City Players Extra 6 Weeks in Lockdown

[CHIPLEY RED]

8 hours ago, hodge said:

In reverse order,

They ARE talking about it being months down the line not weeks

Premier league would probably give clubs an advance to help fund any camps if thats the way they go so that they have something to show on tv again

Because they're talking about it being months down the line by this time testing kits should be readily available so that there's plenty for front line staff and therefore enough to allow clubs to have kits each

 

Talk this morning is June so 2 months away. At present there are limited tests for key workers. These are not 1 off tests they will need to be carried out multiple times per person to continuously check if they have the virus. Where are the spare kits coming from and why should these go to footballers rather than joe public?

If the Premier League can fund the camps why don't they fund the wages of the low paid non playing staff who are having wages cut and clubs taking advantage of tax payer funded Furlough.

I want to see live sport as much as anyone but protecting the lives and lively hoods of population should be priority not playing football. 

[Kid in the Riot]

They shouldn't be considering restarting the football season until every single NHS worker, care home worker, bus driver, childcare worker and every other key and essential worker in the UK has been tested ACCURATELY first. 

We are quite frankly MILES away from achieving that as of now.

[mozo]

On 12/04/2020 at 17:30, stortfordred said:

You might as well play it on FIFA or toss a coin. Momentum will have been completely lost. I think that really should be it for this season. Make all games null and void and start next season when everything is back to some form of reality. 

Behind closed doors games still brings TV revenue for clubs, which, frankly, is the only much needed revenue they'll get, so resumption is necessary. Then there is end of season award money, with particular compensation for promoted teams, especially to the Premier League.

16 hours ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

It makes me laugh how full of self importance footballers/football clubs and supporters are just now.

All this talk of testing all players before the season can restart is ridiculous. We can't test all the key workers so why on earth would any rational society sanction tests being carried out on footballers. If the clubs can hire private medical staff surely they should be used to test the health workers who are in the frontline saving lives.

Clubs have their own medical staff already. They just need the testing kits.

5 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

They shouldn't be considering restarting the football season until every single NHS worker, care home worker, bus driver, childcare worker and every other key and essential worker in the UK has been tested ACCURATELY first.

Aren't you conflating two separate issues here. Yes they should test all those you mentioned, but the resumption of football isn't contingent on that.

[BS10 RED]

On 12/04/2020 at 17:30, stortfordred said:

You might as well play it on FIFA or toss a coin. Momentum will have been completely lost. I think that really should be it for this season. Make all games null and void and start next season when everything is back to some form of reality. 
in the mean time re-evaluate  where professional football has got to. Question the ridiculous salaries and farcical transfer fees and realise that it was all based on shifting sands anyway. 
I don’t want to see clubs go out of business but if that’s what it takes to make the likes of the Glasers and the Levys of this world to do one then all well and good. 

Null and void this season and i believe teams will be fighting in court rooms rather than on football pitches.  

As i believe there will be more than a handful who wouldn't want that to happen and will want compensating if that was the case.

In the Prem you have Liverpool about to win their first title... With Man City out of the CL for next two years you would presume 5th would take the spot well Sheff Utd are only 2pts from that with a game in hand. You have Villa 2pts from safety with a game in hand.

In Championship you have Leeds and West Brom near enough up they wont be happy if this season got scrapped.

In league one Coventry are 7pts clear with a game in hand even if behind closed doors the season needs finishing.

 

My only question is what happens with players out of contract end of June and even loan players whos loan ends of June could they refuse to play for the team or can parent clubs refuse loan players to play as it could potentially affect them. 

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

Aren't you conflating two separate issues here. Yes they should test all those you mentioned, but the resumption of football isn't contingent on that.

The position I've seen put forward by pretty much every single club owner, player and pundit is that the season will only recommence once the safety of players and staff can be guaranteed and that means testing must be carried out. Social distancing can't be observed so it looks like the only option to me.

