Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Nothing on the BBC website. Was this old school actual reporting by a newsreader?
Yep, on the Sports report.
Nothing on the BBC website. Was this old school actual reporting by a newsreader?
I'd like to see them try to spin that one lol.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’.
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.
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.
Talk of sanctions this morning on BBC news if Albion and other teams continue to fight the neutral ground suggestion. WTF?
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. I doubt a global pandemic was in anybody's mind when the season started. Had it been, no doubt the government (and governments around the world) would have had adequate supplies of PPE, Ventilators and would have been working flat out to solve the problems that as yet did not exist.
Disaster planning is a large part of many industries. For example City banks have entire alternative workplaces in various London satellite towns and various staff members have to head down there once a year to test systems.There are other examples such as force majeure clauses in contracts that I mentioned above. Given the turnover of football clubs it is not just in hindsight that disaster planning looks a good idea.
I imagine they are on deadlock about the idea with a number of clubs (which I would guess include the bottom 3) involved. I would also assume the ‘threat’ being referred to was the idea of settling the table as it sits (or about points per game) as a means of trying to force the bottom 3 to change vote. If as expected the Gov give the green light for an end of June start they are running out of time to agree a solution which is why the pressure to agree would be mounting.
Barber is right on this one if closed doors why not your own stadia and there are other leagues he can point to who are managing to plan on this basis so we would rightly argue it is possible.
All of that said even if they agree the idea it will never get off the ground or conclude as the virus will have the last say on this anyway
The danger/prospect/inevitability of the virus "intervening" in the next few months is one of the key reasons (for me) the 2019/20 season should be abandoned ASAP, and all efforts focussed on NEXT season. Given potential disruptions, it seems logical to try to start the 20/21 season at the earliest opportunity. Theoretically you could start the season in early/mid July and give yourself time to cater for enforced breaks (whilst one or more teams needs to stop playing). If we don't re-start 2019/20 until late June there is ZERO opportunity for any breaks if they want to complete it by end-July, which I think is UEFA's deadline. In fact, they will playing three times a week possibly for part of the time. What will Guardiola say about that??!!
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.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. I doubt a global pandemic was in anybody's mind when the season started. Had it been, no doubt the government (and governments around the world) would have had adequate supplies of PPE, Ventilators and would have been working flat out to solve the problems that as yet did not exist.
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.
This question has probably been asked a thousand times already , but in all honesty i doubt i will be going to watch live football any time soon , even if i'm told by some mad hypocritical scientist it's fine .
So my question is would you go to the match if the government say it's fine to do so in say June for arguments sake ? and for those who take their children will you go but leave them at home , apologies if there's a thread asking the same Q , i couldn't find it among the many CV19 threads .
So, here’s a suggestion...
Given that all the media, and ‘spokespersons’, and thick Sky talking heads, are adamant that with no crowd, there is no advantage to playing at home, over a neutral ground....
...I propose that we agree to the neutral grounds concept, if the PL schedules all 9 of our remaining fixtures at the Amex. Given the above nonsense attitudes, what is the argument against it?
Who's arguing that home advantage in an empty stadium makes no difference at all?
It doesn't help the current season because of the lack of contingency planning, and to alter the essence of the competition with a quarter of matches to be played is unfair.
If next season were to get underway vaguely on schedule, there could be some provision or clause saying that some matches may be moved to neutral venues - everyone knows beforehand and accepts it, and you avoid the mess we have now