[Football] Parish v Barber: FIGHT!

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Simple, why don't we just play when it's safe to play and forget about all these crappy ideas re Neutral or Closed doors. Parish is thinking money and Barber what's best for the Albion and football. Best solution is for the government to say 'no sport until safe' and sorted, but they seem to scared to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My increasing impression, from the early delays in lockdown, and the changing messages, is the government (Cummings) appears to be making decisions primarily for political reasons. If the government thinks that feeding the proles with a bit of footy will win them votes later, offset by the angry families of a handfull of dead people (if they have done their sums right), they'll risk it. As the English colonel said after the Italians killed all those Aussies at Gallipoli, with a risk of more deaths if the bodies were to be recovered, 'What's a few men?'.

As I keep saying, in the blame game it is early days, yet. We shall see what transpires, then draw the appropriate conclusions.

 

[blue-shifted]

I think there's a perfectly good argument that getting the season finished in whatever way possible and outcomes being decided on the pitch is better for football than various solutions that involve no tangible outcomes, or ones decided on 75% of a season being played.

It appears to me that we are dragging our heels because we are looking at being dragged back into a fight that we looked like losing a few months ago, and with very significant consequences for the club. And we do have a very good argument against it, which I for one fully support. I just think we need to accept we are being completely self-serving here, and drop any pretences about the greater good.

I can guarantee that if we manage to successfully lead the charge against resuming the season, we'll hear about it from other fans for a long time.

Yeh, we'll be hearing about it whatever

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think there's a perfectly good argument that getting the season finished in whatever way possible and outcomes being decided on the pitch is better for football than various solutions that involve no tangible outcomes, or ones decided on 75% of a season being played.

It appears to me that we are dragging our heels because we are looking at being dragged back into a fight that we looked like losing a few months ago, and with very significant consequences for the club. And we do have a very good argument against it, which I for one fully support. I just think we need to accept we are being completely self-serving here, and drop any pretences about the greater good.

I can guarantee that if we manage to successfully lead the charge against resuming the season, we'll hear about it from other fans for a long time.

Pretty much sums it up. To argue that what's good for the Albion is also for the greater good of football would be a bit of a stretch, but to be fair to Barber his main thrust is that anything that makes survival harder for us and easier for another club resulting from messing with the rubric of football towards the end of a season is simply a non starter. I agree with him. Couldn't give a stuff about other clubs or their supporters crying about it if the outcome suits us (and not them). Brighton being unfairly relegated as a byproduct of the quest for the greater good (finishing off this season come what may) is completely unacceptable.

 

[drew]

My understanding was the hope that supporters wouldn't congregate outside grounds thus reducing any virus transfer risks

Which goes to show those in their ivory towers are clueless because where ever Liverpool play there will be supporters local to that venue, they're everywhere, just as they are for most of the big sixs!!

 

[rippleman]

Why is Parish against home venues being used ?

Because he is sick of standing ankle deep in piss in the selhurst bogs possibly?

 

[blue-shifted]

My increasing impression, from the early delays in lockdown, and the changing messages, is the government (Cummings) appears to be making decisions primarily for political reasons. If the government thinks that feeding the proles with a bit of footy will win them votes later, offset by the angry families of a handfull of dead people (if they have done their sums right), they'll risk it. As the English colonel said after the Italians killed all those Aussies at Gallipoli, with a risk of more deaths if the bodies were to be recovered, 'What's a few men?'.

As I keep saying, in the blame game it is early days, yet. We shall see what transpires, then draw the appropriate conclusions.

We, as a sport are clearly focussing on money, but not in as cynical a way as the Gallipolli general. Parish for example has no choice but to argue this. Palace can't afford to hand back a quarter of their sky money. They were on the edge before the corona virus hit. I'll guess they will be one of 3 or 4 premier league clubs to go under if we can't get games on in some form in 2020 and either this years tv payments have to go back or next years aren't forthcoming.

They've been back from the dead more times than a zombie, so I'm sure the rivalry will somehow survive though

 

[Weststander]

TV interviews with Parish this morning were set in his wine cellar/bar. The webcam placed so we could also see two huge, glass fronted wine chillers. Showing off?

 

[Jim in the West]

Stick to your guns , Mr Barber.

The idea of changing the format of the PL competition midway through, with relegation places at stake .

Just.......NO

The problem is, we will be backed into a corner. It's basically: Finish the season with neutral venues, or abandon the season. You can almost sense the pressure that the big guns will be placing on the six "recalcitrant" clubs who don't want neutral venues. If the season IS abandoned, it will be seen to be the fault of Brighton, Villa, West Ham and presumably three other clubs at the bottom (but probably mostly our fault, as Barber raised his head above the parapet*) We are in a No-Win situation.

*quite rightly, in my view.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

TV interviews with Parish this morning were set in his wine cellar/bar. The webcam placed so we could also see two huge, glass fronted wine chillers. Showing off?

He drinks white? What a poof.