[Lrrr]

2 hours ago, BS10 RED said:

Null and void this season and i believe teams will be fighting in court rooms rather than on football pitches

Look at the voting in Scotland with Dundee and the shitstorm its caused and how many legal battles that will lead to

[CHIPLEY RED]

7 hours ago, mozo said:

Behind closed doors games still brings TV revenue for clubs, which, frankly, is the only much needed revenue they'll get, so resumption is necessary. Then there is end of season award money, with particular compensation for promoted teams, especially to the Premier League.

Clubs have their own medical staff already. They just need the testing kits.

Aren't you conflating two separate issues here. Yes they should test all those you mentioned, but the resumption of football isn't contingent on that.

I stand by my original point - if an organisation has its own private medical team capable of helping to save lives in a pandemic, the likes of which haven't been seen for many decades, then surely they have a moral duty to use those resources for the greater good of the population NOT to test a footballer in order for a football match to be played. 

 

[Son of Fred]

On 12/04/2020 at 08:38, daored said:

This is the thing that I don’t understand about the desire to finish the season considering what is going on in the world. 
 

Who tests the hotel staff, the club or the hotel. If you put the players into isolation then surely every person they come into contact with , has to not have the virus.

City still have to play Middlesbrough and Blackburn away which I’m sure would either consist of flying up and an away stay the day before the game. Flights are grounded , who is responsible for the staff when the club plays these two games. Add in 91 clubs all doing the same to various levels and it becomes complicated.

If we finish the season with no fans in attendance and the country still in a form of lockdown , does it not encourage people to get together to watch games? Liverpool winning the league , Leeds getting promoted for example? Does it encourage an attitude of if they can play football so can we ?

The season needs to be cancelled and we simply start again when it’s deemed safe for all involved 

Scrap the season...100%

And as for all the players being tested...staff in our local hospitals going down with covid & dying with still no testing for them??....get real with this.

[Son of Fred]

16 hours ago, mozo said:

Behind closed doors games still brings TV revenue for clubs, which, frankly, is the only much needed revenue they'll get, so resumption is necessary. Then there is end of season award money, with particular compensation for promoted teams, especially to the Premier League.

Clubs have their own medical staff already. They just need the testing kits.

Aren't you conflating two separate issues here. Yes they should test all those you mentioned, but the resumption of football isn't contingent on that.

Wake up & smell the coffee.

[mozo]

Labour is pressing the government to set out their lockdown exit plan.

We will exit lockdown at the point at which we are confident the NHS can cope with the volume of patients. 

At this stage, football could commence under particular circumstances. There would be no lockdown to adhere to, but they would have to evidence that their breech of general social distancing is being done in a responsible way.

What timeframes do we think the government will set out? 4 weeks? Six, eight, twelve weeks?

That moment will be close to resumption of sporting events (behind closed doors etc).

 

 

[mozo]

10 hours ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

I stand by my original point - if an organisation has its own private medical team capable of helping to save lives in a pandemic, the likes of which haven't been seen for many decades, then surely they have a moral duty to use those resources for the greater good of the population NOT to test a footballer in order for a football match to be played. 

 

Many of us have a moral duty to volunteer our help, but most of us have done little more than a bit of clapping, which doesn't really cut it. I'm guilty too.

[oldstandrobin]

On 12/04/2020 at 13:27, Major Isewater said:

League fixtures played behind closed doors  could have a huge impact on the Gas ...

if they had a stadium.

 

Didn't know they had doors at the Mem, I know they have got Gates

[oldstandrobin]

2 hours ago, Robert the bruce said:

Scrap the season...100%

And as for all the players being tested...staff in our local hospitals going down with covid & dying with still no testing for them??....get real with this.

A Sensible post Robert. Whilst people are still dying and getting infected, sport is secondary. Just call it a day on the season, football is not essential to good health, if this was WW2 it would be scrapped, whats the difference ? ItsWW3 against a vile nasty unseen enemy.

[mozo]

27 minutes ago, oldstandrobin said:

A Sensible post Robert. Whilst people are still dying and getting infected, sport is secondary. Just call it a day on the season, football is not essential to good health, if this was WW2 it would be scrapped, whats the difference ? ItsWW3 against a vile nasty unseen enemy.

