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

[Napper]

How does it work with the repaying of broadcast money ?

Didnt the top clubs get more than the bottom so will be paying more back I guess ?

Worst case is I guess we'dd have to trouser about 30m pay back.

Hefty sum but less than a player for most

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

How fair is it that the season should be binned? There are going to be clubs disadvantaged whatever way we turn.

Where we can agree is re football finances at the top, which have been ridiculous for a fair while as everyone knows.....maybe some good will come out of this horrible virus ...although whilst we don’t need to see the best players to enjoy watching Brighton ...I’d quite like too!

Ps ..I don’t think I’ve said opponents should roll over...in fact on this thread I think I might be in vocal minority...just having my own say

Agreed. You are quite entitled to your say and I understand where you are coming from. I think that suspending the season is the least worst solution because any games played now do not resemble in any way those already completed. We are only having this debate because of money. Re my rolling over comment, it’s more aimed at the power of the PL hierarchy. I have been happily enjoying watching the best players ever to play for Brighton but I just don’t think we should be a part of a system aimed at satisfying the Asian gambling market and enriching administrators and players. The virus has brought all of this into sharp focus.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Agreed. You are quite entitled to your say and I understand where you are coming from. I think that suspending the season is the least worst solution because any games played now do not resemble in any way those already completed. We are only having this debate because of money. Re my rolling over comment, it’s more aimed at the power of the PL hierarchy. I have been happily enjoying watching the best players ever to play for Brighton but I just don’t think we should be a part of a system aimed at satisfying the Asian gambling market and enriching administrators and players. The virus has brought all of this into sharp focus.

Yep I saw where you coming from and didn’t take it personally ...unique opportunity here for all concerned ..including players to reposition the game.

 

[blue-shifted]

How does it work with the repaying of broadcast money ?

Didnt the top clubs get more than the bottom so will be paying more back I guess ?

Worst case is I guess we'dd have to trouser about 30m pay back.

Hefty sum but less than a player for most

Plus we and others have had to pay back season tickets, plus ST cancellations will plummet, plus any future broadcasting / sponsorship / hospitaility is likely to be greatly reduced.

The running costs of Amex and the training ground are fixed. Most of our players are on 2 to 5 years more on their current contracts. So we can't reduce our costs any time soon. Even when these contracts are up, to stay up we're going to have to compete with the likes of Newcastle who can rely on buying Cavani etc through the Yemeni death fund.

I understand the unseemly commercial drive to try and get the show back on the road. Though I don't like it, and I don't like football finances more generally, but we are where we are.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Strong and sensible words from Troy. I'm sure the Premier League will ignore him.

Blah blah blah. More self interest, from RELEGATION THREATENED Troy Deeney.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Blah blah blah. More self interest, from RELEGATION THREATENED Troy Deeney.

Yes. he should be willing to sacrifice his life and the lives of those he holds dear in order to complete the season.

 

[Danny Wilson Said]

But doesn’t that contaminate the outcome of the season even more if continued ? He won’t be the only one with a set of circumstances that make him particularly risk averse. Why should the final outcome be affected by whether or not a club has one or several of such players ? Troy Deeney is immensely important to Watford.

If people are hoping for the fairest possible outcome, then this is one more development that prevents it.

Deeney is completely correct to say that BAME players [and by extension, their families] are at more risk according to all the evidence, so some clubs whose squads have a certain racial profile will be at an immediate disadvantage if black players are reluctant or unwilling to play - or will agree to play but still harbour nagging doubts that just might take ten percent off their game. Clearly it is to the Albion's advantage if a player like Deeney, who is so important to one of our relegation rivals, refuses to play, but would we want to survive in such circumstances?

Of course, you could say that if Tyrone Mings refuses to play for Villa for similar reasons, it would work massively in their favour ...

 

[nicko31]

Yes. he should be willing to sacrifice his life and the lives of those he holds dear in order to complete the season.

Indeed, self preservation is self interest...

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Plus we and others have had to pay back season tickets, plus ST cancellations will plummet, plus any future broadcasting / sponsorship / hospitaility is likely to be greatly reduced.

