General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

~Rebel~

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

And yet I notice you thanked his post above where he made the above claims I quoted. Are you saying they were head and shoulders above the rest after the Leicester game, but it only changed in the last week?

Yup, I thanked it as I agreed with the rebuttel to your quoted statement, and the assertion that you were getting very pedantic.

As for them being better or worse than anyone else, i'll just cite what I said to ya last week, since the conversation has gone a bit circular.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Are they the best team in the league? I don't know. If the full squad was available I think yes. Even if Gomez was available, I think yes. With both out, and a slew of other injuries throughout defence and midfield it's a trickier call, we just have to see how long some of those injuries last. But as it stands, after what could probably be roundly agreed upon as the toughest batch fo fixtures of any of the current top 6 clubs, they're joint top. The other standouts so far are Spurs and Chelsea. Given Liverpool's current position, as well as being reigning champs, it's hard not to give them the nod for the moment. We'll see how things are a month from now - they'll either be much better, or much worse.

<edit>
Ultimately I think it's very impressive to keep putting points on the board and not fall away with things as bad as they are at the moment. Over the course of the season, the league usually comes down to how teams cope with the bad times rather than the good times. Liverpool are getting better than 2ppg, which is always my target for any top team to maintain when they're struggling, if they're going for the title. You need your bad times to get you 2ppg, so that your good times push you ahead.

Last week was especially impressive, as it was the first game back after the international break, with Trent and Gomez both crocked in that time - coming up against a very good team, with a huge question mark hanging over the defence. Getting 3 points and a clean sheet out of that game was a landmark result. I think for a lot of people it felt like a question ("Will Liverpool missing Trent, Gomez, and Van Dijk fall apart?") answered.

DM_7

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Delighted it was given but it's a very soft pen.

I do think Liverpool have come back to the chasing pack this year. They are still the best team in the league mind. There is a notable drop off in the intensity of their pressing this season. You could see some signs of it at the end of last season. It's extremely difficult to play at the level of intensity they have been for the last 2 seasons every season.

I also wonder is it starting to creep into the physical condition of the players. They have been incredibly fortunate to have the majority of their key players constantly fit the last couple of years but there seems to be more muscle injuries starting to happen now. I could be completely wrong on that view though.

You can see it with City too. They are not the same pressing monster they were a couple of seasons ago.

There is little wrong with Liverpool season so far imo. One loss from 10 league games is pretty high standard. Below previous levels alright.

Players injured on top of schedule and an inevitable drop off considering the previous two years (as seen with others like City and Barca) means the supreme form of the last two seasons was not realistic anyway. They are still a team at a very high level when the core group of players are available.

Injuries are the most likely thing to hold them back rather than a drop in standards.

Carcharodon

Carcharodon wrote: »

I know this is a bit of a cliched take but Klopps interview was a little bit infuriating.
How about the millions of people losing their jobs, how about the millions of people working 2 jobs just to make ends meat and these very people are literally paying these players highly inflated wages, so just suck it up a little bit and stop the whining.
I totally get the nuance of the situation but deal with it

I didn't realise he was responsible for those things...

CSF

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You see that given as a foul around the field all the time. If it's a foul outside the box, then it's a pen inside the box. Whether it's 'soft' or not is irrelevant.

And the laws of the game are black and white. It doesn't matter if a slow mo is needed to see a foul. If its a foul, its a foul.

In terms of whether we're going to have 2 different referees review something in super slowmo, whether its soft or not is absolutely relevant in terms of whether you overturn it.

klose

Pickfords challenge on van dijk essentially set klopps tone to VAR for the season, one rule one week and another rule the following week.

As for Klopp slaghing off about the subs rule and fixture times why shouldn't he? Every other major league has 5 subs and arrange fixtures to help their teams in Europe, English teams are literally at a disadvantage this season in Europe because of it. People going lol at Klopp for getting pissed off when in reality he's only speaking his mind and I'm sure the other managers in England playing in Europe are thinking the same.

Inb4 He ShOuLd UsE hIs SqUaD. He is, what's left of it anwyays.