The Germans and English played football on the Western Front in WW1. This sport must be really ingrained in our culture to have even occurred to those poor souls.

[oldstandrobin]

14 minutes ago, mozo said:

The Germans and English played football on the Western Front in WW1. This sport must be really ingrained in our culture to have even occurred to those poor souls.

From my memory of history, this happened only on Xmas Day 1914, we all know the carnage that came after that !

[mozo]

16 minutes ago, oldstandrobin said:

From my memory of history, this happened only on Xmas Day 1914, we all know the carnage that came after that !

That's my understanding too

[CHIPLEY RED]

4 hours ago, mozo said:

Many of us have a moral duty to volunteer our help, but most of us have done little more than a bit of clapping, which doesn't really cut it. I'm guilty too.

I absolutely agree.

[HiddenGem7]

I can't see that they will allow this seasons games to be played after June 30 because all the players contracts are tied to that date.  What happens to players on loan for the season like Benik?  If there are games on 3rd July does he play for Stoke or for us? what about youth players due to play on pro terms from Jul 1, can they play? Also players due to move or retire on June 30, will they be forced to play for their existing clubs? Is that even legal under freedom of employment?  The legal ramifications of playing this seasons games after next season has technically started are too big to resolve.  The only way this season can finish if of they can fit it all in before that date.  Given the 56 days quoted by EFL that means play to resume on 5th May at the absolute latest which seems deeply unlikely at this point.  I think we have to face the fact that this season is over.

[Hampshire Red]

For me this is an incredibly complicated situation affecting far more than football, the entire economy, every person (fottball fan or not) in Europe so to consider finishing this season seems to be a crazy thought. To try and start a meaningful new season or competition when there is a better chance of completing that one seems hard enough but will appeal to TV companies, clubs (apart from Lpool, Leeds etc) and most fans.

Simple. Just scrap this season like it didnt get beyond August, spend all the clever effort on saving lives and the economy and just scrap this season full stop. Then EPL, EUFA, FA and TV companies can start thinking about something 'new' come December when people, hopefully, will be able to gather and mix again

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Hampshire Red said:

For me this is an incredibly complicated situation affecting far more than football, the entire economy, every person (fottball fan or not) in Europe so to consider finishing this season seems to be a crazy thought. To try and start a meaningful new season or competition when there is a better chance of completing that one seems hard enough but will appeal to TV companies, clubs (apart from Lpool, Leeds etc) and most fans.

Simple. Just scrap this season like it didnt get beyond August, spend all the clever effort on saving lives and the economy and just scrap this season full stop. Then EPL, EUFA, FA and TV companies can start thinking about something 'new' come December when people, hopefully, will be able to gather and mix again

Nulling and voiding could yet mean major bills either from rebates out of income paid or out of future monies due.

Lawsuits from nulling and voiding...corporate lawyers would have a field day.

[Mr Popodopolous]

40 minutes ago, HiddenGem7 said:

I can't see that they will allow this seasons games to be played after June 30 because all the players contracts are tied to that date.  What happens to players on loan for the season like Benik?  If there are games on 3rd July does he play for Stoke or for us? what about youth players due to play on pro terms from Jul 1, can they play? Also players due to move or retire on June 30, will they be forced to play for their existing clubs? Is that even legal under freedom of employment?  The legal ramifications of playing this seasons games after next season has technically started are too big to resolve.  The only way this season can finish if of they can fit it all in before that date.  Given the 56 days quoted by EFL that means play to resume on 5th May at the absolute latest which seems deeply unlikely at this point.  I think we have to face the fact that this season is over.

Personally, I'd like to see the contractual periods extended- if it's another month or two, so be it.

Players playing silly buggers, I'd like to see under some kind of suspension from world football activity for a while. All Leagues and FIFA would have to agree.

If 30th June is not feasible then extend it a month- it's bigger than individual selfishness of players, agents- some kind of blacklist or greylist?