The running costs of Amex and the training ground are fixed. Most of our players are on 2 to 5 years more on their current contracts. So we can't reduce our costs any time soon. Even when these contracts are up, to stay up we're going to have to compete with the likes of Newcastle who can rely on buying Cavani etc through the Yemeni death fund.

I understand the unseemly commercial drive to try and get the show back on the road. Though I don't like it, and I don't like football finances more generally, but we are where we are.

Pedantry : I don't think any Albion player is currently contracted beyond summer 2023.

We have 3 out of contract this summer, 6 in 2021, 9 in 2022, and 17 in 2023.

(The above includes Băluţa, Sanchez, Molumby, White and Walton but not Gyökeres, Tau and Østigård, whose statuses I need to research).

 

[Jim in the West]

Deeney: "I can't get a haircut until mid-July but I can go and get in a box with 19 people and go and jump for a header and nobody could answer the questions, not because they didn't want to, just because they don't know the information."

 

[dsr-burnley]

But doesn’t that contaminate the outcome of the season even more if continued ? He won’t be the only one with a set of circumstances that make him particularly risk averse. Why should the final outcome be affected by whether or not a club has one or several of such players ? Troy Deeney is immensely important to Watford.

It's a valid argument - but it's equally valid for next season as well. Most of the health arguments are long-lasting; there are few valid arguments for saying we can't play in June, but it will be safe from August for evermore.

Deeney is fair enough. He has a baby in the house who is one of the very few children who are vulnerable, and he accepts that he has the choice to play and then go home, to play and isolate elsewhere, or to not play. But how many players are in that position? Not many. Not enough to cancel a season.

Remember that children with breathing difficulties are vulnerable anyway. On average, 166 children per year die with flu. Deeney may very well feel, once he looks closely at the figures, that he can't be expected to play football until his child is older - at least past his first birthday - simply because of the risk of catching flu while playing football; an illness which regularly affects several players at one club, which is not screened for and not protected against, and which particularly affects children with breathing problems. Frankly, if flu had had the same publicity as coronavirus, Deeney would have been absent from Watford from the day his child was born; but flu doesn't live in the same climate of fear. It's undoubtedly a lot more dangerous for children, though.

 

[Mr Putdown]

How does it work with the repaying of broadcast money ?

Didnt the top clubs get more than the bottom so will be paying more back I guess ?

Worst case is I guess we'dd have to trouser about 30m pay back.

Hefty sum but less than a player for most

Looking at how the tv money is paid out, I’d suggest every club will repay the same amount.

Domestic TV, overseas TV and central commercialisation numbers are all equal for each club. All 20 sides receive £34m for domestic TV income, £43m for overseas TV income and £5m for central commercialisation (such as sponsors).

It’s the Merit money and Facility Fees which vary, the former on final league position, the latter on how many of a clubs games are televised.

 

[bhafc99]

Blah blah blah. More self interest, from RELEGATION THREATENED Troy Deeney.

Exactly. He doesn’t even have children. Or a wife. It’s all weasley pathetic diversion and excuses deliberately made up to stop THE MIGHTY LEEDS getting into the PL.

Watford should be ASHAMED.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Exactly. He doesn’t even have children. Or a wife. It’s all weasley pathetic diversion and excuses deliberately made up to stop THE MIGHTY LEEDS getting into the PL.

Watford should be ASHAMED.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean THE MIGHTY LEEDS who are showing NO self interest themselves, of course.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's not just the players.

[tweet]1262702512726999043[/tweet]

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It's a valid argument - but it's equally valid for next season as well. Most of the health arguments are long-lasting; there are few valid arguments for saying we can't play in June, but it will be safe from August for evermore.

Deeney is fair enough. He has a baby in the house who is one of the very few children who are vulnerable, and he accepts that he has the choice to play and then go home, to play and isolate elsewhere, or to not play. But how many players are in that position? Not many. Not enough to cancel a season.

Remember that children with breathing difficulties are vulnerable anyway. On average, 166 children per year die with flu. Deeney may very well feel, once he looks closely at the figures, that he can't be expected to play football until his child is older - at least past his first birthday - simply because of the risk of catching flu while playing football; an illness which regularly affects several players at one club, which is not screened for and not protected against, and which particularly affects children with breathing problems. Frankly, if flu had had the same publicity as coronavirus, Deeney would have been absent from Watford from the day his child was born; but flu doesn't live in the same climate of fear. It's undoubtedly a lot more dangerous for children, though.

