League Suspended.

[Heathrow fox]

3 hours ago, reynard said:

Based on the proposal that only around 10 neutral venues will be used it is hard to see the season being completed with any form of true fairness. For eg will Newcaste have to travel away for every match? Same with Brighton.

The TV money is basically the issue behind most of this desire to finish the season. If the Tv money was less I have no doubts the season would already be over.

 

Will players have to play in masks for eg?

Starting to feel like the season won't finish or next season even begin in September.

Won’t they try and make every team play at a neutral venue?Even if they can manage that it still makes a mockery of the competition.The integrity of the league is shot to pieces whatever compromise they come to.It had been a cracking season aswell.

If it was 1985 the whole thing would be abandoned no doubt.

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Won’t they try and dmake every team play at a neutral venue?Even if they can manage that it still makes a mockery of the competition.The integrity of the league is shot to pieces whatever compromise they come to.It had been a cracking season aswell.

If it was 1985 the whole thing would be abandoned no doubt.

If they don’t then it’s a complete nonsense 

 

clubs won’t be getting any advantage for their home games and with sides having approx 4/4 4/5 5/4 games left, that a pretty even split.  All clubs will miss out on four or five home advantage games.  whoever finishes bottom three will deserve to be relegated. 

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

If you order 3 loaves of bread from Asda  and they only deliver 1 you wouldn't expect to pay for the other 2.

That’s my point though, you would pay for the one.

So what’s happened should be paid for.

[Gazza M]

4 hours ago, Ricey said:

Why will playing in September be any different to playing in June or July?

 

The virus will still be with us and there will still need to be strict measures in place. If you think it’s going to be unsafe to play in 6 weeks then it’s also going to be unsafe to play until a vaccine is ready in 12 months or so.

I was thinking in terms of clubs, officials and tv having time to prepare properly with no players contracts lingering (Morgan, Mendy for example for us.) Have a transfer window, all be it smaller funds I would expect and go again. 

 

I am also talking about preparation for fixtures at club grounds and not rammed in neutral grounds. There would have to be testing and lots of processes in place to stop congregating around the grounds. 

 

Other leagues have abandoned so not sure how a European competition could be formed next season, especially as travel limited. 

 

Late September would be perfect as the rate of infection should have significantly reduced compared to June and with no Europe 38 games should be easy with a few more midweek league games. 

[brucey]

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s my point though, you would pay for the one.

So what’s happened should be paid for.

They have paid for the whole order and are only asking for a refund for the undelivered portion

[Mike Oxlong]

4 hours ago, Webbo said:

If you order 3 loaves of bread from Asda  and they only deliver 1 you wouldn't expect to pay for the other 2.

Are they not limiting everyone to two now ? 

 

Nice plug for Asda though 👍 Mrs W will be proud of you  

Edited 2 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong

[Strokes]

13 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.

 

12 minutes ago, brucey said:

They have paid for the whole order and are only asking for a refund for the undelivered portion

I know that, I don’t understand why people are repeating my point. This is what I was responding too, he said all monies. I’m saying it won’t be all.

[davieG]

55 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

If they don’t then it’s a complete nonsense 

 

clubs won’t be getting any advantage for their home games and with sides having approx 4/4 4/5 5/4 games left, that a pretty even split.  All clubs will miss out on four or five home advantage games.  whoever finishes bottom three will deserve to be relegated. 

I'm sure Brighton don't think so - Take a club like Brighton for example. Rather than playing Liverpool, Man City and Man Utd at home in the run-in, as scheduled, it would now have to face these top teams somewhere else. What if they then ended up being relegated by a point?

[Nalis]

4 hours ago, Milo said:

I'm not sure I can see the season being completed, tbh.

 

Surely if a player shows symptoms once the league has restarted, then the whole team will have to isolate for 14 days and won't be able to compete?

 

Open to massive abuse, imo, as if, say, a West Ham drops into the relegation zone then they can just say players are ill and they won't be able to complete the season...?

Reckon they'll have to agree a compromise before we restart the league.

 

Said it before but using rained off matches in cricket as an example, they could award a draw for matches called off due to coronavirus related events might be the only outcome, this will also remove the possibility of another backlog and a final date for finishing the league no matter what.

[Milo]

25 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Reckon they'll have to agree a compromise before we restart the league.

 

Said it before but using rained off matches in cricket as an example, they could award a draw for matches called off due to coronavirus related events might be the only outcome, this will also remove the possibility of another backlog and a final date for finishing the league no matter what.

Not sure that using the system in something like cricket is that comparable, to be honest, mate.