[wayne allisons tongues]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Personally, I'd like to see the contractual periods extended- if it's another month or two, so be it.

Players playing silly buggers, I'd like to see under some kind of suspension from world football activity for a while. All Leagues and FIFA would have to agree.

If 30th June is not feasible then extend it a month- it's bigger than individual selfishness of players, agents- some kind of blacklist or greylist?

Can you just change a contract like that, if you left for a new job and had to give 1 months notice the company couldn’t say sorry we need you so you can leave in 3 months. Also in English law you can’t be stopped from moving so not sure how the league can stop players moving. 1st July they will be OOC/ free agents so can move where they want under FIFA and FA rules.

Players have short careers and if they can make more money elsewhere why should they be stopped from doing so. It isn’t there fault season may be extended, clubs are quite happy to pay them and keep them under there terms. Don’t think they can just change the terms for it suits them now. 
You have to consider FFP as well if clubs need to let players go to meet FFP next season, should they be penalised due to the season being extended.

Why should we as a club carry on paying Matty Taylor if he isn’t even in our squad, Bailey Wright the same. Big chunk of savings FFP plus whoever else is OOC. 
 

It is a mess and as someone mentioned earlier can Stoke recall Afobe after 31st May? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Can you just change a contract like that, if you left for a new job and had to give 1 months notice the company couldn’t say sorry we need you so you can leave in 3 months. Also in English law you can’t be stopped from moving so not sure how the league can stop players moving. 1st July they will be OOC/ free agents so can move where they want under FIFA and FA rules.

Players have short careers and if they can make more money elsewhere why should they be stopped from doing so. It isn’t there fault season may be extended, clubs are quite happy to pay them and keep them under there terms. Don’t think they can just change the terms for it suits them now. 
You have to consider FFP as well if clubs need to let players go to meet FFP next season, should they be penalised due to the season being extended.

Why should we as a club carry on paying Matty Taylor if he isn’t even in our squad, Bailey Wright the same. Big chunk of savings FFP plus whoever else is OOC. 
 

It is a mess and as someone mentioned earlier can Stoke recall Afobe after 31st May? 

I'd like a bit of maturity and give and take on all sides personally. Global pandemics are more important than exact timings of transfer windows.

A month or 2 is no great hardship, if that's all it is. I'm working on that assumption. Adjust FFP accordingly a little to take into account various issues caused

Why you so keen on defending players? Lot of them in e.g. the top two divisions better placed than most- give a little, take a little hit.

I'd like to see players who insist on playing silly buggers frozen out for a bit. Just adjust the transfer windows, clubs won't sign a player if they can't play.

Okay maybe I'm a bit harsh but all sides need to give a little in a global pandemic tbh. I stand by that point.

[Davefevs]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Personally, I'd like to see the contractual periods extended- if it's another month or two, so be it.

Players playing silly buggers, I'd like to see under some kind of suspension from world football activity for a while. All Leagues and FIFA would have to agree.

If 30th June is not feasible then extend it a month- it's bigger than individual selfishness of players, agents- some kind of blacklist or greylist?

If this season is to finish whenever, then two things need to happen:

1. Contracts have to be able to be extended in line with the newly set end of season date (which will be beyond 30.06

2. Players cannot transfer registration until the first day of the new season, e.g. 1st Aug if season ends 31st July

The final transfer window of the current season was January...that has gone.

If a player is out of contract on 30.06, he and the club have two choices, extend or end.  If they end, then they won’t be able to play anywhere else until next season.  There will be pros and cons for both clubs and players.

For players on loan, the same applies, either extend or end.  But someone like Afobe cannot be ended and then go and play for Stoke until next season.  Stoke may see advantages of City still paying him, as well as potentially scoring against their relegation rivals.

Either the above, or a new transfer window needs to come into play...and I think that will compromise the league’s integrity much more.

As it stands, I think the chance of resuming football behind closed doors v.early in June (to complete by end of July) is unlikely.  Flattening the peak, wasn’t just about reducing the size of peak, but extending the period of a lower peak. We are still not at the new lower peak yet, another week 10 days, then how long does that peak last?  6-8 weeks?  I dunno!

