League Suspended.

[CUJimmy]

I can’t see anywhere in Europe being back to normality before September so I still prefer the idea of playing this season out, including FA Cup, Champions League and Europa League by early November.  Start next season at Christmas which would finish around October allowing a break for European Championships.  
 

Do the same in ‘22 which finishes the season in time for the World Cup.

 

Run a shortened season in the first half of ‘23 and be back in sync for the start of 23-24.  

[Corky]

10 hours ago, Bearman said:

For the sake of sporting integrity why don't they just come to the decision that's staring us all in the face?

 

2019-20 is null and void. We have to look forward to a new dawn everyone.

So what happens to all the matches played? They just disappear from the records?

 

There's no integrity if nobody is promoted or relegated. It will get finished, somehow, and it should.

[Super_horns]

A sign teams will want to keep the season going?

 

You'd think Burnley were one of the better run clubs too.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/04/04/burnley-could-lose-50m-premier-league-season-does-not-finish/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter

[SemperEadem]

I hope first game back the club don’t put on any free drinks, as odd as it sounds. The pubs will need trade more than ever by that point.

Your average Paul 55 from Wigston, would be so much better off swinging by The Bricklayers (example) then taking two Chang’s outside the ground on a freebie

[StanSP]

46 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

I hope first game back the club don’t put on any free drinks, as odd as it sounds. The pubs will need trade more than ever by that point.

Your average Paul 55 from Wigston, would be so much better off swinging by The Bricklayers (example) then taking two Chang’s outside the ground on a freebie

I get the sentiment, but I think people will be wanting as much as they can get for as little outlay as possible. Free stuff is great at the best of times, even more so when people's incomes would have taken a hit after all this...

[fox in the sox]

On 02/04/2020 at 15:18, Alf Bentley said:

 

Hence why I inserted "()" after "clear-cut" - admittedly with particular reference to it being "clear-cut" that LCFC would make the CL.

 

Sure, in theory Liverpool could still lose the PL title, never mind the situation of LCFC or LeedsWBA not being completely clear-cut. That's why the best option would be to finish this season....but it's looking increasingly unlikely that will be possible.

So, I was looking at alternatives to that best option.

 

What do you think should happen? Or what options do you think should be considered?

I can only see 2 options - either completely voided and all records are wiped or you wait to finish the season and either scrap a season or have a shorter one to follow. Unfortunately both options leave so many questions. The void season leaves issues with Europe, Premier League payments and parachute payments. If you hold on to finish the season, you have the player contracts/transfers minefield and then to possibly work out a shorter season with TV companies would be difficult. A lot depends on whether players and TV companies play ball, I fear it will get very messy.

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, fox in the sox said:

I can only see 2 options - either completely voided and all records are wiped or you wait to finish the season and either scrap a season or have a shorter one to follow. Unfortunately both options leave so many questions. The void season leaves issues with Europe, Premier League payments and parachute payments. If you hold on to finish the season, you have the player contracts/transfers minefield and then to possibly work out a shorter season with TV companies would be difficult. A lot depends on whether players and TV companies play ball, I fear it will get very messy.

 

At this stage, I think any potential solution will create multiple difficulties, several of which you mention. So, there'll be difficulties to overcome whatever the solution adopted - and that will depend greatly on the progress of the contagion and measures to combat it.

 

I really don't like the idea of voiding the season - and not just because of its impact on LCFC Champions' League qualification, Vardy's potential golden boot, the 9-0 in the record books (though such things do matter).

It would risk putting uncertainty in the minds of everyone involved in future. Imagine if the virus started spreading again at a low level halfway through next season. Would players be able to fully commit to matches? Would fans fully believe?

 

Sounds as if UEFA are keen for the season to be finished, if humanly possible. I presume this is, in part, a response to the Belgian voiding: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52148695

"Leagues across Europe have been told that ending competitions early could result in them forfeiting Champions League and Europa League places.

A letter sent by Uefa states that a plan is being formulated to complete current campaigns across the continent in July and August".

 

It's possible that national govts would only allow a July/August resumption behind closed doors (always assuming the contagion has subsided by then) - and that would already presumably mean a late start and/or shorter season for 20/21 as you couldn't ask players to play a number of competitive matches in July/Aug & then pile the 20/21 season into a shorter period than usual. July/Aug might be over-optimistic, anyway. So, I reckon the idea of a shorter 20/21 season could be a runner at this stage - and the clubs (& TV companies) might have to take a big financial hit on TV coverage.....like almost everyone else in society. I'm sure something could be arranged with contracts/transfers - short contract extensions & a delayed transfer window? 

 

 

Edited 4 April 2020 by Alf Bentley

[fox in the sox]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

At this stage, I think any potential solution will create multiple difficulties, several of which you mention. So, there'll be difficulties to overcome whatever the solution adopted - and that will depend greatly on the progress of the contagion and measures to combat it.

