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

[blue-shifted]

Genuine question, and apologies if it has been already covered, but does the FA not have some sort of provision in it's rules for the abandonment of a season? A sort of 'in the event of global pandemic /nuclear fallout /alien invasion all results and league positions will be null and void', if only to preempt the arguments and litigation

In this instance it's the Premier League and the Football League which would have to have some rules in their competitions dealing with this scenario. Not the FA.

I, like you, am amazed that there isn't a clause in there for this sort of low probability, high impact event. It wouldn't have to specify pandemic, but could include wording to cover all unforeseen circumstances which may have prevented a season from finishing, war, serious terrorism, serious natural disasters for example. None likely in any given season, but over a long period of time, inevitable.

What gets me, is that they could write, vote on and agree a sentence in about 5 minutes .............. eg ......... "in the event of the season being unable to finish due to unforeseen circumstances, the remaining results will be declared 0-0 and if more than 19 games per team have been completed, the season will count as having been completed".

There, it's not hard.

For the sake of 5 minutes of Prem Chief execs doing some actual work at any one meeting over the last 25 years, we could have saved ourselves all this uncertainty and potential litigation. But no, they've been busily devising ever more complicated ways of screwing over the paying public and lower league teams. A complete failure of leadership.

 

[Seaber]

Let's say the following happens:
Neutral venues voted through 14-6, the bottom six all voting against.
The proposed list of neutral venues includes the Amex, London Stadium, Villa Park, perhaps Carrow Road.
Are those clubs able to say they don't want to host neutral games, or would they be obliged to?

 

[Yes Chef]

In this instance it's the Premier League and the Football League which would have to have some rules in their competitions dealing with this scenario. Not the FA.

I, like you, am amazed that there isn't a clause in there for this sort of low probability, high impact event. It wouldn't have to specify pandemic, but could include wording to cover all unforeseen circumstances which may have prevented a season from finishing, war, serious terrorism, serious natural disasters for example. None likely in any given season, but over a long period of time, inevitable.

What gets me, is that they could write, vote on and agree a sentence in about 5 minutes .............. eg ......... "in the event of the season being unable to finish due to unforeseen circumstances, the remaining results will be declared 0-0 and if more than 19 games per team have been completed, the season will count as having been completed".

There, it's not hard.

For the sake of 5 minutes of Prem Chief execs doing some actual work at any one meeting over the last 25 years, we could have saved ourselves all this uncertainty and potential litigation. But no, they've been busily devising ever more complicated ways of screwing over the paying public and lower league teams. A complete failure of leadership.

Yes, very well put. A mate of mine works for the local council, and he told me that they have all manner of procedures in place for hypothetical situations - however outlandish they may appear. Yet we have a multi billion pound 'industry' without the foresight to provide a satisfactory resolution for when things go wrong.

 

[dazzer6666]

Let's say the following happens:
Neutral venues voted through 14-6, the bottom six all voting against.
The proposed list of neutral venues includes the Amex, London Stadium, Villa Park, perhaps Carrow Road.
Are those clubs able to say they don't want to host neutral games, or would they be obliged to?

They can’t be obliged to.....no chance

Also, imagine the public reaction.....’sorry, we’ve got to close the Covid testing facility at the Amex next week because Sheffield United are playing Burnley’.

 

[jessiejames]

Just out of intrest, if the premier league goes down the neutral grounds, what are they proposing for finishing the EFL?

 

[dsr-burnley]

In this instance it's the Premier League and the Football League which would have to have some rules in their competitions dealing with this scenario. Not the FA.

I, like you, am amazed that there isn't a clause in there for this sort of low probability, high impact event. It wouldn't have to specify pandemic, but could include wording to cover all unforeseen circumstances which may have prevented a season from finishing, war, serious terrorism, serious natural disasters for example. None likely in any given season, but over a long period of time, inevitable.

What gets me, is that they could write, vote on and agree a sentence in about 5 minutes .............. eg ......... "in the event of the season being unable to finish due to unforeseen circumstances, the remaining results will be declared 0-0 and if more than 19 games per team have been completed, the season will count as having been completed".

There, it's not hard.

For the sake of 5 minutes of Prem Chief execs doing some actual work at any one meeting over the last 25 years, we could have saved ourselves all this uncertainty and potential litigation. But no, they've been busily devising ever more complicated ways of screwing over the paying public and lower league teams. A complete failure of leadership.

And how does that help? What is your definition of "the season being unable to finish"? Because as it stands at present, the season looks like it is able to finish. So your rule would make absolutely no difference to the current position.

 

[warmleyseagull]

OK. Off the wall suggestion, probably full of flaws.

Cant argue with that. The flaws are:


It wont get 47 TV games played in a quasi meaningful competition (as opposed to the no relegation scenario where only about 12 matches would be at all meaningful for European places and a couple for Liverpool to wrap up title). Sky are not going to pay for a load of training ground kickabouts;

turkeys don't vote for Xmas so chances of Mike Ashley voting for anything that might prejudice his £300m or whatever from dodgy Saudis are NIL and if passed by others in a vote will certainly lead to Newcastle taking legal action;

even if they did agree, there is no formula that would suit them all so would be impasse and/or legal action.