CSF

klose wrote: »

Pickfords challenge on van dijk essentially set klopps tone to VAR for the season, one rule one week and another rule the following week.

As for Klopp slaghing off about the subs rule and fixture times why shouldn't he? Every other major league has 5 subs and arrange fixtures to help their teams in Europe, English teams are literally at a disadvantage this season in Europe because of it. People going lol at Klopp for getting pissed off when in reality he's only speaking his mind and I'm sure the other managers in England playing in Europe are thinking the same.

Inb4 He ShOuLd UsE hIs SqUaD. He is, what's left of it anwyays.

Klopp is entitled to whatever opinion he wants, but he also shouldn't be surprised to learn that people think he is silly to argue that the other Premier League clubs should change the rules to help them out.


Liverpool and the other teams that are in Europe, should absolutely be pushing to have the fixture rules changed next time that this comes up for review. But you will find that in the middle of the 20/21 season alot of clubs probably won't be jumping out to help clubs with rules that don't really benefit them too much.

pjohnson

Unpopular opinion alert!


Sean Dyche deserves better than this. The current Burnley squad is a complete písstake. Its paper thin and possibly a weaker squad than either of the ones he had when he got them promoted.

~Rebel~

CSF wrote: »

Klopp is entitled to whatever opinion he wants, but he also shouldn't be surprised to learn that people think he is silly to argue that the other Premier League clubs should change the rules to help them out.


Liverpool and the other teams that are in Europe, should absolutely be pushing to have the fixture rules changed next time that this comes up for review. But you will find that in the middle of the 20/21 season alot of clubs probably won't be jumping out to help clubs with rules that don't really benefit them too much.

Wasn't the word of late that now 15 managers are behind it?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-managers-to-back-five-subs-rule-fr98mptbt

We saw with Brighton today that it's affecting everyone, losing two more players to injury. They're up to 7 players out right now, 6 injuries and 1 covid.

Fair play Gary

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1332699585756717057?s=19

CSF

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Wasn't the word of late that now 15 managers are behind it?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-managers-to-back-five-subs-rule-fr98mptbt

We saw with Brighton today that it's affecting everyone, losing two more players to injury. They're up to 7 players out right now, 6 injuries and 1 covid.

Managers aren't making the decisions though. Nor did managers make the decision around the TV scheduling. They wouldnt, because they want as much time to prepare and recover as possible.


Ultimately, what happened was the clubs got together and agreed a deal with BT allowing them to pick whichever game they wanted with the exception of the teams that played on the Thursday night. They did that for a lot of cash. Probably would have been less cash if they couldn't have the Wednesday nights either.


The managers would have surely preferred otherwise, but it isn't that surprising that the financial side of it prevailed.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair play Gary

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1332699585756717057?s=19

I'm never a fan of that argument... by that rationale no-one can ever complain about anything because there's always something worse happening somewhere else. it invalidates every valid experience and feeling everyone else has. It also lets those in charge of these 'lesser' injustices or mismanagements off the hook.

Of course other industries and other communities have a tougher time than footballers, but that doesn't mean football doesn't have a responsibility to run their own house responsibly.

y0ssar1an22

Re the 5 subs, you can see why the clubs with smaller squads voted against it. It will benefit the clubs with bigger (better) squads more than it will benefit the clubs with smaller squads.

I don't know how the decision was reached in La Liga, Serie A, etc. Do the bigger clubs have more power there or was it a straight vote?

With the Robertson penalty, twas more of a fly hack at the ball than anything else, but a penalty all the same. Its a gripe I have with all professional footballers (well at least 99% of them), but if he was better on his right foot he would have had more control over his swinging leg and maybe the peno could have been avoided.

Shanotheslayer

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm never a fan of that argument... by that rationale no-one can ever complain about anything because there's always something worse happening somewhere else. it invalidates every valid experience and feeling everyone else has. It also lets those in charge of these 'lesser' injustices off the hook.

Of course other industries and other communities have a tougher time than footballers, but that doesn't mean football doesn't have a responsibility to run their own house responsibly.

I agree that it shouldn't be compared to other sacrifices but I think he's spot on saying the PL need to action not just broadcasters.