 

I really don't like the idea of voiding the season - and not just because of its impact on LCFC Champions' League qualification, Vardy's potential golden boot, the 9-0 in the record books (though such things do matter).

It would risk putting uncertainty in the minds of everyone involved in future. Imagine if the virus started spreading again at a low level halfway through next season. Would players be able to fully commit to matches? Would fans fully believe?

 

Sounds as if UEFA are keen for the season to be finished, if humanly possible. I presume this is, in part, a response to the Belgian voiding: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52148695

"Leagues across Europe have been told that ending competitions early could result in them forfeiting Champions League and Europa League places.

A letter sent by Uefa states that a plan is being formulated to complete current campaigns across the continent in July and August".

 

It's possible that national govts would only allow a July/August resumption behind closed doors (always assuming the contagion has subsided by then) - and that would already presumably mean a late start and/or shorter season for 20/21 as you couldn't ask players to play a number of competitive matches in July/Aug & then pile the 20/21 season into a shorter period than usual. July/Aug might be over-optimistic, anyway. So, I reckon the idea of a shorter 20/21 season could be a runner at this stage - and the clubs (& TV companies) might have to take a big financial hit on TV coverage.....like almost everyone else in society. I'm sure something could be arranged with contracts/transfers - short contract extensions & a delayed transfer window? 

 

 

Even with games behind closed doors, you only need one player to get the virus and that club will have to stop playing matches again.

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, fox in the sox said:

Even with games behind closed doors, you only need one player to get the virus and that club will have to stop playing matches again.

One would hope that by July, there would be enough testing capacity for squads to be tested daily and anyone positive to be quarantined immediately .......... if you test negative then you can’t pass on the virus ........

[fox in the sox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

One would hope that by July, there would be enough testing capacity for squads to be tested daily and anyone positive to be quarantined immediately .......... if you test negative then you can’t pass on the virus ........

You might be right but I would be surprised if every member of every club could be tested daily.

[W88DY]

2 hours ago, fox in the sox said:

I can only see 2 options - either completely voided and all records are wiped or you wait to finish the season and either scrap a season or have a shorter one to follow. Unfortunately both options leave so many questions. The void season leaves issues with Europe, Premier League payments and parachute payments. If you hold on to finish the season, you have the player contracts/transfers minefield and then to possibly work out a shorter season with TV companies would be difficult. A lot depends on whether players and TV companies play ball, I fear it will get very messy.

Unless the virus hangs around a lot longer than first thought! 

Take a year out and resume all football on Saturday 13th March 2021 and play the games that we were expected to play this season...

The only downside to this is you might see a lot of clubs go bust ! 

All will be revealed in time.....  

[Dirkster the Fox]

Premier League players told that clubs will lose £1.137 billion over coronavirus suspension

Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the PFA, said that players taking 12-month wage cuts would significantly affect the tax yield for the NHS

BySam Wallace, CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER and James Ducker, NORTHERN FOOTBALL CORRESPONDENT4 April 2020 • 9:27pm

Premium

The Premier League is expecting to be hit hard by the loss of action and subsequent revenue due to the coronavirus pandemic CREDIT: REUTERS

 

 

Premier League players have been told that clubs estimate they could lose £1.137 billion over the coronavirus crisis suspension, as talks descended into deadlock over a 30 per cent paycut lasting 12 months which has invited staunch opposition from the players’ union.

It came on the same day that Liverpool were criticised by Jamie Carragher for becoming the latest Premier League club to furlough non-playing staff.

As the dispute over a paycut intensified, Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), said that players taking wage cuts - for a whole year - would significantly affect the tax yield for the NHS.

The financial threat was laid out to the players in a presentation made by Premier League staff to some of the game’s big names, including Jordan Henderson and Kevin De Bruyne via video on Saturday afternoon.

Telegraph Sport has seen details and can reveal the Premier League told players:

• A potential broadcast rebate package for Sky Sports (£371 million), BT Sport (£50 million) and international broadcasters (£341 million) would cost £762 million if the season could not be completed
• That the league estimated the lost revenue from matchday income – tickets and related sales at the stadium – at £200 million with a further £175 million estimated to be lost from sponsorship deals that may have to be repaid
• Player salaries make up around half of all costs and clubs have estimated that in a worst case scenario with a 20 per cent wage cut or deferral they would raise around £570 million in savings over a year which would cover around half the total losses of £1.137 billion.

Gordon Taylor highlighted that a reduction in players' wages could have a substantial effect on tax revenues CREDIT: PA 

In response, Taylor issued a statement saying any agreement would take “a bit more time”. He criticised the Health Secretary Matt Hancock for failing to take note of what a on paycut would mean for tax yields. Taylor also told the Premier League that its £125 million advance to the Football League and £20 million donation to the NHS announced on Friday were inadequate.