That will do for now...

Seems to me that there are only three important suppositions that I think we can reasonably assume; 1) the PL needs £750m; 2) Sky insist on meaningful competition to pay it; 3) there has to be path of least resistance to obtain agreement from 14 and reduce prospect of legal action.

Conclusion: the 92 games will be played if CV doesn't interfere and players actually play ball; relegation will apply to 3 sides at the bottom after 38 games; wall to wall football from 1000 to 2200 from early June to get it done. The 6 at the bottom will try to scupper neutral grounds but may well not succeed.

 

[drew]

And how does that help? What is your definition of "the season being unable to finish"? Because as it stands at present, the season looks like it is able to finish. So your rule would make absolutely no difference to the current position.

But there is the possibility it still may be unable to finish and prudence would suggest having clauses in a contract to cater for this type of eventuality are a no brainer! If everyone knows at the start of the season then we wouldn't have this discussion now about how to end the season. For example, if, once x number of games have been completed the rules say the league is as it is at that point, then Liverpool would be champions and the bottom three relegated. Alternatively, you state whatever way they agree to conclude the season. Everyone knows at the start. The clubs, the players, the tv companies. This is why the EPL and their Lawyers have cocked up big time.

 

[Icy Gull]

Talk of sanctions this morning on BBC news if Albion and other teams continue to fight the neutral ground suggestion. WTF?

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Why those two teams, both can be caught. There will be many legal battles if this happens.

I don't disagree at all - I just think that is what could happen. There is no solution that will not result in legal battles in my opinion

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

But there is the possibility it still may be unable to finish and prudence would suggest having clauses in a contract to cater for this type of eventuality are a no brainer! If everyone knows at the start of the season then we wouldn't have this discussion now about how to end the season. For example, if, once x number of games have been completed the rules say the league is as it is at that point, then Liverpool would be champions and the bottom three relegated. Alternatively, you state whatever way they agree to conclude the season. Everyone knows at the start. The clubs, the players, the tv companies. This is why the EPL and their Lawyers have cocked up big time.

Agreed, force majeure clauses are common in other walks of life such as international trade. Presumably it never occurred to premier league administrators.

 

[neilbard]

Just out of intrest, if the premier league goes down the neutral grounds, what are they proposing for finishing the EFL?

Local park, jumpers for goal posts.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Talk of sanctions this morning on BBC news if Albion and other teams continue to fight the neutral ground suggestion. WTF?

And yet the R number has risen and the true rate of daily infections could be 20000. Football showing again (with its obsession with restarting) its remoteness from reality. It is really quite distasteful.

 

[trueblue]

Give it a rest.......do you have a new idea/plan for the EPL every hour?........all equally as ridiculous.

Literally the FIRST thing I’ve suggested on here. I guess you’re not a fan of the idea the.

 

[cjd]

Talk of sanctions this morning on BBC news if Albion and other teams continue to fight the neutral ground suggestion. WTF?

Sanctions by whom ?

I haven't seen the BBC News yet, but if 7 clubs vote against the 'Neutral Grounds' idea, then surely none of them would change sides to vote in favour of sanctions against themselves ?

 

[trueblue]

Cant argue with that. The flaws are:


It wont get 47 TV games played in a quasi meaningful competition (as opposed to the no relegation scenario where only about 12 matches would be at all meaningful for European places and a couple for Liverpool to wrap up title). Sky are not going to pay for a load of training ground kickabouts;

.

With relegation at stake, the matches would be more meaningful than most of the remaining PL fixtures, so don’t know what you mean by this.

Just thinking laterally for a way to reduce the number of unnecessary fixtures, sort out the relegation issue and make the insistence on neutral grounds fairer for those involved.

 

[Icy Gull]

Sanctions by whom ?

I haven't seen the BBC News yet, but if 7 clubs vote against the 'Neutral Grounds' idea, then surely none of them would change sides to vote in favour of sanctions against themselves ?

The FA? They didn’t say but they showed a video of the Amex pre game and only mentioned Albion by name. The WTF was because I don’t get how we and the other clubs could be sanctioned for not agreeing with the neutral ground suggestion. It’s a really really shit idea anyway

Dan Ashworth was interviewed briefly. Should be on again soon for anyone who wants to watch.

 

[sparkie]

Talk of sanctions this morning on BBC news if Albion and other teams continue to fight the neutral ground suggestion. WTF?

Some idiot is briefing to the press. Probably just bluster.

Pretty sure the Albion will see them in court if relegated after neutral grounds are imposed. All Barber's statements seem to be preparing the ground for a legal case.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Talk of sanctions this morning on BBC news if Albion and other teams continue to fight the neutral ground suggestion. WTF?

Nothing on the BBC website. Was this old school actual reporting by a newsreader?

 

[cjd]

The FA? They didn’t say but they showed a video of the Amex pre game and only mentioned Albion by name. The WTF was because I don’t get how we and the other clubs could be sanctioned for not agreeing with the neutral ground suggestion. It’s a really really shit one anyway

Dan Ashworth was interviewed briefly. Should be on again soon for anyone who wants to watch

OK, thank you for that info.

I shall keep an eye on the BBC as it's raining cats and dogs here.