I feel my opinion has really changed on Jesus the last year or two. I think he's just not a very good footballer.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I agree that it shouldn't be compared to other sacrifices but I think he's spot on saying the PL need to action not just broadcasters.


I feel my opinion has really changed on Jesus the last year or two. I think he's just not a very good footballer.

How do you think the Premier League would take action though without giving up a wedge of their TV cash? BT aren't going to be as keen paying all that money if they're forbidden from having 2 of Liverpool, Man City, Man United and Chelsea each week, and thats AFTER Sky picks ahead of them.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

How do you think the Premier League would take action though without giving up a wedge of their TV cash? BT aren't going to be as keen paying all that money if they're forbidden from having 2 of Liverpool, Man City, Man United and Chelsea each week, and thats AFTER Sky picks ahead of them.

I think you answered the question yourself CSF. If the PL are putting money ahead of player welfare then they should expect every backlash they get.

I wouldn't have much knowledge on how it works behind the scenes etc but something has to give.

~Rebel~

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I agree that it shouldn't be compared to other sacrifices but I think he's spot on saying the PL need to action not just broadcasters.

Yeah, I mostly take issue with the second half of his tweet.

The PL and PFA needed to be stronger in ensuring responsible choices were being made. It seems like they just gave up whatever was asked for.

It looks like the 5 subs thing will come in sooner or later at least with 15 managers behind it now, which should help a bit.

I feel my opinion has really changed on Jesus the last year or two. I think he's just not a very good footballer.

I think he's one of those strikers that's often better the less time he has. He works very hard, but the responsibility of knitting together City's attackers is too much for him.

Did well there though to pick out Torres.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I think you answered the question yourself CSF. If the PL are putting money ahead of player welfare then they should expect every backlash they get.

I wouldn't have much knowledge on how it works behind the scenes etc but something has to give.

But like, it was already agreed. The clubs agreed to it. 4 clubs are affected now. The other 16 likely have no real interest in losing the financial deal that was made.

jayo26

City easily the best team in the league to watch on their day.

Pep rebuilding with a new young and hungry team they be hard to beat when they settle.

~Rebel~

CSF wrote: »

But like, it was already agreed. The clubs agreed to it. 4 clubs are affected now. The other 16 likely have no real interest in losing the financial deal that was made.

Isn't that the point though? That it shouldn't have been agreed?

I don't know how the decision is made - is it a vote that was put to clubs? or do the PL chiefs have the authority to just make that decision themselves? If the former, you could understand why the smaller teams outvoted the bigger ones. but if it's the latter, then the PL has a responsibility to all their clubs, and shouldn't agree something that's only potentially detrimental to 4 teams.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

But like, it was already agreed. The clubs agreed to it. 4 clubs are affected now. The other 16 likely have no real interest in losing the financial deal that was made.

Yes and opinion's change after seeing the effect. Hasn't that already been stated? I'm not saying it needs to be changed this season either. But definitely next season, fixture congestion has been an issue for a long time, and covid on top of it was never going to be made easier.

dfx-

DM_7 wrote: »

Intent is clear I think. The defender is pulling on the ball to clear it. Welbeck gets there first.

Both players are playing the game trying to advantage their side. Robertson had the option of not pulling on it and trying to contain instead. Ultimately he did not get there first with the action he chose.

Much like offside the tech can show what happened. The fact the ref could not see it in real time does not change what happened.

If the referee gets a chance to see it again and establish in his view if Robertson kicked Welbeck and that it was careless, reckless or using excessive force then it is a benefit to the game.

My intent point was more geared towards the butchered handball law - freeze frame any cross blocked by a hand and it is impossible to determine intent so that any contact is handball. Changed because it didn't overturn Llorente's handball at City in the CL under the old law.

If you have to slow it down and the referee had a clear view of it, then that's it. Even then, they suggest looking at some and not others without the referee establishing anything.

CSF

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Isn't that the point though? That it shouldn't have been agreed?

I don't know how the decision is made - is it a vote that was put to clubs? or do the PL chiefs have the authority to just make that decision themselves? If the former, you could understand why the smaller teams outvoted the bigger ones. but if it's the latter, then the PL has a responsibility to all their clubs, and shouldn't agree something that's only potentially detrimental to 4 teams.