Very little/nothing is undoubtable about Covid 19.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavir...XQlRioq6BoNwnNW6qJif37F6rW9BAjClq9NNoVV5i7G6H

As Professor Cox says, it is not good enough to make assertions and claim it is all supported by the science when this science is not shared with the population.
I also disagree that nothing will change given time. These virus’ do at some point decline and even disappear. As I have previously mentioned elsewhere I lived in Asia after the SARS epidemic but was comfortable despite there being no vaccine. Given time and appropriate public policy Covid 19 will also subside. Football is an unnecessary risk as is sending primary age children back to school in June. Next season can be planned to start when safe to do so. It does not have to be August.

 

[Barham's tash]

Plus we and others have had to pay back season tickets, plus ST cancellations will plummet, plus any future broadcasting / sponsorship / hospitaility is likely to be greatly reduced.

The running costs of Amex and the training ground are fixed. Most of our players are on 2 to 5 years more on their current contracts. So we can't reduce our costs any time soon. Even when these contracts are up, to stay up we're going to have to compete with the likes of Newcastle who can rely on buying Cavani etc through the Yemeni death fund.

I understand the unseemly commercial drive to try and get the show back on the road. Though I don't like it, and I don't like football finances more generally, but we are where we are.

If spectators can’t attend next season either then I want to can my season ticket but am expecting a fight from the club as the terms are clear that once signed up on the direct debit scheme I am liable for the full amount.

I am expecting some kind of virtual season ticket offering via the existing broadcasters such that they carry on televising c100-130 games a season but STH of all clubs can log on to a special site and access all games at say 50% cost of an actual ticket with maybe 30-50% of that amount going to the clubs. Again, not for me when my wife has no income and my job might go the same way at any moment.

 

[blue-shifted]

If spectators can’t attend next season either then I want to can my season ticket but am expecting a fight from the club as the terms are clear that once signed up on the direct debit scheme I am liable for the full amount.

I am expecting some kind of virtual season ticket offering via the existing broadcasters such that they carry on televising c100-130 games a season but STH of all clubs can log on to a special site and access all games at say 50% cost of an actual ticket with maybe 30-50% of that amount going to the clubs. Again, not for me when my wife has no income and my job might go the same way at any moment.

And of course, you have to look after yourself and your family. I'm lucky not to have lost my job, so will keep my ticket and hope to be able to watch as much from home as possible.

I think Brighton are well placed to survive this, despite our large cost base compared to our income. At worst, we have saleable playing assets which could tide us over. It's the clubs which were teetering on the brink before this which are going to start to topple. The biggest single predictor I think of whether clubs will survive or not is how the owners other business interests have been impacted. So to what degree will owners be willing or able to fund the losses up until we can get a stadium full of people again.

 

[blue-shifted]

Very little/nothing is undoubtable about Covid 19.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavir...XQlRioq6BoNwnNW6qJif37F6rW9BAjClq9NNoVV5i7G6H

As Professor Cox says, it is not good enough to make assertions and claim it is all supported by the science when this science is not shared with the population.
I also disagree that nothing will change given time. These virus’ do at some point decline and even disappear. As I have previously mentioned elsewhere I lived in Asia after the SARS epidemic but was comfortable despite there being no vaccine. Given time and appropriate public policy Covid 19 will also subside. Football is an unnecessary risk as is sending primary age children back to school in June. Next season can be planned to start when safe to do so. It does not have to be August.

I'm no expert but am guessing that SARS in much less contagious than covid so it's easier to get on with life without a vaccine.

 

[Jim in the West]

It's a valid argument - but it's equally valid for next season as well. Most of the health arguments are long-lasting; there are few valid arguments for saying we can't play in June, but it will be safe from August for evermore.

Apart from safety, a key aspect of the debate is the fairness of playing 29 games under one set of conditions, and nine under completely different conditions. For next season we will know the score - rules can be agreed to by all BEFORE the season starts (including what happens if the season can't finish). Plus, there are good reasons to believe that it WILL be safer in August than it is now. But we shouldn't start until the players' reasonable safety concerns have been addressed.