[Football] Premier League / Football League attempts to finish the season

[neilbard]

I’m honestly shocked Burnley want to league to continue ?

Money worries at the club?

Can’t be because of Europe as you embarrassed yourselves last time and spent the season fighting relegation

I'm sure a few weeks back they were saying that if the season didn't resume by August the club would go out of business.

 

[AmexRuislip]

[tweet]1258742528922312705[/tweet]

 

[sparkie]

Who at Brighton said pitch width was the worry ? I may have missed it as haven’t been reading everything.

Dan Ashworth had a list of problems with losing home advantage. Pitch specification was just one item on the list.

In a game of very fine margins then it is one of many valid concerns.

 

[Mancgull]

The Watford Chairman is absolutely correct. Well said.

And this is only part of his statement which is really well thought through.

 

[neilbard]

[tweet]1258742528922312705[/tweet]

Yeah, I would be a tad miffed.

 

[sparkie]

[tweet]1258742528922312705[/tweet]

Imagine that relegation happened after you hadn't been in the relegation zone all season when the games were played under the original rules.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Dan Ashworth had a list of problems with losing home advantage. Pitch specification was just one item on the list.

In a game of very fine margins then it is one of many valid concerns.

Fair enough. If it was one item on a list it sounds like our friend from Burnley is indulging in a bit of misrepresentation in his eagerness to have a pop at [MENTION=990]Jim in the West[/MENTION] . Not really an asset to this board at the moment.

 

[mr sheen]

Summed up pretty well by Barney Ronay in The Guardian, as below:


Here is the dialogue that led us to this point. First principle: it is obvious no one in England should play professional football this summer. There isn’t time to play the games. It’s not medically safe. Train properly, plan properly. Restart in August. The end.

Big Football: But, there’s £1bn at stake.

OK. Well, just forego that part of the season. More money will come. You can absorb this.

Big Football: Er, we can’t. Our finances are insane. We spend £3bn, or 70% of income, on wages. Some of us on the way up spend more than we earn on wages. We are rich, but also reckless and greedy.

OK. Then take a collective haircut to preserve the model. Share the hit as sensibly as you can. You’re all in this together.

Big Football: Er, we can’t because we’re not. Those who are relegated may well sue the rest of us. Players will jump ship if we dock wages. The broadcasters are at the gates. Nothing works. There aren’t enough lifeboats. End result: playing the games is absurd. But we still have to play the games.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Summed up pretty well by Barney Ronay in The Guardian, as below:


Here is the dialogue that led us to this point. First principle: it is obvious no one in England should play professional football this summer. There isn’t time to play the games. It’s not medically safe. Train properly, plan properly. Restart in August. The end.

Big Football: But, there’s £1bn at stake.

OK. Well, just forego that part of the season. More money will come. You can absorb this.

Big Football: Er, we can’t. Our finances are insane. We spend £3bn, or 70% of income, on wages. Some of us on the way up spend more than we earn on wages. We are rich, but also reckless and greedy.

OK. Then take a collective haircut to preserve the model. Share the hit as sensibly as you can. You’re all in this together.

Big Football: Er, we can’t because we’re not. Those who are relegated may well sue the rest of us. Players will jump ship if we dock wages. The broadcasters are at the gates. Nothing works. There aren’t enough lifeboats. End result: playing the games is absurd. But we still have to play the games.

Perfect.

 

[Diablo]

This is the future . Get your own cardboard cutout done and put on your seat.

 

[Mancgull]

Not really. It's not much more than 2.5 players per squad from the 19 teams that it may apply to (Burnley players seem to be immune from such timidity; they appear to have all said there is no problem with playing). And assuming that all the players who don't want to play will agree to go on furlough or take furlough equivalent wages, then it's a useful cost saving for their clubs.

Yes, I know footballers are very important people who should be expected to work like the rest of society. But above all, they should know that if they don't work, they don't get paid footballer money. They get paid furlough money.

Perhaps all the Burnley players know something the rest of the World don't if they are happy to break social distancing in their desire to get on with things.
I have no argument about your point about money, just the fact that I don't think footballers should be treated any differently to other workers in terms of social distancing.
If by the start of June the medical experts say that social distancing can be relaxed then surely the season could restart behind closed doors, but with all games at 'home' venues, rather than this unfair 'neutral grounds' solution.
Aston Villa who have opposed the neutral grounds issue are in a worse position than us as they have 6/10 of their remaining games at home. They also have a much better home record than away record. The fact is that the neutral ground solution is not fair. It's a finish the season at all costs option which will cause problems if it is forced through. Teams that are relegated will make legal challenges.
Dyche is keen to get back to normal, which is fair enough, but the correct option must be carefully thought through if terms of safety and fairness.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Dan Ashworth had a list of problems with losing home advantage. Pitch specification was just one item on the list.