I'm fine with that argument. But Klopp fuming at the broadcasters who haven't got that much reason for loyalty towards him, rather than calling out the people who actually made that decision is bizarre.


To answer your other question, two thirds of the league would have to vote for any change in the TV situation. Given that Klopp acknowledged in his interview, that the business people in the club appears to have signed this, Liverpool would appear to be one of the two thirds minimum that were in favour of this deal.

y0ssar1an22

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Isn't that the point though? That it shouldn't have been agreed?

I don't know how the decision is made - is it a vote that was put to clubs? or do the PL chiefs have the authority to just make that decision themselves? If the former, you could understand why the smaller teams outvoted the bigger ones. but if it's the latter, then the PL has a responsibility to all their clubs, and shouldn't agree something that's only potentially detrimental to 4 teams.

each club has a vote. but needed 14 votes to pass.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12062269/premier-league-clubs-vote-against-five-subs-rule-three-from-seven-to-be-used-in-2020-21

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Yes and opinion's change after seeing the effect. Hasn't that already been stated? I'm not saying it needs to be changed this season either. But definitely next season, fixture congestion has been an issue for a long time, and covid on top of it was never going to be made easier.

But like, you don't get to change a business deal you agreed to because you change your opinion on whether it benefits you later.


People seem to be treating it as if only the TV companies are the greedy moneygrabbers, when really the clubs are the exact same in this situation.

Shanotheslayer

CSF wrote: »

But like, you don't get to change a business deal you agreed to because you change your opinion on whether it benefits you later.


People seem to be treating it as if only the TV companies are the greedy moneygrabbers, when really the clubs are the exact same in this situation.

I've already agreed with you on this? I'm not saying for this season. I also posted previously that it's the clubs that should be taken a lot of the blame as well.

However they change it I don't care when/how but I think it needs to be changed.

Probably not fair to do it this season

~Rebel~

CSF wrote: »

I'm fine with that argument. But Klopp fuming at the broadcasters who haven't got that much reason for loyalty towards him, rather than calling out the people who actually made that decision is bizarre.

I'd say it's more pragmatic than bizarre... at this stage, the only onee that can change anything are BT themselves. There are a few more of these picks to come, so i think he's putting as much of a spotlight as possible on BT so that maybe there's pressure on them to pick someone else for their future Saturday morning matches when Liverpool have played on a Wednesday, just to avoid the constant inference that they're directly harming the players.

CSF

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I've already agreed with you on this? I'm not saying for this season. I also posted previously that it's the clubs that should be taken a lot of the blame as well.

However they change it I don't care when/how but I think it needs to be changed.

Probably not fair to do it this season

I think realistically even Liverpool Football Club probably privately won't be backing Klopp on this until the TV model changes.


The TV deal is worth 5 billion over 3 years to the clubs. Its why English clubs can stay so competitive without really bringing through that many great players of their own.

CSF

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'd say it's more pragmatic than bizarre... at this stage, the only onee that can change anything are BT themselves. There are a few more of these picks to come, so i think he's putting as much of a spotlight as possible on BT so that maybe there's pressure on them to pick someone else for their future Saturday morning matches when Liverpool have played on a Wednesday, just to avoid the constant inference that they're directly harming the players.

I think BT are still gonna pick the games that they reckon will get them the most subscribers and income. If anything, Klopp's rants have brought them a little bit of added drama and talking points to their broadcast.

Mr.Nice Guy

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Yes I changed the wording for you to be more precise. I have been acknowledging all of your points so why don't you start acknowledging mine.

Why are you constantly pushing this? What are you looking to achieve?

Yes one of the reasons I think Liverpool are superior to the rest is that given their injury toll they made Leicester look like nobodies. Is that to be expected every week? No absolutely not. There are a multitude of reasons as to why I think Liverpool are superior. I literally listed just one.

Would Liverpool's half first team win head and shoulders above every week? No. Would their first team win most games every week? Yes with ease imo which is why I think they are head and shoulders above the rest. Even one or two rotator's and I think they are well ahead. But given the extent of their current Injury list not so much.