 

If we needed 3 points from the final 3 games to guarantee Champions League football, I'd expect us to go on the sick for those 3 games...not really in the spirit of fairness though!

 

I have no idea what a solution would look like, btw - is there an appetite to finish the league?   

[dsr-burnley]

36 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'm sure Brighton don't think so - Take a club like Brighton for example. Rather than playing Liverpool, Man City and Man Utd at home in the run-in, as scheduled, it would now have to face these top teams somewhere else. What if they then ended up being relegated by a point?

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.

[Billy Big Balls]

Doing a bit of number crunching, they've said they want 40k tests. So that's 40k for 92 games equals 435 tests per game. 

 

Now let's assume for each game they need to test 50 people per team. 25 players, 25 non playing staff. (no idea how many staff they'd need but 50 is a nice number for estimating). So for both teams thats 100 tests per day. 

 

Assuming games are played about every 4 days that means that they're planning on testing all players and staff every day before training and before games. 

 

This way if a player tests positive they are able to isolate before they give it to the rest of the squad and squads can't transmit it to eachother. No need for masks or social distancing while training and playing as all staff, referees and players are tested. 

 

Sounds like a decent plan to me but its just whether they can get that many tests without affecting the NHS. 

[dsr-burnley]

Just now, Milo said:

Not sure that using the system in something like cricket is that comparable, to be honest, mate.

 

If we needed 3 points from the final 3 games to guarantee Champions League football, I'd expect us to go on the sick for those 3 games...not really in the spirit of fairness though!

 

I have no idea what a solution would look like, btw - is there an appetite to finish the league?   

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.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

That’s my point though, you would pay for the one.

So what’s happened should be paid for.

I'll agree that TV pays for what it has had which means it should get a refund of about fifth of the season, meanwhile footballers want their full pay and club owners are the ones to lose out. Okay for Man city owners maybe but how many will be moving closer to financial problems because of it.

 

 

1 hour ago, Gazza M said:

I was thinking in terms of clubs, officials and tv having time to prepare properly with no players contracts lingering (Morgan, Mendy for example for us.) Have a transfer window, all be it smaller funds I would expect and go again. 

 

I am also talking about preparation for fixtures at club grounds and not rammed in neutral grounds. There would have to be testing and lots of processes in place to stop congregating around the grounds. 

 

Other leagues have abandoned so not sure how a European competition could be formed next season, especially as travel limited. 

 

Late September would be perfect as the rate of infection should have significantly reduced compared to June and with no Europe 38 games should be easy with a few more midweek league games. 

Not through their own decision though. Governments have forced them to. That seems a strange enough action on its own to me.

 

I still say wait until we're ready whether that is September or before. Then all countries finish their seasons - CL/EUROPA can finish theirs too - and then have a delayed start to next season (whether that is altered in some pre-agreed form - definitely dumping the nations leagues and international games) CL/Europa can also agree a different shortened format (perhaps simple knockout) for their tournaments too.

 

 

37 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'm sure Brighton don't think so - Take a club like Brighton for example. Rather than playing Liverpool, Man City and Man Utd at home in the run-in, as scheduled, it would now have to face these top teams somewhere else. What if they then ended up being relegated by a point?

Do you really think Brighton playing at home or a neutral venue is going to make that much of a difference? They're likely to lose those games anyway. In fact I'd rather lose home field advantage against the elite clubs who you are likely to lose against than the teams around you or just above you where home may be just enough advantage to get a point.

[Bert]

3 minutes ago, FIF said:

I'll agree that TV pays for what it has had which means it should get a refund of about fifth of the season, meanwhile footballers want their full pay and club owners are the ones to lose out. Okay for Man city owners maybe but how many will be moving closer to financial problems because of it.

 

 

Not through their own decision though. Governments have forced them to. That seems a strange enough action on its own to me.

 

I still say wait until we're ready whether that is September or before. Then all countries finish their seasons - CL/EUROPA can finish theirs too - and then have a delayed start to next season (whether that is altered in some pre-agreed form - definitely dumping the nations leagues and international games) CL/Europa can also agree a different shortened format (perhaps simple knockout) for their tournaments too.

 

 

Do you really think Brighton playing at home or a neutral venue is going to make that much of a difference? They're likely to lose those games anyway. In fact I'd rather lose home field advantage against the elite clubs who you are likely to lose against than the teams around you or just above you where home may be just enough advantage to get a point.

But home advantage for someone like Villa is absolutely massive. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bert said:

But home advantage for someone like Villa is absolutely massive. 