In a game of very fine margins then it is one of many valid concerns.

I thought Ashworth described it very well

 

[LamieRobertson]

Perhaps all the Burnley players know something the rest of the World don't if they are happy to break social distancing in their desire to get on with things.
I have no argument about your point about money, just the fact that I don't think footballers should be treated any differently to other workers in terms of social distancing.
If by the start of June the medical experts say that social distancing can be relaxed then surely the season could restart behind closed doors, but with all games at 'home' venues, rather than this unfair 'neutral grounds' solution.
Aston Villa who have opposed the neutral grounds issue are in a worse position than us as they have 6/10 of their remaining games at home. They also have a much better home record than away record. The fact is that the neutral ground solution is not fair. It's a finish the season at all costs option which will cause problems if it is forced through. Teams that are relegated will make legal challenges.
Dyche is keen to get back to normal, which is fair enough, but the correct option must be carefully thought through if terms of safety and fairness.

Not quite the rest of the world ..Germany due back...Italy and Spain haven’t given up ...

 

[sparkie]

Not quite the rest of the world ..Germany due back...Italy and Spain haven’t given up ...

Interestingly, Germany arn't forcing through neutral venues.

 

[neilbard]

This is the future . Get your own cardboard cutout done and put on your seat.

View attachment 123358

No this is the future.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

(Burnley players seem to be immune from such timidity; they appear to have all said there is no problem with playing).

I'm glad Burnley players are immune from timidity.

Does that also protect them, their families, neighbours etc from Covid-19? No thought not, in which case any player raising a concern about returning to playing is perfectly valid and not showing some sort of meekness. Now **** off with the macho bullshit.

 

[BN41Albion]

Perhaps all the Burnley players know something the rest of the World don't if they are happy to break social distancing in their desire to get on with things.
I have no argument about your point about money, just the fact that I don't think footballers should be treated any differently to other workers in terms of social distancing.
If by the start of June the medical experts say that social distancing can be relaxed then surely the season could restart behind closed doors, but with all games at 'home' venues, rather than this unfair 'neutral grounds' solution.
Aston Villa who have opposed the neutral grounds issue are in a worse position than us as they have 6/10 of their remaining games at home. They also have a much better home record than away record. The fact is that the neutral ground solution is not fair. It's a finish the season at all costs option which will cause problems if it is forced through. Teams that are relegated will make legal challenges.
Dyche is keen to get back to normal, which is fair enough, but the correct option must be carefully thought through if terms of safety and fairness.

Dyche being Dyche, though, you can bet your bottom dollar that if Burnley were scrapping to survive he wouldn't be so keen to get going again under the proposed circumstances.

 

[sparkie]

I do wonder why Burnley have such a finish the season at all costs agenda.

It must be finances mustn't it ?

 

[Mancgull]

I do wonder why Burnley have such a finish the season at all costs agenda.

It must be finances mustn't it ?

I expect that Burnley have a higher tv money/ match day money ratio than most, however, I think everyone would want to finish the season if it can be done safely and fairly.

 

[Jim in the West]

Just read the Watford Chairman's statement in The Times. It's an extremely well-crafted set of arguments - possibly the key points are as follows:

"When at least six clubs — and I suspect more — are concerned about the clear downside and the devastating effects of playing in this kind of distorted nine-game mini-league, then I believe the Premier League has a duty of care to address those concerns. If we start and finish a whole season under these conditions and at neutral venues when everybody knows the rules when we start, not created in a time of crisis, then that is clearly fair. To be asked to finish a quarter of the season under new rules and conditions is an entirely different proposition. How can the long-term future of clubs be determined under these fundamentally changed conditions? How is there any semblance of fairness? To wave aside all the fears and concerns is too simplistic. Surely all 20 clubs must agree the fairest way forward to complete the season?"

I suspect Watford (and no doubt Albion, Villa and others) have had their lawyers crawl all over the EPL rules. That statement reads very much like Watford are preparing the grounds for legal action (which they obviously hope they will not have to take). And this is probably why the EPL is desperate to get something agreed by ALL clubs. If six are playing against their will, you can guarantee that the three who go down will be off to the courts. Whether they will have any grounds for complaint, of course I have no idea - but the choice of words by the Watford Chairman is (I think) interesting.