I still don't see how a team beating Leicester and drawing to Brighton with a half 1st team squad makes my opinion invalid that they are superior than the other clubs currently.

At what point are you going to get over this?

This will be my last post on the debate as I think we're all growing weary from it. The issue stems from the following...

Do Liverpool have a full, first team available? No.

Is the team significantly weakened by injuries now? Yes.

And yet you were adamant last week that Liverpool ARE - i.e. present tense - head and shoulders above the rest. Not in a hypothetical, if-everyone-was-there sense. Now. As in, right now. Van Dijk absent and all. I've not been misrepresenting your position because you said it yourself in your own words:

Liverpool look superior to everyone by a good distance is that more precise?

They made Leicester look like nobodies and they didn't even have 3-4 of their best players.

That was what you said last week. There was nothing about the previous campaign, no hypthetical scenarios, no caveats. Now this week, when challenged after a second poor display in a row from this team supposedly a level above, you say:

Yes, As an overall they are head and shoulders above and I'm including last season in that. This season they are still much better than the rest given their fixtures and their injuries.

The only reason they not flying away with it already is because of their injuries imo.

You shifted the goalposts. You're including last season you say - when they hadn't these injuries of course - and yet you're also considering them head and shoulders above this season 'given their fixtures and their injuries.' And you finish by saying 'The only reason they not flying away with it already is because of their injuries imo.' So your argument amounts to:

Last week: Liverpool are head and shoulders above the rest because they can make Leicester look like nobodies with 3-4 players out injured.

This week: Well, when I said they were head and shoulders above everyone last week I was taking last season into account too - when they had no injuries. And they'd definitely run away with it if they had everyone available. (Begging the question that if they're head and shoulders above everyone else this season, injuries et. al, shouldn't they still be running away with it?)

There is no evidence so far this season to support the notion that they are significantly above the rest. The table doesn't support the claim - they will be 2nd whatever happens tomorrow - they have 7 less points compared to last season, they have had poor showings in isolation, as well as midweek. And that's without the historic thumping to Villa, the so-called 'freak result'. Frankly, I don't know why you've been digging your heels in on such a pointless hill.

doc_17

Phil gets his assist. He’s on the verge of breaking into that team for the last 12 months, just can’t quite nail it.

Shanotheslayer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This will be my last post on the debate as I think we're all growing weary from it. The issue stems from the following...

Do Liverpool have a full, first team available? No.

Is the team significantly weakened by injuries now? Yes.

And yet you were adamant last week that Liverpool ARE - i.e. present tense - head and shoulders above the rest. Not in a hypothetical, if-everyone-was-there sense. Now. As in, right now. Van Dijk absent and all. I've not been misrepresenting your position because you said it yourself in your own words:



That was what you said last week. There was nothing about the previous campaign, no hypthetical scenarios, no caveats. Now this week, when challenged after a second poor display in a row from this team supposedly a level above, you say:



You shifted the goalposts. You're including last season you say - when they hadn't these injuries of course - and yet you're also considering them head and shoulders above this season 'given their fixtures and their injuries.' And you finish by saying 'The only reason they not flying away with it already is because of their injuries imo.' So your argument amounts to:

Last week: Liverpool are head and shoulders above the rest because they can make Leicester look like nobodies with 3-4 players out injured.

This week: Well, when I said they were head and shoulders above everyone last week I was taking last season into account too - when they had no injuries. And they'd definitely run away with it if they had everyone available. (Begging the question that if they're head and shoulders above everyone else this season, injuries et. al, shouldn't they still be running away with it?)

There is no evidence so far this season to support the notion that they are significantly above the rest. The table doesn't support the claim - they will be 2nd whatever happens tomorrow - they have 7 less points compared to last season, they have had poor showings in isolation, as well as midweek. And that's without the historic thumping to Villa, the so-called 'freak result'. Frankly, I don't know why you've been digging your heels in on such a pointless hill.

Ok mate. Best of luck.

8-10

Thank god that's the last post on it.

