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

[Papa Lazarou]

They really want this season finished, don't they?

With Germany looking possible/probable to resume in May, an August restart could be feasible, if heavily controlled?

So hard to know, given the situation looks so different from week-to-week at the moment.

A restart in Germany will act as an interesting 'test' of how other leagues could go forward.

Also, if they manage to complete the season there, it will undoubtedly put pressure on other countries to do the same.

 

[Napper]

Could see me getting well into the Bundesliga if it does start soonish.

Also be good for the gambling side of things

 

[Is it PotG?]

Be interesting how much the 'behind closed doors' element affects, if it does at all, certain teams.

I'd rather we had the big boys left to play away, rather than at home in this aspect.

Still, it is what it is. Que sera sera.

 

[blue-shifted]

and Brighton.

Guaranteeing another season of PL riches, after stinking out much of season 2019/20.

Just stumbled across this utter nonsense from yesterday. OK, form has dropped badly after xmas, but we've played some unbelievable football, played some very good teams off the park and scored some spectacular goals.

Probably only Liverpool and Sheff U, haven't had a dip in their standards at some point

 

[blue-shifted]

My general principles on getting football started again are ....

Get playing again as soon as it is safe to do so. This of course can't be until pressure on the NHS is at a tolerable level. I doubt this will be soon.

Presumably this will all be behind closed doors for at least a year. Most games should be PPV with the majority going direct to the club

The next football to be played should be the end of this season. This is irrespective of whether this is in the summer or in a year or 2 years.

If we have another outbreak, not to worry, just reschedule the fixtures when public health allows. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

Future seasons can be expanded, reduced or written off if necessary depending on how long it is before we can get going again.

This St George's Park idea is worth exploring. However, we're not close to being able to do it yet.

If some players have their contracts expire, don't worry too much. For example, Brighton without Kayal and Schelloto is still Brighton.

Don't be too guided by arbitrary deadlines which Covid won't recognise, like Euros and world cups, they can be put back if needed.

 

[highflyer]

i believe the bottle neck is at the labs, in capacity and chemicals. if these could be solved privately, here or abroad, that wouldnt be a burden on NHS.

It is still using scarce capacity and chemicals wherever it is and the prioritization of how those resources used should always be on the basis of most urgent need, not 'who can pay'. If scarce resources are used to test footballers is still diverting them away from where they can potentially save lives in order to allow some rich young men to kick a ball around.

If the bottle necks can be solved then they should be and the resulting testing capacity should be used for the common good. I can't see why it wouldn't count just because it's 'private'.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Simon Jordan on Talksport advocating the voiding of domestic football right across the board, also stating it won't end up in the courts as talk of legal action by certain clubs is just bluff and bluster.

I did think when Tony Bloom said at the weekend that Clubs shouldn't be relegated if the season wasn't finished, that maybe there's a growing school of thought amongst the top flight clubs that voiding, whilst painful and expensive, is the only logical way forward.

 

[Mellotron]

It is still using scarce capacity and chemicals wherever it is and the prioritization of how those resources used should always be on the basis of most urgent need, not 'who can pay'. If scarce resources are used to test footballers is still diverting them away from where they can potentially save lives in order to allow some rich young men to kick a ball around.

If the bottle necks can be solved then they should be and the resulting testing capacity should be used for the common good. I can't see why it wouldn't count just because it's 'private'.

Where’s the line though?

I’m not really disagreeing with you, however if we keep holding back on football until every life that could be saved by testing is saved, we could be looking at 2-3 years from now, maybe more.

Holding the economy back until we are 10000000% safe from Coronavirus would cost more lives than a gradual, staged opening up a little earlier than that.

 

[blue-shifted]

Simon Jordan on Talksport advocating the voiding of domestic football right across the board, also stating it won't end up in the courts as talk of legal action by certain clubs is just bluff and bluster.

I did think when Tony Bloom said at the weekend that Clubs shouldn't be relegated if the season wasn't finished, that maybe there's a growing school of thought amongst the top flight clubs that voiding, whilst painful and expensive, is the only logical way forward.

I wouldn't take Simon Jordan's word for anything. Club's won't sue? Doubt that with £100's of millions at stake. We've seen how owners will will whore their clubs names and reputations for (comparatively) miniscule amounts of money already during this crisis. If it were voided now, I'd be amazed if a single disadvantaged club didn't drag this through the courts.

 

[blue-shifted]

Where’s the line though?

I’m not really disagreeing with you, however if we keep holding back on football until every life that could be saved by testing is saved, we could be looking at 2-3 years from now, maybe more.

Holding the economy back until we are 10000000% safe from Coronavirus would cost more lives than a gradual, staged opening up a little earlier than that.

By which time there aren't any clubs left to play football

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

My general principles on getting football started again are ....

Get playing again as soon as it is safe to do so. This of course can't be until pressure on the NHS is at a tolerable level. I doubt this will be soon.

