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

[Neville's Breakfast]

Amiens start legal case against Ligue 1 for being relegated.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52635003

Amiens have started legal proceedings for their "unjust" relegation after France's Ligue 1 season was ended early because of the coronavirus crisis.

Paris St-Germain were awarded the title last month, with Amiens and Toulouse relegated, after the French government cancelled the 2019-20 sporting season.

Amiens were 19th in the table, four points behind Nimes and 10 points ahead of Toulouse, with 10 games to play.

Club president Bernard Joannin said they would fight the "unfair decision".

He said in a news conference: "We find that this decision goes against sporting fairness. The decision is a punishment from the league. It is unjust.

"We have been forced into fighting, into going to court to try to overturn this unfair decision."

Earlier this month, Amiens launched a petition asking that the league's governing body, Ligue de Football Professionnel, reconsider its decision to relegate the two sides and instead have 22 teams instead of 20 in the top division in 2020-21.

This would include Lorient and Lens, who have been promoted from Ligue 2.

Club lawyer Christophe Bertrand said: "We are not contesting the decision to stop the season. That is not really the object of these proceedings. It would be a bit inappropriate.

"However, what we are contesting are the consequences of the decisions that were taken."

So they would be in favour of stopping the season and having promotion but no relegation. That is the position of most people who oppose Project Restart. I would think that any club relegated whilst it’s players are forced to turn away whilst tackling (for a quarter of the season only) might also consider legal proceedings down the line.

 

[Dougie]

Let’s get it on.

 

[Mellotron]

View attachment 123525

Let’s get it on.

Hopefully we'll only give a shit about this for about 4-6 weeks.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

The ONS figures repeatedly demonstrate a very low risk of death for the younger population with no underlying health conditions. E.g. this chart-



I say again, the risk to players of serious illness or death is extremely low. I heard it reported today that ONS figures show 20 deaths for people below 30 which represents a population of 20 million, so a 1 in 1 million chance of death from Covid. By any logical assessment, this level of risk is acceptable.

As for any supporting staff or other people at the stadium who are older, I would say that they are not playing a contact sport and would be at a similar level of risk to everyone else who is back at work in factories, call centres, builders, garden centres, etc. So again, the view from Government is that this level of risk is acceptable and I personally agree.

Appreciate everyone is entitled to a view but I'm struggling to see a logical argument against re-start. And this is not re-start now, it is re-start in a month's time. Assuming the Bundesliga fixtures play out in some acceptable fashion for the next month, given that Government have already approved re-start in principle from 1 June, and given the money at stake, the chances of it not happening are extremely low, IMHO.

 

[Mellotron]

As for any supporting staff or other people at the stadium who are older, I would say that they are not playing a contact sport and would be at a similar level of risk to everyone else who is back at work in factories, call centres, builders, garden centres, etc. So again, the view from Government is that this level of risk is acceptable and I personally agree.

Actually, my understanding is that support staff will also be tested (regularly?) and therefore actually the level of risk for them is much lower than the general public.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Actually, my understanding is that support staff will also be tested (regularly?) and therefore actually the level of risk for them is much lower than the general public.

Testing doesn't reduce risk to the infected individual, it just ensures anyone who's infected is isolated / quarantined even if asymptomatic.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Just to clarify with your 'might as well not bother' comment. Is that referenced to me or to restarting the EPL?

Restarting

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

Testing doesn't reduce risk to the infected individual, it just ensures anyone who's infected is isolated / quarantined even if asymptomatic.

I guess that then reduces risk in the workplace as anyone who is asymptomatic and tests positive will be put in isolation. An advantage which workplaces without regular testing do not have.

Also it could lead to them getting swifter medical attention if they actually have a positive result confirmed whereas most of the population cannot get a test of they have symptoms unless they end up in hospital.

 

[Mellotron]

Testing doesn't reduce risk to the infected individual, it just ensures anyone who's infected is isolated / quarantined even if asymptomatic.

It doesn't lower the risk of getting it initially, but over time mass testing of a group absolutely lowers risk to everyone in that group. One of the reasons Germany and South Korea have been able to return to something nearer normality so quickly is due to high testing. What the Prem will be doing is a far, far, far higher level of testing of a group than nationally in those countries.

E.G. If you had a village of 3,000 people and all 3,000 were tested and monitored every 3 days, there probably wouldn't need to be a lockdown of that village at all, or not after about 1-2 weeks anyhow.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It doesn't lower the risk of getting it initially, but over time mass testing of a group absolutely lowers risk to everyone in that group. One of the reasons Germany and South Korea have been able to return to something nearer normality so quickly is due to high testing. What the Prem will be doing is a far, far, far higher level of testing of a group than nationally in those countries.

E.G. If you had a village of 3,000 people and all 3,000 were tested and monitored every 3 days, there probably wouldn't need to be a lockdown of that village at all, or not after about 1-2 weeks anyhow.

I don’t understand your logic. If the village is not in lockdown then the villagers can go elsewhere, catch the virus and bring it back to the village. Your regular testing would then confirm that lots of villagers now have the virus. How have they been protected ?

 

[Napper]

The ONS figures repeatedly demonstrate a very low risk of death for the younger population with no underlying health conditions. E.g. this chart-

View attachment 123526

I say again, the risk to players of serious illness or death is extremely low. I heard it reported today that ONS figures show 20 deaths for people below 30 which represents a population of 20 million, so a 1 in 1 million chance of death from Covid. By any logical assessment, this level of risk is acceptable.