When's the table getting posted?

plibige

Should be a very interesting January transfer window once December tears through most of the Premier league squads. Been saying it for a while now, Liverpool and City are ahead of the bell curve. There'll be muscle injuries galore through the Christmas schedule

Shanotheslayer

8-10 wrote: »

Thank god that's the last post on it.

When's the table getting posted?

I'm sure i'll be accused of being biased against Liverpool in the future again and we can all revert back to this :pac:

Oranage2

Unlucky at the end not to win in but I'd say Brighton might be disappointed with just the draw

doc_17

Oranage2 wrote: »

Unlucky at the end not to win in but I'd say Brighton might be disappointed with just the draw

Is that a serious post? 1 down in the 92nd minute and “disappointed with just the draw”. Very strange comment.

y0ssar1an22

doc_17 wrote: »

Is that a serious post? 1 down in the 92nd minute and “disappointed with just the draw”. Very strange comment.

bayern were 1 down in the 93rd minute and were disappointed with losing.

Sam Hain

Sam Hain wrote: »

Wow, just after watching Klopps post match interview. Fair play to BT sports Des Kelly for not entertaining his childish tantrum. Embarrassing stuff From Klopp. Wilder even got some. Crazy.

I remember when the Leeds owner banned Sky TV because changes to times and dates of televised games affected the fixture lists, attendances and adversely affected players.

Not a peep from Klopp then, as he didn't have a bee in his bonnet over it. And even Leeds fans were embarrassed at the actions of the club. You can't beat up the goose laying the golden eggs.

Fitz*

CSF wrote: »

But like, you don't get to change a business deal you agreed to because you change your opinion on whether it benefits you later.


People seem to be treating it as if only the TV companies are the greedy moneygrabbers, when really the clubs are the exact same in this situation.

The deal on the end of BT has also changed. It's not just one side changing. As Klopp, and other managers have said (but Klopp is getting the blunt of it because) the TV deal was agreed in a regular season.

This season is not a regular season. This season sees 3 consecutive weeks of midweek CL games & 12.30 kickoffs. Twice in quick succession. This does not happen in a normal season as there is always a free week in between CL games so the likelihood is that if a CL team is picked at 12.30 Saturday morning, it is not directly after a CL game, it is instead after the free midweek, or else after the Tuesday CL at least. The top 6 clubs are not being asked to play Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 in a regular season. The chances of it happening now are at least twice as likely.

I don't think the issue is the 12.30 game on its own. The issue is playing the 12.30 game directly after a Wednesday night game.

BT are not allowed pick the EL teams for 12.30 kickoffs. Why not extend that rule to the Wednesday night CL games.

And if BT are complaining about not being able to pick Liverpool as 'Sly get them first', they could easily have picked the game last weekend. Liverpool Leicester was not taken by any TV and went to PPV, which eventually reverted back to Sky. Chelsea Newcastle was their pick as they wanted Chelsea. They could have picked Chelsea this week as they played Tuesday midweek.

Why is West Ham - Villa the Monday night game and none of them have European games? Why not have that game as 12.30? Those players don't need the extra rest. It will be the 5th time in 10 weeks that Villa will have got the late timeslot on a Sunday or Monday.

CSF

Fitz* wrote: »

The deal on the end of BT has also changed. It's not just one side changing. As Klopp, and other managers have said (but Klopp is getting the blunt of it because) the TV deal was agreed in a regular season.

This season is not a regular season. This season sees 3 consecutive weeks of midweek CL games & 12.30 kickoffs. Twice in quick succession. This does not happen in a normal season as there is always a free week in between CL games so the likelihood is that if a CL team is picked at 12.30 Saturday morning, it is not directly after a CL game, it is instead after the free midweek, or else after the Tuesday CL at least. The top 6 clubs are not being asked to play Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 in a regular season. The chances of it happening now are at least twice as likely.

I don't think the issue is the 12.30 game on its own. The issue is playing the 12.30 game directly after a Wednesday night game.

BT are not allowed pick the EL teams for 12.30 kickoffs. Why not extend that rule to the Wednesday night CL games.

