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

[beorhthelm]

Correct reports emerging that Sky and BT will treat the removal of relegation as breach of contract and withhold TV money to PL.

did reports explain the grounds for this being a breach? no such rule in the Premier League's rules, so dont see how a third party can impose it.

 

[Weststander]

did reports explain the grounds for this being a breach? no such rule in the Premier League's rules, so dont see how a third party can impose it.

Wouldn’t it be in the (private and confidential) commercial contracts, then simply enforceable in law?

 

[studio150]

did reports explain the grounds for this being a breach? no such rule in the Premier League's rules, so dont see how a third party can impose it.

Wouldn’t it be in the (private and confidential) commercial contracts, then simply enforceable in law?

This

 

[beorhthelm]

Wouldn’t it be in the (private and confidential) commercial contracts, then simply enforceable in law?

possible, seems odd to have a contract clause and not see fit to apply to your own rules.

 

[Weststander]

possible, seems odd to have a contract clause and not see fit to apply to your own rules.

Aren’t they two entirely separate matters?

Regarding the PL competition rules, did they cover a season reaching an impasse due to a force majeure?

 

[Sorrel]

You can see why the broadcasters would want to keep relegation in there: why else is anything worth watching? The race for Europe isn't that exciting, especially if there isn't going to be much European competition next year. Without relegation the drama isn't there and they might as well not bother.

 

[beorhthelm]

Aren’t they two entirely separate matters?

Regarding the PL competition rules, did they cover a season reaching an impasse due to a force majeure?

no. thats what i was looking for and came up short. but they do have rules on car parking spaces for broadcasters.

 

[jessiejames]

The season is 38 games, 19 at home, 19 away.
Not 29 games with a mixture of home and away and 9 at a neutral venue, is this not a breach of contract?

 

[drew]

Maybe item 3 could be potential legal action against the PL ? Get that in nice and early

I imagine a withholding of the prize/TV money would cover the costs

I’m not sure Clubs would be happy being cost more if it affects next seasons money more.

On what legal basis is there reason to take legal action. There may well be a breach of contract but a global pandemic may well be an exceptionally good reason for it. So clubs will lose about £30/40m each for the tv deal, so what, there's enough money sloshing around that they'll make it up in the next few years once things get back to a semblence of normality.

 

[Bozza]

The gist, tone and words of the entire interview was that the remaining fixtures will be completed, whatever it takes.

Barber had no gripe with that per se. He said the club would take relegation on the chin. His self interest point was that each of the 20 clubs look for every advantage to get points from fixtures.

If he was being disingenuous, really scheming for the season to collapse, wouldn’t Rory Smith and Chapman as switched on journalists have probed?

I wasn't suggesting he was being disingenuous. He came across very well, as he always does.

 

[essbee1]

If Mr Barber can say with a straight face that losing home advantage to Liverpool and Man City will damage Brighton more than they will benefit by playing "away" games against Norwich and Southampton, then he's a better actor than me. Is he trying to make out that Brighton v Liverpool was a likely home win? Brighton would almost certainly get no points v Liverpool if it was played at the old Goldstone Ground with no Liverpool fans in the place. Whereas not going to Carrow Roads is a definite advantage.

Mr Barber will not be popular if he costs other clubs £30m for no better reason that to weasel out of possible relegation. I doubt it will work, anyway; not if the PL as a whole wants to carry on. If I was setting the next meeting agenda, the first item would be to vote on whether to continue the season. And if the 7 suspects (bottom 6 + Spurs) vote it down, then the second item would be a proposal to relegate the bottom three. Brighton of course would be happy, but I think Bournemouth, Villa and Norwich would look at item 2 on the agenda and decide to vote in favour of item 1.

Utter nonsense.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Your first paragraph:

Boo! You're safe so you don't have a dog in this fight. And of course home advantage is an advantage. Of course it is. We left the Goldstone in the 90s, btw, not sure why you bring it up.

Your second paragraph:

The R5 boys grilled him and after he switched Skype off they applauded him. I agree with your points but the teams with no dog in the fight (for Euro places or relegation) won't risk their players in a meaningless farce at neutral grounds if 'kill the season' is on offer. Fact.

The season is dead and I'm glad Paul Barber revealed it clearly to all, and without the need to add 'and of course we'd snap your arm off to end it this very second', which he didn't, clearly and in proper English.

