dsr-burnley

I 1--% agree that I will support any individual who chooses not to work and prefers to take furlough wages instead. (His colleagues who do need to work might be less supportive.) But I haven't heard any footballer saying that he thinks it is too dangerous to play and he wants to go on furlough; the opinion seems to be that it is too dangerous to play and he wants his wages anyway. For that, I have no sympathy at all.

Do you just apply that to football? Because each year, 2,000 people die just because we insist on driving fast. If one single death is worth the cancellation of football for an indeterminate period, then why doesn't 2,000 road deaths bring about a more sensible speed limit - say 5 mph in town, 20 mph on motorways? Road deaths would more or less end. Answer - because society, as a whole, accepts that people will die as a result of the way our society works. And, of course, that people will live as a result of the way our society works - life expectancy now is higher than it has ever been, largely because of the way our society works. It's easy to say "even one death is too many", but it's a platitude. We don't mean it. How many African peoples' lives could be saved if we sold our houses and rented bedsits instead? Many, Do we do it? No, because when push comes to shove, we don't believe that "even one death is too many". Besides, last week 6.6 people out of every million died with coronavirus. Few of them were fit athletes. I know of two of them who were very old and close to death anyway in a nursing home; it may be three depending on how they classify the third death. The risk to footballers is already very small; there may be a case for saying that they should be last out of isolation; I don't know what that argument would be. But we have to get the wheels turning again - because however you look at it, if the economy goes down the chute then the NHS goes with it, and there's no use trumpeting the saving of 250k lives by coronavirus measures if it costs 300k lives for other causes. TV keeps going in the name of entertainment; all that is necessary is one news channel, the rest is hardly essential Football is similar - entertainment industry, low risk participants, and if they face a tiny tiny risk of death - well, so do we all.

I'm surprised the bottom 6 with their "we think the best thing for football is that it should be abandoned so we stop up" attitude, haven't argued that the league's integrity is compromised by having different referees at different games and by playing some in summer and some in winter. They are prepared to argue almost anything else in their desire to ensure that no-one can play football. I'd drop VAR. The "integrity of football" is ensured by having two teams of 11 playing on the same pitch under the same rules. The rest is detail. If VAR and Hawkeye being dropped means fewer people in the ground, then go for it,

Do you ever wonder why Sean Dyche mentions pound notes? Because Burnley, unlike some clubs, can't just write off the odd £30m as small change. Incidentally, check the league table. If 8th place gets a European place as it was scheduled to do, we're 2 points behind it. 12 points above relegation. If we lost all 9 we would probably still stay up.

If that's right, then presumably Norwich, Villa and Bournemouth will vote for resumption, and the "who cares about the future of football, we're only in it for ourselves" brigade will struggle to get 7 votes.

Nobody is making footballers take that risk. If a footballer says he doesn't want to take the risk, he can't be forced to. What I (and others) are saying is that if he can take the risk and take the pay, or he can decide not to play and not get paid. (Or get paid furlough wages.) Simple decision, no pressure. It's exactly the same decision that everyone else who cannot work from home has had to make,

I'm not surprised he didn't want to be named. Presumably he thinks he's a victim in comparison with all the other people in this country who are getting paid £50k and more per week while they are unable to work? Everyone else who can't work is on furlough. Footballers who don't want to play, should be allowed to go on furlough. £2,000 per month maximum like everyone else. When the grounds are deemed safe to re-open, they can come back and start earning again.

As opposed to the two Manchester clubs, Manchester United States and Manchester United Arab Emirates.

I'm thinking not so much as the legality, more the practicality. This season, the season might have started out with the club saying we have income £150m and the players expecting to get £100m of that. Now if they don't restart the club might be saying we have £110m and the players still expect £100m of that. Well, it's probably doable. But next season, the club says they have no money at all - the players can claim till they're blue in the face that they want £100m of that nothing, but they can't have it if it isn't there. That's why either we have a restart of football, or player wage cuts, or a PL of 15 teams and no other professional football at all.

I think you might be judging them by the standards of today rather than the standards of 11th March. I think peoples' attitudes have changed since then. I suppose there might be people who go to the ground, knowing they won't hear anything, they won't see anything, they will be moved on by police, they will probably get a fixed penalty fine, and if they don't move on they will get arrested and get a life ban. But there won't be many.

Of course, if the PL explains that in common with other European leagues there will be relegation even if the season finishes now - I suspect that Norwich, Villa and Bournemouth might suddenly decide they can play after all.

That's a pretty stupid question, if that's how it was formed. They are football club doctors - if they are afraid of approving guidelines that carry risk of death, then they shouldn't be involved in football. Have they not heard of Marco Vivien Foe? Phil O'Donnell? From rugby, Danny Jones? There are numerous incidents of players sent out to play who died in action. If doctors say they aren't willing to approve playing unless there is zero chance of death, then that is the end of football and every other activity too, 140 people under 40, most of them seriously ill already, have died with coronavirus in this country. The risk to footballers is not high. If they want furlough, fine. If they want pay and play, fine. If they want paying without playing, they can ... ... ... words fail me.