@wayne allisons tongues some potential answers above.

[wayne allisons tongues]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If this season is to finish whenever, then two things need to happen:

1. Contracts have to be able to be extended in line with the newly set end of season date (which will be beyond 30.06

2. Players cannot transfer registration until the first day of the new season, e.g. 1st Aug if season ends 31st July

The final transfer window of the current season was January...that has gone.

If a player is out of contract on 30.06, he and the club have two choices, extend or end.  If they end, then they won’t be able to play anywhere else until next season.  There will be pros and cons for both clubs and players.

For players on loan, the same applies, either extend or end.  But someone like Afobe cannot be ended and then go and play for Stoke until next season.  Stoke may see advantages of City still paying him, as well as potentially scoring against their relegation rivals.

Either the above, or a new transfer window needs to come into play...and I think that will compromise the league’s integrity much more.

As it stands, I think the chance of resuming football behind closed doors v.early in June (to complete by end of July) is unlikely.  Flattening the peak, wasn’t just about reducing the size of peak, but extending the period of a lower peak. We are still not at the new lower peak yet, another week 10 days, then how long does that peak last?  6-8 weeks?  I dunno!

@wayne allisons tongues some potential answers above.

I agree players contracts should be extended, but can the league overwrite employment law? 

I just think it will be difficult to find a compromise. If your Stoke would you want a fit Afobe playing for you, if your a club at the top of the league would you be happy if we were allowed to extend the loan and have him score the goals potentially when he isn’t our player anymore.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

I agree players contracts should be extended, but can the league overwrite employment law? 

I just think it will be difficult to find a compromise. If your Stoke would you want a fit Afobe playing for you, if your a club at the top of the league would you be happy if we were allowed to extend the loan and have him score the goals potentially when he isn’t our player anymore.

Quite simple, FIFA adjust registration and transfer window periods.

If players want to be without wages for a month or 2, to prove a point, that's their lookout. I'd consider going further as an industry but that's idealism probably.

[wayne allisons tongues]

26 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'd like a bit of maturity and give and take on all sides personally. Global pandemics are more important than exact timings of transfer windows.

A month or 2 is no great hardship, if that's all it is. I'm working on that assumption. Adjust FFP accordingly a little to take into account various issues caused

Why you so keen on defending players? Lot of them in e.g. the top two divisions better placed than most- give a little, take a little hit.

I'd like to see players who insist on playing silly buggers frozen out for a bit. Just adjust the transfer windows, clubs won't sign a player if they can't play.

Okay maybe I'm a bit harsh but all sides need to give a little in a global pandemic tbh. I stand by that point.

Not defending players, just you can’t have it both ways. 

Can the leagues overwrite employment law, if you increase FFP for this season or till it ends is that fair on clubs who keep a good order of there backs. Could they afford to keep players after 30th June and not go under. Lower league clubs L1 and L2 in particular may struggle with this. 
 

Don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. We are paying Benkovic I’m sure quite a bit of money. If it was £10k per week and loan ends May and season still going in August that’s £100k extra we have to find just for him and If Afobe is the same your looking at £200k minimum. If we are allowed to lose £13m per season average £39m over 3 then that’s nearly 2% of our losses already. 
 

Which is good for Stoke he’s off there books but bad for us. PL are thinking of themselves with regards TV money whilst clubs lower down are struggling and can’t just keep waiting around and losing money. Behind closed doors is no good for let’s say Rochdale they need all the income possible to survive. 
If PL play to a finish behind closed doors and other clubs need gate receipts to survive when do you start following seasons for waiting on other leagues to finish to decide who goes up and down.

[wayne allisons tongues]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Quite simple, FIFA adjust registration and transfer window periods.

If players want to be without wages for a month or 2, to prove a point, that's their lookout. I'd consider going further as an industry but that's idealism probably.

They can’t do that for  that’s restraint of employment. 
You just can’t change a players contract like that.