And if BT are complaining about not being able to pick Liverpool as 'Sly get them first', they could easily have picked the game last weekend. Liverpool Leicester was not taken by any TV and went to PPV, which eventually reverted back to Sky. Chelsea Newcastle was their pick as they wanted Chelsea. They could have picked Chelsea this week as they played Tuesday midweek.

Why is West Ham - Villa the Monday night game and none of them have European games? Why not have that game as 12.30? Those players don't need the extra rest. It will be the 5th time in 10 weeks that Villa will have got the late timeslot on a Sunday or Monday.

BT Sports aren't allowed pick the Thursday games (but are allowed pick Wednesday games) for the Saturday morning because that was agreed in advance as part of the deal. Brighton v Liverpool was picked by BT Sports instead of West Ham vs Aston Villa because BT think that the Liverpool game will bring them in more money.


BT almost certainly couldn't have picked Chelsea this week because they're against Spurs and Sky was always going to pick that ahead of them for Super Sunday.

Fitz*

CSF wrote: »

BT Sports aren't allowed pick the Thursday games (but are allowed pick Wednesday games) for the Saturday morning because that was agreed in advance as part of the deal. Brighton v Liverpool was picked by BT Sports instead of West Ham vs Aston Villa because BT think that the Liverpool game will bring them in more money.

Yes, the agreed deal (of being allowed to pick Wednesday teams) was on the basis that teams play CL every second week. It was not possible for a team to play Tuesday - Sunday - Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 - Tuesday - Sunday.

The build up of 3 games in 8 days before the early kick off making it 4 games in 12 days. There's no balancing add to the early kick off and short turnaround.

The agreed deal is that a team can play Sunday Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 - free week - Sunday.
Or Saturday - free week - Saturday - Wednesday - Saturday 12.30.

That is a build up of 2 games in 4 days before the early kick off, making it 3 games in 7 days but have a full week off after. Or play 1 game in 7 days before the early kick off after the free midweek. There is a balancing side to the early kick off.

There is a difference.

y0ssar1an22

doesn't really matter how the schedule works. clubs accepted those deals and were happy to take the money. Ole was the same the last day after a Wednesday evening and sat morning kick off.

maybe clubs will adopt a different attitude the next time a TV deal is being negotiated.

citytillidie

CSF wrote: »

But like, you don't get to change a business deal you agreed to because you change your opinion on whether it benefits you later.


People seem to be treating it as if only the TV companies are the greedy moneygrabbers, when really the clubs are the exact same in this situation.

But having every game on tv is not in the tv contract that was signed. Liverpool would never have played last Sunday night at 7:15pm. They do not need to spread the games over 10 different kick off times. Not everyone is going to watch all the games. Sky and BT have shown in the past they are able to show games at the same time so they can do it now. Just greed with the spreading out of kick off times for max advert money

Fitz*

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

doesn't really matter how the schedule works. clubs accepted those deals and were happy to take the money. Ole was the same the last day after a Wednesday evening and sat morning kick off.

maybe clubs will adopt a different attitude the next time a TV deal is being negotiated.

The deal we are currently seeing is not the deal agreed.

The agreed deal was on the basis that every second week was free so that allowed sufficient turnaround time for clubs that would be playing midweek in European games.

UEFA fixtures have changed this season, after the fact, and have thus removed the turnaround time this season, so that is why the issue of early kicks is now a problem. Because of the number of games prior to it.

It's a new problem that has arose after that deal was agreed. I'm sure the clubs would not have agreed that deal if they knew that the chances of them playing Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 was doubled.

CSF

Fitz* wrote: »

Yes, the agreed deal (of being allowed to pick Wednesday teams) was on the basis that teams play CL every second week. It was not possible for a team to play Tuesday - Sunday - Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 - Tuesday - Sunday.

The build up of 3 games in 8 days before the early kick off making it 4 games in 12 days. There's no balancing add to the early kick off and short turnaround.

The agreed deal is that a team can play Sunday Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 - free week - Sunday.
Or Saturday - free week - Saturday - Wednesday - Saturday 12.30.

That is a build up of 2 games in 4 days before the early kick off, making it 3 games in 7 days but have a full week off after. Or play 1 game in 7 days before the early kick off after the free midweek. There is a balancing side to the early kick off.

There is a difference.