The Premier League, meanwhile, are determined to press on with direct negotiations with the players, with or without the support of Taylor and the PFA. They told the players that if they accepted the paycut, clubs would “restore normal remuneration levels when health and financial conditions permit”. The cuts would be “smoothed”, the league said, over a 12-month period.

Under the terms proposed for the 30 per cent proposed wage cut, 20 per cent would be repaid if the remaining games were played behind closed doors and there was no rebate penalty to broadcasters. The players would be paid in full if all remaining games this season could be staged in full stadiums and no money was returned to broadcasters.

Under the principles of the negotiation established by the Premier League the clubs listed “protecting player and staff employment and terms, wherever possible”; “supporting low-paid personnel”; “maintaining the viability of clubs by managing costs”; “preserving academy structures” and completing the current season.

In a long statement on Saturday evening, Taylor said that his members “care deeply for those who are suffering with loss, health and hardship at the moment”. He said a 30 per cent cut would cost the public purse “substantial sums”. “What effect does this loss of earning to the government mean for the NHS?” Taylor asked. “Was this considered in the Premier League proposal and did the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, factor this in when asking players to take a salary cut?”

Taylor said that by agreeing to discuss the paycut, the Premier League players wanted to support their own clubs, and non-playing staff to receive 100 per cent of their wages, as well as EFL clubs and those in non-league, and the NHS.

The talks came on the same day that Liverpool announced the furloughing of staff under the government coronavirus job retention scheme, a move which attracted criticism of the club, including from former players. Unlike Tottenham Hotspur who announced similar measures on Tuesday, Liverpool have not imposed any paycuts on staff, making up the 20 per cent shortfall from their own resources.

Liverpool said they had “placed some staff who are impacted by the Premier League suspension on furlough”. The club had already pledged to pay matchday staff while the league is suspended. They said that they sought “a solution that secures jobs for employees of the club during this unprecedented crisis”.

The club did not specify it was in negotiations to cut player wages but added: “There is ongoing active engagement about the topic of salary deductions during the period matches are not being played to schedule. These discussions are complex and as a result the process is ongoing.”

The former Liverpool defender turned Telegraph columnist and Sky Sports pundit, Carragher tweeted that this was "poor" from Liverpool. 

Jamie Carragher

 

✔@Carra23

 

 

Jurgen Klopp showed compassion for all at the start of this pandemic, senior players heavily involved in @premierleague players taking wage cuts. Then all that respect & goodwill is lost, poor this @LFC https://twitter.com/lfc/status/1246429951890534400 …

Liverpool FC (at )

 

✔@LFC

 

#LFC is continuing to deal with a range of challenges caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and would like to update supporters on the progress that has been made to date. https://cards.twitter.com/cards/bnqrd/9b3oz …

 

31.2K

17:00 - 4 Apr 2020

Twitter Ads information and privacy

 

7,422 people are talking about this

 

 

 

Liverpool are the fifth Premier League club to announce they are furloughing some non-playing staff after Spurs, Newcastle United, Bournemouth and Norwich City.

According to Liverpool’s latest accounts for the year to June 2019, the club employ 853 people, of which 675 are non-playing staff. The move to furlough is likely to affect at least 350 employees.

Liverpool’s wage bill for the 2018-2019 season was £310 million, the vast majority of which covers the cost of the salaries of players and coaching staff.

Five weeks ago Liverpool announced a pre-tax profit of £42m on revenues of £533 million.

Earlier in the day, Premier League club Burnley revealed they are facing a £50 million cash shortfall if the season does not resume but claim some of their rivals will be looking at losses of around double that as the club’s chairman Mike Garlick pleaded for unity. The Lancashire club say they stand to lose around £45 million in broadcast income if the season is not finished in addition to a further £5 million from lost gate receipts if their final four home league matches are not concluded or played behind closed doors.

Burnley said there were rival top flight clubs who stand to be even harder hit by the coronavirus crisis.

“It is believed that other clubs could be looking at up to a £100m shortfall,” the club said. Burnley released their latest financial accounts this week which showed a £4.3 million profit for the year to June 30.

Garlick said:  “It’s now not just about Burnley or any other individual club anymore, it’s about the whole football ecosystem from the Premier League downwards and all the other businesses and communities that feed from that ecosystem.”

[Pliskin]

Will there even be a league next year? The way it’s going w might have to resort to memories and Fifa.....

[Lionator]

9 hours ago, Pliskin said:

Will there even be a league next year? The way it’s going w might have to resort to memories and Fifa.....

Think they should do whatever's possible to finish this season and if that means behind closed doors in June/July then so be it.