I don't think any of us object to a player who says "not worth the riusk, furlough me". Not a problem. If there are any players who say "not worth the risk, continue paying me my vast salary" - they're the ones that will get no sympathy. After all, why should a footballer who is unable or unwilling to work get paid more than anyone else who is unable or unwilling to work?

Australian Rugby League have resumed training and will restart on 28th May. Players have collectively agreed a 20% pay cut. The New Zealand team has unanimously agreed to remain in Australia for the rest of the season. At least one player has left home because his mother is a care home worker and he doesn't want to risk catching anything from her and passing it on. And in further news, Gordon Taylor is not connected with the Australian players' union.

Unless and until the players agree to do without pay for a year, that will not happen. There wouldn't be enough teams left to make a league with.

Burnley will vote in favour of continuing. We can afford to pay back £30m for this back end, because the club had £41m in the bank at June 2019 and would have made another profit this season up to March, at any rate. But as the Chairman pointed out, no play until August with the uncertainty carrying on then would cost the club £50m and then we would potentially be in trouble. In the past, I know the advantage of having an owner with £6 billion has been played down on here and that money doesn't make all that much difference - cue the standing joke about "many pound notes" which Sean Dyche does occasionally mention. But when your owner has "only" £80m, it doesn't leave a very deep pocket to support the club in a crisis. Fortunately they have spent years building up a reserve just in case, but it's still only a few months' reserve - it won't last forever.

Obviously what Brighton are not saying is that they don't want to go down so they will make any objection, however fatuous. What Brighton are saying is that when they play Liverpool at an empty Amex, they have a much better chance of getting points than if they play on a neutral ground; and when they play Norwich at a netral ground, the increased chance they have in points from that game is less than the increased chance of beating Liverpool. Which, as I said, is fatuous. But if only 7 teams need to vote against to make play impossible, the 6 threatened with relegation need only find 1 supporter and they can abandon the season. I suspect that next season, their objections will somehow disappear. Or at least, if they play at neutral grounds for half a season, then they would refuse to play at the Amex for the second half with full crowds for the same reason - no sporting integrity of the competition. Or perhaps not!

I reckon the crowd plays a big part in home advantage. They have already lost that through force majeure. It's 11 v 11 on a grass field. The rest is just detail.

That last is a very good question. When you compare it with the efforts of the Australian Rugby League to get their season running, where basically the attitude is not so much "that's a problem, I wonder if it will stop us" and more "that's a problem, how do we solve it". A lot of the problem is that in the Premier, the players by and large have so much money that they don't need more, and also they impression I get is that they haven't grasped that if they don't play for an indefinite period, their wages will stop. Lower league teams have it slightly different - if they do play, the players get paid but where does the income come from? Accrington Stanley have furloughed all but 4 people, and they are just to maintain the ground and keep the office open. All the players and manager are off, and their Chairman has said that if they have to play behind closed doors it will cost them a fortune. In Australia, the players know that if the league doesn't play, they don't get paid. It concentrates the mind.

If they still had to play Norwich, Southampton and Burnley away, you would have a good point. But since they now have to face those three teams on neutral ground instead of away, the neutral ground thing is good for them in some respects and bad in others. Or put another way, it balances out.

I don't know about French or Dutch law. But in English law, if a contract becomes frustrated (ie. it literally cannot be completed) because of events outside the control of both parties, then all monies paid up front are refunded. Neither party is allowed to unfairly profit. Which is why you are entitled to a refund for your cancelled holiday; if money paid up front was not refundable, whether to Sky by the Premier League or whether to me by my holiday company, it would be unfair.

So far in the UK, 140 people under 40 years old have died of coronavirus. (About 4 per million.) Nearly all of then had pre-existing health conditions. Footballers are far more likely to die in their car going to the game than they are to die of coronavirus caught while playing it. But let's be fair to footballers. If they don't want to play, they needn't play, They are eligible for furlough pay instead.

The rule is that if someone in your household tests positive then the whole household goes into isolation for 2 weeks. That does not apply to businesses - if one worker in a factory gets coronavirus, they don't close the factory for a fortnight.

They could reduce that by half, easily. For example, the 300 includes scoreboard operators, ball boys, and people to set up the sponsors logos - none of which are needed. They can have hundreds of balls, the sponsors logos for TV can be done electronically, and if the players can't remember the score for themselves they will have to have the manager shout it out to them. Then there are about 100 journalists in there. That can be cut - one radio commentator broadcasting to all channels,.one TV commentator, no press at all. They can watch on TV as well. They've got 16 coaches each. That can be cut. They don't actually need 1.5 coaches per player. I reckon they could do without VAR and hawkeye as well - that saves just 6 people, but why not cut it to the bone. The fewere the better. The Premier League doesn't need three observers. And so on.

Now, now. We can't all afford big clappy sticks and drums.