 

[Weststander]

We are willing to compromise though, and support behind closed doors games ( which we clearly aren't happy with ).

Behind closed doors is a gimme for 2019/20 and 2020/21, the licensing authority, Public Health and the police wouldn't allow anything less.

Not agreeing to that would mean no football at all for a very long time, half our 92 football clubs would go bust, 1000's of suppliers the same way, and where would the 100,000 folk employment?

 

[rippleman]

Simple, why don't we just play when it's safe to play and forget about all these crappy ideas re Neutral or Closed doors. Parish is thinking money and Barber what's best for the Albion and football. Best solution is for the government to say 'no sport until safe' and sorted, but they seem to scared to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what has baffled me too!

You would have thought that with football having such significance in so many peoples lives that the government would want "football" to be setting an example. If the general populace is locked down and/or observing the social distancing measures introduced by the government, why should "football", an "influencer" to millions be allowed to re-start and ignore social distancing?

I totally agree that the government should introduce a "no sport until social distancing measures are no longer required" policy.

As we are at present, football isn't as important to many of us as would be the case in normal times. It is the government's duty to override the financial greed of football clubs and introduce legislation to defer any restart until it's proven safe to do so.

 

[Sue1983]

Do we want to be wasting police resources in this manner? And you'd probably need a fair few officers to cover a stadium rather than 1 or 2.

This.

 

[sparkie]

Behind closed doors is a gimme for 2019/20 and 2020/21, the licensing authority, Public Health and the police wouldn't allow anything less.

Not agreeing to that would mean no football at all for a very long time, half our 92 football clubs would go bust, 1000's of suppliers the same way, and where would the 100,000 folk employment?

Yes, we have compromised and agreed to it even though we think it damages the integrity of this season.

 

[Giraffe]

Simple, why don't we just play when it's safe to play and forget about all these crappy ideas re Neutral or Closed doors. Parish is thinking money and Barber what's best for the Albion and football. Best solution is for the government to say 'no sport until safe' and sorted, but they seem to scared to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely agree with this. It's the obvious answer. Wait until it is safe to do so and then play the games with a crowd as the rest of the season has been whenever that is. If that isn't possible (due to finances) then scrap the season and start the new one whenever under the new behind closed doors rules.

To do anything else is underminding the integrity of the season and is guaranteed to end up with court cases all over the place from teams being relegated or missing out on promotion.

I am pretty sure the way Paul Barber is talking is with a court case in mind. He uses his words very carefully.

This one sentence in particular: "But at this critical point in the season playing matches in neutral venues has, in our view, potential to have a material effect on the integrity of the competition."

If you can prove this, which wouldn't be difficult, you have a great case.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Neutral grounds will be in Dubai

 

[SAC]

Completely agree with this. It's the obvious answer. Wait until it is safe to do so and then play the games with a crowd as the rest of the season has been whenever that is. If that isn't possible (due to finances) then scrap the season and start the new one whenever under the new behind closed doors rules.

To do anything else is underminding the integrity of the season and is guaranteed to end up with court cases all over the place from teams being relegated or missing out on promotion.

I am pretty sure the way Paul Barber is talking is with a court case in mind. He uses his words very carefully.

This one sentence in particular: "But at this critical point in the season playing matches in neutral venues has, in our view, potential to have a material effect on the integrity of the competition."

If you can prove this, which wouldn't be difficult, you have a great case.

If there is a change it will be becuase 14 clubs have agreed to it, therefore I can't see there being any court cases. If 14 clubs don't agree and it was pushed through somehow, then there could be a case.

 

[El Presidente]

Why is Parish against home venues being used ?

He's not, it should be easier to get approval to play matches in ten stadia than twenty.

 

[bobbysmith01]

That's what has baffled me too!

You would have thought that with football having such significance in so many peoples lives that the government would want "football" to be setting an example. If the general populace is locked down and/or observing the social distancing measures introduced by the government, why should "football", an "influencer" to millions be allowed to re-start and ignore social distancing?

I totally agree that the government should introduce a "no sport until social distancing measures are no longer required" policy.

As we are at present, football isn't as important to many of us as would be the case in normal times. It is the government's duty to override the financial greed of football clubs and introduce legislation to defer any restart until it's proven safe to do so.

Spot on, if the government say 'no sport' then I would imagine then the clubs business interruption insurance would kick in (I am sure they have it??) and everyone happy as the clubs and TV get their money, the season can be cancelled and everyone happy, unless you are Liverpool or
Palace whom seem to be desperate not to play at Selhurst. Still prefer play when safe to do and mop up after that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Driver8]

Let’s just play the remaining games on FIFA. Murray is on fire.

 

[swindonseagull]

I think it is more to do with the location of the neutral ground, the police want grounds chosen that are hard to get to, or easy for them to ensue that crowds don't get to.

I’m sure the police have better things to do than protect supposedly empty grounds

Will they all be in quarantine and get regular tests as well? After all a copper inside the ground will go and talk to all his fellow coppers after the game ??