Clearly not otherwise they wouldn't be in the relegation zone.

 

I can't remember them beating ANY of the top teams at home in the league this season.

[davieG]

32 minutes ago, FIF said:

I'll agree that TV pays for what it has had which means it should get a refund of about fifth of the season, meanwhile footballers want their full pay and club owners are the ones to lose out. Okay for Man city owners maybe but how many will be moving closer to financial problems because of it.

 

 

Not through their own decision though. Governments have forced them to. That seems a strange enough action on its own to me.

 

I still say wait until we're ready whether that is September or before. Then all countries finish their seasons - CL/EUROPA can finish theirs too - and then have a delayed start to next season (whether that is altered in some pre-agreed form - definitely dumping the nations leagues and international games) CL/Europa can also agree a different shortened format (perhaps simple knockout) for their tournaments too.

 

 

Do you really think Brighton playing at home or a neutral venue is going to make that much of a difference? They're likely to lose those games anyway. In fact I'd rather lose home field advantage against the elite clubs who you are likely to lose against than the teams around you or just above you where home may be just enough advantage to get a point.

Well if it goes ahead we'll never know either way this is not a resumption of the PL season it's an add on that is significantly different and I'm not convinced it's any better than say a points per game solution. This is being done purely for money.

[dsr-burnley]

43 minutes ago, Bert said:

But home advantage for someone like Villa is absolutely massive. 

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.

[reynard]

48 minutes ago, FIF said:

Clearly not otherwise they wouldn't be in the relegation zone.

 

I can't remember them beating ANY of the top teams at home in the league this season.

It isn't just about relegation it is about the sporting integrity of the whole league.West Ham may gain an advatage from not playing at their own ground for eg. Let's say Old Trafford is chosen as one of the ten grounds. Who plays there? Surely no team should be allowed to play a game at their home ground if we are going down the route of ten "neutral" grounds.

[Nalis]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

Not sure that using the system in something like cricket is that comparable, to be honest, mate.

 

If we needed 3 points from the final 3 games to guarantee Champions League football, I'd expect us to go on the sick for those 3 games...not really in the spirit of fairness though!

 

I have no idea what a solution would look like, btw - is there an appetite to finish the league?   

I still stand by my automatical draw proposal but we'll agree to disagree!

 

But yeah I think whatever we do it screws over someone no matter what.

 

Cancel the league and you screw over Liverpool, us and Wolves and Sheffield United.

 

Call the current positions as final and you screw over Aston Villa and those chasing Chelsea for 4th place. 

 

Play as neutral venues and you screw over the likes of Brighton banking on strong home performances vs Man Utd , etc to keep them up.

 

There's loads of other options that screw over at least a few teams.

 

Think the only options are the least worst options, if that makes sense.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Well if it goes ahead we'll never know either way this is not a resumption of the PL season it's an add on that is significantly different and I'm not convinced it's any better than say a points per game solution. This is being done purely for money.

I agree with you. The premier league is all about money and the first four fifths of the season were all about money too. Why is it any worse than not playing the games. Surely as supporters we just want a football season.

 

 

1 hour ago, reynard said:

It isn't just about relegation it is about the sporting integrity of the whole league.West Ham may gain an advatage from not playing at their own ground for eg. Let's say Old Trafford is chosen as one of the ten grounds. Who plays there? Surely no team should be allowed to play a game at their home ground if we are going down the route of ten "neutral" grounds.

 

So how do you suggest the integrity of the sport is "maintained"?

[Chrysalis]

9 hours ago, bmouth_fox said:

If it is canceled, which seems more likely by the day, would it be possible for the seasons positions to be honoured (for European qualification and relegation) except for Liverpool being crowned champions? 
 

My most favoured outcome is for the season to be cancelled, we quality for the Champions League... but Liverpool don’t get crowned Champions.

Yes, and thats now the most likely outcome.

 

Uefa have decided CL positions have to be done on 2019/2020 merit, no coefficient, no last season standings.

 

Holland abandoned their season and used the standings for next season CL qualification.

[Super_horns]

Brighton aren't happy about the potential lack of integrity playing in neutral grounds might bring. 

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/brighton-chiefs-integrity-fears-neutral-venues-plan-191904599--spt.html

[Corky]

If you can't play in front of fans anyway, what difference will being at a neutral venue be? 

 

You won't have 27k for your games, we won't have 30k, Newcastle won't have 50k- unless you want to wait for an unspecified moment where fans will be allowed in what's the alternative?

[Ricey]

It’s almost as if the bottom 6 want the season voiding for some reason 🤔