool wouldn't be playing there. Same with Spurs in London etc.

And local infection rates would also be taken into consideration as well as using stadia outside of city centres

CSF

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah 14 needed for the vote but also depends on what the alternative is. Teams can be against the idea, but if the alternative is not finishing the season that night we enough to persuade them to vote for it

I doubt it. Certain teams will be disadvantaged by this and relegation could be a bigger cost to them than coronavirus. I’d quoted the Villa example, where it would be particularly unfair to play 2 less home games than some other teams.

It may well get the 14-6 vote but it would completely unfair on Villa if they don’t find a way to take account for the less home games, and realistically it is unlikely they would/could.

~Rebel~

CSF wrote: »

I doubt it. Certain teams will be disadvantaged by this and relegation could be a bigger cost to them than coronavirus. I’d quoted the Villa example, where it would be particularly unfair to play 2 less home games than some other teams.

It may well get the 14-6 vote but it would completely unfair on Villa if they don’t find a way to take account for the less home games, and realistically it is unlikely they would/could.

All depends on the options on the table really I think. For instance if this is the only way of continuing with the season, with the alternative being to call a halt now WITH relegation as it stands, then it's better for Villa to keep playing - especially as they'd be the team in the bottom 3 that i'd most fancy to play their way out of it, even with fewer home games.

But of course if the option there is to call a halt to the season without relegation, then all of the bottom 6 would rather that.

citytillidie

Another footballer can't stick to the lockdown rules, if you cant stick to the rules don't take pictures :pac:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52524677

CSF

~Rebel~ wrote: »

All depends on the options on the table really I think. For instance if this is the only way of continuing with the season, with the alternative being to call a halt now WITH relegation as it stands, then it's better for Villa to keep playing - especially as they'd be the team in the bottom 3 that i'd most fancy to play their way out of it, even with fewer home games.

But of course if the option there is to call a halt to the season without relegation, then all of the bottom 6 would rather that.

If I was in that position I’d be making my stadium available as one of the neutral venue, and negotiating for it to be used for 2 of my games, to balance out the books in terms of home games.

I mean, of course everyone wants the season finished, but if you’re relegated by 2 points, and you played 13 home games and half the rest of the league played 15, I don’t think you’d be jumping to justify your decision by saying ‘well at least we did our part in making sure the league got finished’.

The_Kew_Tour

Interesting

https://twitter.com/thewsroundup/status/1257303701707911181?s=19

ozzy jr

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Interesting

https://twitter.com/thewsroundup/status/1257303701707911181?s=19

I wonder why?

Chelsea sit second in the table, a point behind Manchester City but with a game in hand. Liverpool are bottom of the league, with six points from 14 games. If the season were decided on points per game, and with the one usual relegation spot, Chelsea would win the title, while Liverpool would be relegated to the part-time Championship[quote/]

Fitz*

Sounds like Premier League clubs are working on another solution to help get football back being played. This time, working to agree to allow short term contract extensions to players of out contract in June. This would follow the FIFA recommendations to do the same, if possible.

https://twitter.com/TeleFootball/status/1257339495755759631?s=19