We might have to go for 5 a side then?
If it enables Liverpool to put their name on the Premier League title then I'm sure it's being considered!!
We might have to go for 5 a side then?
Ben Mee of Burnley who want the end of the season so they can use their boring, attritional football to finish as high as they can. The sooner Dyche sods off and the core of their aging team depart the better.
Surely a decision will be made on Monday after the announcement on Sunday night from Boris.
From all accounts the easing of the lockdown will be incremental, meaning that any occupation where social distancing can’t be guaranteed will be on a needs only basis eg doctors/ nurses.
How can footballers be told to get on with it when millions of others are being told to stay at home. In today’s papers (if you believe them) it says that at least 50 players have stated that they would object to playing. If this is the case then it’s surely season over.
Surely a decision will be made on Monday after the announcement on Sunday night from Boris.
From all accounts the easing of the lockdown will be incremental, meaning that any occupation where social distancing can’t be guaranteed will be on a needs only basis eg doctors/ nurses.
How can footballers be told to get on with it when millions of others are being told to stay at home. In today’s papers (if you believe them) it says that at least 50 players have stated that they would object to playing. If this is the case then it’s surely season over.
I have quite a bit of admiration for Dyche - he has worked miracles with Burnley. But he out-whinges Mourinho, ...
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.Surely a decision will be made on Monday after the announcement on Sunday night from Boris.
From all accounts the easing of the lockdown will be incremental, meaning that any occupation where social distancing can’t be guaranteed will be on a needs only basis eg doctors/ nurses.
How can footballers be told to get on with it when millions of others are being told to stay at home. In today’s papers (if you believe them) it says that at least 50 players have stated that they would object to playing. If this is the case then it’s surely season over.
Watford Chairman
Against a backdrop of players who, having seen their lives turned upside down along with the rest of the world, are suddenly expected to perform as if nothing has happened, despite the rest of society still facing the kind of restrictions unenforceable on a football pitch
And with all these compromises and health risks we are asked to finish a competition that bears no resemblance to the one we started, which could end a small club like Watford’s time in the Premier League
https://www.watfordfc.com/news/club/premier-league-chairmans-statement
I haven’t read all 100 plus pages on this thread, but, if the problem in not ending the season now is the tv contracts, why not just extend the present contracts for a further 12 months, with no extra payments.
The PL clubs would take a hit, but, how many are relying on money from the next contract to continue? If they were to give tv a free year of football coverage, Shirley this would sort out this problem.
This from a club that thinks neutral grounds are unfair because the pitch might be a yard wider?
This from a club that thinks neutral grounds are unfair because the pitch might be a yard wider?
This from a club that thinks neutral grounds are unfair because the pitch might be a yard wider?
I've been wondering something similar. Instead of giving them a whole extra year, why not just give them extra matches when the game is back up an running? There are X number of televised games they had paid for for this season, add them onto next season (or whenever the game is up and running). There are so few 3pm Saturday kick offs in the premier league that moving an extra game or two a week wouldn't make too big a difference, and it should be more easily accepted by fans if it's made clear the extra games are a make good for this season.
No resemblance? That's clutching at straws. Playing away to Norwich in London with no crowd may be different from playing away to Norwich at Carrow Road with a crowd; but it's not "no resemblance". Football is football.
The Watford Chairman is absolutely correct. Well said.Watford Chairman
Against a backdrop of players who, having seen their lives turned upside down along with the rest of the world, are suddenly expected to perform as if nothing has happened, despite the rest of society still facing the kind of restrictions unenforceable on a football pitch
And with all these compromises and health risks we are asked to finish a competition that bears no resemblance to the one we started, which could end a small club like Watford’s time in the Premier League
https://www.watfordfc.com/news/club/premier-league-chairmans-statement
I think I read that televising Saturday 3 pm kick offs is now allowed so there wouldn’t be any inconvenience for fans (assuming fans were present).
Who at Brighton said pitch width was the worry ? I may have missed it as haven’t been reading everything.
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.