Burnley have £30m in the fight. And no rich owner who can bring it up. The most likely effect of abandoning the season is that most clubs, including those that don't have rich owners with deep pockets, struggle. Burnley need the season to continue,

As for the goldstone Ground, as I remember it it was a ground which when packed with Brighton fans could be quite intimidating. Maybe it wasn't really and I'm just comparing it with the Withdean. But the point was that no home advantage could possibly make you favourites to get even one point against Liverpool, or Man City for that matter, so pretending the loss of home advantage is a bigger issue for Brighton v. Liverpool than it is for (say) Burnley v Brighton is a bit ingenuous.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Have you not got a Burnley Board to play on ?

I have. It's called Up The Clarets, and visiting fans are welcome.

I also have plenty of spare time at the moment, and I like talking to football fans.

 

[essbee1]

Burnley have £30m in the fight. And no rich owner who can bring it up. The most likely effect of abandoning the season is that most clubs, including those that don't have rich owners with deep pockets, struggle. Burnley need the season to continue,

As for the goldstone Ground, as I remember it it was a ground which when packed with Brighton fans could be quite intimidating. Maybe it wasn't really and I'm just comparing it with the Withdean. But the point was that no home advantage could possibly make you favourites to get even one point against Liverpool, or Man City for that matter, so pretending the loss of home advantage is a bigger issue for Brighton v. Liverpool than it is for (say) Burnley v Brighton is a bit ingenuous.

So - what if Liverpool had won the title by the time they play us at the Amex? Half their team would be either still pissed or on the beach.
Defeats your argument straight away. Man City would have qualified for Europe by the time we play them. Again, defeats your argument.

 

[Weststander]

Aside from the controversial subject of season 2019/20, [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION] has looked at the financial impact of behind closed doors football for season 2020/21:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52529679

Eight charts, including this one.


With the devastating financial impact of empty stadia next season, it’s becomes clear why PL clubs must hold onto all broadcasting income for 2019/20 and 2020/21.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

On what legal basis is there reason to take legal action. There may well be a breach of contract but a global pandemic may well be an exceptionally good reason for it. So clubs will lose about £30/40m each for the tv deal, so what, there's enough money sloshing around that they'll make it up in the next few years once things get back to a semblence of normality.

Legal basis on blackmailing clubs to vote against the safety of players and playing games.

 

[keaton]

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...son-restart-frightened-to-death-a9496226.html

Gary Neville's gone a bit mad. I don't really get his point but why would you say " death' so many times when you seem to be acting oblivious to the risks?

 

[southstandandy]

What I'd like to know (IF the season was to continue in July) is what contingencies will there be if 1 or more squads get a case or a few cases of infection?

Will these clubs then be given further time to isolate thus delaying the end of the season further?

With 434 matches to be played (92 Prem, 114 Championship inc play offs, 111 Division One inc play offs, 117 Division Two inc play offs) across the 4 divisions it is almost inconceivable that amongst this lot a player or players is going to get infected regardless of testing.

With 10 cases of infection in Germany in the top two divisions squads in their first round of testing being positive, surely a similar scenario will happen here. There's been plenty of talk about neutral venues, testing, players wearing masks etc etc etc but no mention of what they would do if during the last quarter of the season infections appeared amongst any clubs squads.

Like most I still think the season will be scrapped but would be interested to know what contingencies would be put in place.

 

[Mellotron]

A poser for people in this thread;

Say they manage to finish this season, or decide to scrap it - and then we have the following season (20/21) starting up late this year, behind closed doors.

If halfway through that season (say early 2021) it becomes apparent that we have "won" the fight against Coronavirus, and the risk of having crowds again is negligible, would people be in favour of crowds returning halfway through the season, or do you feel that that would present unfair advantages/ruin integrity etc, and therefore that season should end behind closed the doors, the same as it started?

 

[Guinness Boy]

A poser for people in this thread;

Say they manage to finish this season, or decide to scrap it - and then we have the following season (20/21) starting up late this year, behind closed doors.

If halfway through that season (say early 2021) it becomes apparent that we have "won" the fight against Coronavirus, and the risk of having crowds again is negligible, would people be in favour of crowds returning halfway through the season, or do you feel that that would present unfair advantages/ruin integrity etc, and therefore that season should end behind closed the doors, the same as it started?

Personally the sooner crowds can come back to football and we're somewhere near "normal" the better, but it has to be absolutely as safe as possible. TBH I think this may be one of many things that is tweaked on and off. If infection rates are negligible and tracking and tracing is working then crowds could return. If this sparks another mini peak it will be back to behind closed doors.

I would hope clubs will "suck that up" as part of a wider social experiment to get back to a new normal. However, "proper" football with crowds all season long may be as far away as 2021/22 or even 22/23.