Did you hear the football clubs clamouring to change the deal in light of changing circumstances? No, the clubs know full well that pulling 2 more teams out of BT Sports options would make the value of what they're selling much less attractive.


Klopp may want that TV deal changed, but I'd be very surprised if the business people at Liverpool do.

CSF

citytillidie wrote: »

But having every game on tv is not in the tv contract that was signed. Liverpool would never have played last Sunday night at 7:15pm. They do not need to spread the games over 10 different kick off times. Not everyone is going to watch all the games. Sky and BT have shown in the past they are able to show games at the same time so they can do it now. Just greed with the spreading out of kick off times for max advert money

There were amendments agreed between the TV stations and the Premier League. The TV stations didn't even want all the games to be televised for the most part due to fear of oversaturation.


I'm all for a capitalist greed conversation but I feel that a genuine argument could not be made for Premier League football clubs being the victims of capitalist greed.


I also do not want the 10 games televised, but we know well why they are, and clubs like Liverpool benefit just as much from all that TV money.

y0ssar1an22

Fitz* wrote: »

The deal we are currently seeing is not the deal agreed.

The agreed deal was on the basis that every second week was free so that allowed sufficient turnaround time for clubs that would be playing midweek in European games.

UEFA fixtures have changed this season, after the fact, and have thus removed the turnaround time this season, so that is why the issue of early kicks is now a problem. Because of the number of games prior to it.

It's a new problem that has arose after that deal was agreed. I'm sure the clubs would not have agreed that deal if they knew that the chances of them playing Wednesday - Saturday 12.30 was doubled.

the PL deal is separate UEFA's fixturing. there was obviously no clause in the PL deal to change schedule based on UEFA's schedule. Now, if there was such a clause you can bet utd/liverpool et al would enforce it.

thats an oversight by the PL clubs.

regardless, it is where it is. the clubs (maybe the PL as a whole) i'm sure can buy out of it if they wish.

citytillidie

CSF wrote: »

There were amendments agreed between the TV stations and the Premier League. The TV stations didn't even want all the games to be televised for the most part due to fear of oversaturation.


I'm all for a capitalist greed conversation but I feel that a genuine argument could not be made for Premier League football clubs being the victims of capitalist greed.


I also do not want the 10 games televised, but we know well why they are, and clubs like Liverpool benefit just as much from all that TV money.

Premier league and tv companies want the rating figures hence why kick off times are not at the same time.

Fitz*

CSF wrote: »

Did you hear the football clubs clamouring to change the deal in light of changing circumstances? No, the clubs know full well that pulling 2 more teams out of BT Sports options would make the value of what they're selling much less attractive.


Klopp may want that TV deal changed, but I'd be very surprised if the business people at Liverpool do.

I don't think Klopp wants the TV deal changed. He hasn't asked for it.

He just asked that the teams who are picked for Saturday 12.30 are not clubs that have played Wednesday night and will be playing the next midweek again. Pick the team that played Tuesday night, or not at all in midweek.

There are only 7 instances from the start of the season until January that any team can play midweek & weekend. CL weeks make up 6 of these. So 6 clubs basically have the chance to play Wednesday - Saturday 12.30

And of that 6, it's only 3 possible times it can happen because of the Tuesday/Wednesday split. And that is only if Sky don't pick that game.

BT have purposely picked the team that has played the Wednesday night to be on the Saturday 12.30 kick off 4 times out of the 7 possible times when other teams were available. And always when the top 6 team is away from home.

Liverpool 2
Man United 1
Man City 1

Another example the week that BT have picked Liverpool for the 12.30 game v Palace, after Liverpool play Wednesday night. In the same game week Chelsea & Wolves both play the Tuesday night midweek but we're not picked to play again until the following Monday when they could easily have played the 12.30 game. It's a 2 day turnaround versus a 6 day turnaround.

CSF

citytillidie wrote: »

Premier league and tv companies want the rating figures hence why kick off times are not at the same time.

Yeah, but like of course they do. They didn’t want all 10 games to be televised in the first place, because obviously an oversaturation of televised football diminishes the attraction for the ones they usually have as their selected marquee games.