As for any supporting staff or other people at the stadium who are older, I would say that they are not playing a contact sport and would be at a similar level of risk to everyone else who is back at work in factories, call centres, builders, garden centres, etc. So again, the view from Government is that this level of risk is acceptable and I personally agree.

Appreciate everyone is entitled to a view but I'm struggling to see a logical argument against re-start. And this is not re-start now, it is re-start in a month's time. Assuming the Bundesliga fixtures play out in some acceptable fashion for the next month, given that Government have already approved re-start in principle from 1 June, and given the money at stake, the chances of it not happening are extremely low, IMHO.

thats the reality.

Barmy when comsider the pictures of the transport in London today and note the millions who are now over exposing self it is pretty funny focusing on football which is extreme low risk and can be governed stricter than any other walk of life.

Cancelling be very funny if they send teams down though.

We look to be safe if doesnt restart so every cloud

 

[Mellotron]

I don’t understand your logic. If the village is not in lockdown then the villagers can go elsewhere, catch the virus and bring it back to the village. Your regular testing would then confirm that lots of villagers now have the virus. How have they been protected ?

I mean no lockdown within the village. Not the entire country being free of lockdown.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I mean no lockdown within the village. Not the entire country being free of lockdown.

Yes, that’s what I assumed. The analogy here (I assume)is the village is a PL football team and regular testing is meant to protect the village even if the villagers are not in lockdown. I just do not share your confidence that this is the case for the reason outlined above. If Covid 19 is still creating new infections in wider society then that society is at risk from non isolated ‘villages’ and vice versa.

 

[Mellotron]

Yes, that’s what I assumed. The analogy here (I assume)is the village is a PL football team and regular testing is meant to protect the village even if the villagers are not in lockdown. I just do not share your confidence that this is the case for the reason outlined above. If Covid 19 is still creating new infections in wider society then that society is at risk from non isolated ‘villages’ and vice versa.

At some risk, yes. But far lower than the general population, who aren't being tested at all. I'm not saying no risk. We will never get to no risk.

 

[darkwolf666]

The ONS figures repeatedly demonstrate a very low risk of death for the younger population with no underlying health conditions. E.g. this chart-

View attachment 123526

I say again, the risk to players of serious illness or death is extremely low. I heard it reported today that ONS figures show 20 deaths for people below 30 which represents a population of 20 million, so a 1 in 1 million chance of death from Covid. By any logical assessment, this level of risk is acceptable.

As for any supporting staff or other people at the stadium who are older, I would say that they are not playing a contact sport and would be at a similar level of risk to everyone else who is back at work in factories, call centres, builders, garden centres, etc. So again, the view from Government is that this level of risk is acceptable and I personally agree.

Appreciate everyone is entitled to a view but I'm struggling to see a logical argument against re-start. And this is not re-start now, it is re-start in a month's time. Assuming the Bundesliga fixtures play out in some acceptable fashion for the next month, given that Government have already approved re-start in principle from 1 June, and given the money at stake, the chances of it not happening are extremely low, IMHO.

You were doing so well with your post, I was nodding along in agreement at much of it, until that bit... So it is money above possible health implications then!

 

[1066familyman]

Blimey. Here’s hoping, eh?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-agree-july-plan-21772501.amp

You may be hoping for a swift return. I'm not.

 

[LamieRobertson]

You were doing so well with your post, I was nodding along in agreement at much of it, until that bit... So it is money above possible health implications then!

Isn’t that why people are going back to work etc. ......just throwing it into the mix

 

[Mellotron]

You may be hoping for a swift return. I'm not.

If it's of a reasonable level of safety, which looks likely, yes I am hoping. Definitely prefer football (even behind closed doors) to no football.

But fair enough if you don't.

 

[A1X]

Appreciate everyone is entitled to a view but I'm struggling to see a logical argument against re-start.

IMHO there are four criteria which need to be met before we can restart (assuming training restarts on Monday so player physical fitness is not an issue);

1. There are sufficient safety measures in place for all players and staff (including broadcasters and ground staff) to ensure nobody is placed at undue risk
2. There is no unnecessary strain on resources such as the NHS or police (other than to enforce some sort of cordon to keep people away if required)
3. There is no material difference to the rules or regulations such as that teams could claim to have been disadvantaged on the field (i.e. social distancing is not enforced)
4. The games can be finished in a timely manner (6 weeks max), and any further delay would mean no further restart down the line

If those can be met then I don't think there are any serious concerns about a restart. But we are some way yet from meeting those IMHO.

 

[neilbard]

Premier League clubs may have to pay back £350m

Premier League clubs have been left stunned after being told that they could have to repay £350 million to the broadcasters – even if the season is completed behind closed doors.

The potential rebate was outlined during a presentation by the Premier League on Monday morning that followed a meeting of the Club Broadcast Advisory Group on May 7.

The argument put forward by broadcasters, including Sky Sports BT Sport and international companies, is that the remaining 92 games are not being shown as per their contracts – with fans in the stadia and at re-scheduled times – and so it is a different ‘product.


If agreed by the players today, training sessions from Monday:

Players tested twice a week.

Player must arrive in his car on his own.

On arrival at the training gates his temperature will be taken.

Player will have own designated parking bay at least 3 spaces between his car and another players car.

Player must be wearing his kit, no changing at the training facility.

Only 5 players allowed in a training session group, social distancing and wearing masks.

Disinfected: The Pitch, The Ball, The Goal Posts, The Cones.

Session can only last for 75 minutes, no refreshments at training facility, once session completed player must get back into his car and drive home.


What's the ****ing point?