Presumably this will all be behind closed doors for at least a year. Most games should be PPV with the majority going direct to the club

The next football to be played should be the end of this season. This is irrespective of whether this is in the summer or in a year or 2 years.

If we have another outbreak, not to worry, just reschedule the fixtures when public health allows. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

Future seasons can be expanded, reduced or written off if necessary depending on how long it is before we can get going again.

This St George's Park idea is worth exploring. However, we're not close to being able to do it yet.

If some players have their contracts expire, don't worry too much. For example, Brighton without Kayal and Schelloto is still Brighton.

Don't be too guided by arbitrary deadlines which Covid won't recognise, like Euros and world cups, they can be put back if needed.

I for one couldn't care less about this season. Too much time has gone by for it to re-start in my opinion. It is damaged beyond repair. A new season with mitigation processes in place for possible disruption, means that everyone knows what they are getting into.

And on the players out of contract, I don't know which of our players may be coming to an end of their term, but why do you justify your point by using two fringe players? There are sure to be many players in the Premier League who are not fringe players who are in this position, this makes that point redundant.

 

[blue-shifted]

I for one couldn't care less about this season. Too much time has gone by for it to re-start in my opinion. It is damaged beyond repair. A new season with mitigation processes in place for possible disruption, means that everyone knows what they are getting into.

And on the players out of contract, I don't know which of our players may be coming to an end of their term, but why do you justify your point by using two fringe players? There are sure to be many players in the Premier League who are not fringe players who are in this position, this makes that point redundant.

Not redundant at all. Players come and go, but the club continues. In January at the moment it's quite possible for clubs to buy and sell players. The squad which starts a season is rarely the same as the squad which ends a season. But we don't care about that in normal times so why should we care about it now?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I wouldn't take Simon Jordan's word for anything. Club's won't sue? Doubt that with £100's of millions at stake. We've seen how owners will will whore their clubs names and reputations for (comparatively) miniscule amounts of money already during this crisis. If it were voided now, I'd be amazed if a single disadvantaged club didn't drag this through the courts.

Premier League clubs vote on these sorts of things. If they vote to void the league how can they sue?

 

[blue-shifted]

I for one couldn't care less about this season. Too much time has gone by for it to re-start in my opinion. It is damaged beyond repair. A new season with mitigation processes in place for possible disruption, means that everyone knows what they are getting into.

And on the players out of contract, I don't know which of our players may be coming to an end of their term, but why do you justify your point by using two fringe players? There are sure to be many players in the Premier League who are not fringe players who are in this position, this makes that point redundant.

Oh yes and if you were to count up the number of genuine first team players (say played 20 games or more this season) in the premier league would are out of contract in July, there wouldn't be very many. I can't think of one off the top of my head, possibly there are a dozen. A thread went around about out of contract players a few days ago and I remember not really seeing anyone I wanted us to get.

So say it's one a club. Those clubs can always offer that player a new contract, which probably half will accept. So are you really arguing the integrity of the league would be more damaged by a handful of players not being able to play the last few games than by voiding a season with a team 20 points clear?

There are arguments for voiding, but they are all public health related. There are no football ones which stand up to mild scrutiny

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Not redundant at all. Players come and go, but the club continues. In January at the moment it's quite possible for clubs to buy and sell players. The squad which starts a season is rarely the same as the squad which ends a season. But we don't care about that in normal times so why should we care about it now?

Maybe because clubs plan their season based upon the players they have at their disposal. Imagine Villa losing Grealish if he was out of contract. Funny though that would be, it would be an injustice. You are advocating something that is akin to changing the rules half way through and imo that is a nonsense.

 

[blue-shifted]

Premier League clubs vote on these sorts of things. If they vote to void the league how can they sue?

Those impacted outside the PL, ie Leeds etc are the most likely, but I certainly wouldn't discount those within who have lost the vote from finding ways, even if procedural

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

57 players out of contract in the premier league this June.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mi...news/full-list-57-premier-league-21891008.amp

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

How will sponsorship deals work past June 30?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Maybe because clubs plan their season based upon the players they have at their disposal. Imagine Villa losing Grealish if he was out of contract. Funny though that would be, it would be an injustice. You are advocating something that is akin to changing the rules half way through and imo that is a nonsense.

There are some very decent Chelsea players out of contract. It could well be a crucial advantage to play them after any of these move on. Shame we have played Chelsea twice.

 

[blue-shifted]

Maybe because clubs plan their season based upon the players they have at their disposal. Imagine Villa losing Grealish if he was out of contract. Funny though that would be, it would be an injustice. You are advocating something that is akin to changing the rules half way through and imo that is a nonsense.

More of an injustice than Liverpool being denied a league title when they only need 2 wins? (though also a bit funny).

Clearly having players out of contract and continuing isn't perfection, what is? It's miles better than the utter mess you'd make by voiding

Clearly Grealish isn't out of contract and like I said in another post, I can't think of a significant player that is. I'm sure somebody knows of one. Go on NSC, let me know the most important player to a premier league team who is out of contract