 

I think sports will return fairly soon, June is probable if we reach the peak now, however people need to understand that sport played with 1000's of supporters present is going to be disrupted until a vaccine is found or the disease is eradicated. It'll be the last thing to return to 'normal'. 

 

 

[W88DY]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Think they should do whatever's possible to finish this season and if that means behind closed doors in June/July then so be it.

 

I think sports will return fairly soon, June is probable if we reach the peak now, however people need to understand that sport played with 1000's of supporters present is going to be disrupted until a vaccine is found or the disease is eradicated. It'll be the last thing to return to 'normal'. 

 

 

I don`t mind it being played behind closed doors just as long as the season gets finished in a fair manner for all, this has got to be the fairest way possible?? 

Having said that June might be a little early but we will see, The UK is due to peak on April 12th and as for the vaccine it is currently being tested but won`t be available for 18 months.....

[st albans fox]

More reports this evening about a June resumption (behind closed doors) 

[Bert]

On 04/04/2020 at 16:59, SemperEadem said:

I hope first game back the club don’t put on any free drinks, as odd as it sounds. The pubs will need trade more than ever by that point.

Your average Paul 55 from Wigston, would be so much better off swinging by The Bricklayers (example) then taking two Chang’s outside the ground on a freebie

As much as your morals are right, Paul from Wigston might have been out of work for 3 months and be absolutely skint, so two free Chang’s could be the perfect pick up. 

[Foxhateram]

Unless they're going to lockdown the players in the stadium? How is playing behind closed doors going to be safe? 

 

That is still getting 22 men plus managers, coaches, kit men, physios, medics etc all in one place, coming from different households etc. 

 

That would easily make 100 or more people in a small space. 

[UHDrive]

2 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Unless they're going to lockdown the players in the stadium? How is playing behind closed doors going to be safe? 

 

That is still getting 22 men plus managers, coaches, kit men, physios, medics etc all in one place, coming from different households etc. 

 

That would easily make 100 or more people in a small space. 

It should be straightforward to break them down into first team 22/key coaches/physios etc. All other staff in different "areas" as appropriate.

[UHDrive]

12 hours ago, st albans fox said:

More reports this evening about a June resumption (behind closed doors) 

Do you think they'll max it out into 38 games? I'd prefer 4 (2 home/2away) so as to condense games enough for next seasons pre-season if they can. I think 9+ games would be a turn off for supporters, sponsors and pure entertainment value.

[The whole world smiles]

3 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Unless they're going to lockdown the players in the stadium? How is playing behind closed doors going to be safe? 

 

That is still getting 22 men plus managers, coaches, kit men, physios, medics etc all in one place, coming from different households etc. 

 

That would easily make 100 or more people in a small space. 

I'd imagine the idea is that it would require a lot of testing. One on the morning of the game, one midweek. (Not realistic at the minute as we Are struggling to test the people that need it) I also think it would be a stripped back contingency from each squad. Subs a manager and one coach, one physio. I also think they might send the players away to a hotel for a couple of months a bit like they do for a tournament. To avoid any contact with people who may potentially have it.

[Countryfox]

4 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Unless they're going to lockdown the players in the stadium? How is playing behind closed doors going to be safe? 

 

That is still getting 22 men plus managers, coaches, kit men, physios, medics etc all in one place, coming from different households etc. 

 

That would easily make 100 or more people in a small space. 

There are only two options as I see it ...  they all have to keep 2 metres apart or they all have to wear haz whatsit suits ...  obviously the suits would have to be in team colours ! ..    ....   and Choudhurys would need a large hood ...   and the ref would probably have to have a klaxon instead of a whistle ...     blimey this is trickier than I first thought ...  

[Ricey]

8 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Unless they're going to lockdown the players in the stadium? How is playing behind closed doors going to be safe? 

 

That is still getting 22 men plus managers, coaches, kit men, physios, medics etc all in one place, coming from different households etc. 

 

That would easily make 100 or more people in a small space. 

It could only happen once cases are so low that hopefully they can be contained. It seems crazy to think right now, but by June having 100 people who have been tested together in a small space probably won't seem that crazy.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Ricey said:

It could only happen once cases are so low that hopefully they can be contained. It seems crazy to think right now, but by June having 100 people who have been tested together in a small space probably won't seem that crazy.

June is 55 days away - go back 55 days and that’s our mid season break ........ remember normality ??   You’re right that come June a fair bit will have changed ....... I think the issue is how soon can the players begin training again to gain match fitness and that needs to be monitored to avoid an asymptomatic player/member of staff spreading the virus around the whole squad.  I think it’s likely that mid may will see full training resume (with widespread testing to ensure we don’t get problems) and mid June will see behind closed doors games begin with the intention to complete the season by the end of July. 

[Bert]

Fifa set to grant an indefinite extension to this season.