I think it should be extended but legally clubs can not just extend them. Then you end up with the mess of OOC players and loan players free to move. 
 

[Mr Popodopolous]

48 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

They can’t do that for  that’s restraint of employment. 
You just can’t change a players contract like that.

I think it should be extended but legally clubs can not just extend them. Then you end up with the mess of OOC players and loan players free to move. 
 

I don't care- give a bit or be a pariah for a bit is my world view here.

Adjust transfer windows and go from there a more realistic starting point IMO. Just a month or 2, in these times what a hardship.

Maybe my world view is a bit harsh (again) and I'll row back on it (again), but to touch upon your other post.

League One and League Two clubs have different FFP rules. Theirs are more about STCC which is % of wages BUT if the owner sticks cash in, that's counted as income. I get their specific issues though, Rochdale e.g. 

As for have it all ways, in many jobs people are furloughed or laid off. Footballers are an exception- I'd have more sympathy with their position or your defence of their position were they to recognise the fact that there is no income currently present and therefore they should consider a deferral more strongly, if not even a modest cut. Granted the further down you go, the less simple it is.

In fact, I'd turn it on its head a bit- what you are advocating is in a football context, players having it all ways. No cuts or deferrals- the elephant in the room yet still the ability to decide their position unhindered by Covid 19. As soon as the season ends, say it's in July sometime, open that transfer window!

Behind closed doors is the only real solution here- we won't be abnle to have fans at games for some time IMO.

In Germany, top 4 clubs have made solidarity payments to those lower down- I don't know their standard arrangements so a comparison may not be fair.

Now we do have solidarity payments here that have been advanced, but one recent article suggested that the EFL were withholding these. I am assuming in part as some kind of bargaining chip to force wage deferrals or cuts. Because if these payments have been advanced, issues could crop up next season- it's kicking the can down the road, say £500,000 advanced to a League One or Two club this season but no cuts or deferral. Then next season they receive £500,000 less than they would have and they'll hit cash flow issues then. I think there needs to be some conditionality attached to advancing of solidarity payments. It's for the clubs own good.

From behind a paywall but managed to get it anyway.

Quote

 

EFL plan to withhold £56million of solidarity payments as clubs face financial black hole 

EFL is concerned money used to pay player wages immediately could cause huge problems in months to come

By James Ducker, Northern Football Correspondent 9 April 2020 • 10:47am

Premium

Close up of the Sky Bet League One Play-off final trophy before the Sky Bet League One Play-off final at Wembley Stadium, London.

EFL likely to face calls from clubs asking to advance the money now Credit: PA

The English Football League want to temporarily withhold £56 million of solidarity payments amid fears of their clubs facing a financial black hole months down the line if the pressing issue of player wage cuts is not addressed.

The Premier League have advanced the EFL money that was due in August but there is deep concern about the potential ramifications if that cash is released now.

Championship, League One and League Two clubs have already been advanced a series of monthly payments up to the start of next season worth £50 million by EFL.

But if solidarity payments from the Premier League are also released immediately, there are fears the money could be used to pay wages now and leave clubs facing huge financial issues come the summer if substantial salary reductions for players are not introduced.

The EFL are likely to face calls from some clubs to advance the money now but others are believed to share the view that a more prudent approach might be necessary to avoid even more severe problems in the future.

In addition to £56m of solidarity money due clubs, a further £11 million is likely to come via Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) payments.

Another £56 million is payable in parachute payments although this will only benefit those EFL clubs recently relegated from the Premier League, such as Cardiff City, Fulham and Huddersfield Town among others.

The EFL held a board meeting on Wednesday where they discussed the latest issues. League One clubs are due to hold talks with the EFL on Thursday.

The financial outlook across the 71 Football League clubs - Bury were expelled from the League last year - is troubling.

Telegraph Sport understands that collectively those clubs owe £283 million in wages between now and the end of this season at a time when they stand to lose £42 million in matchday income if games are played behind closed doors.

The situation will intensify the pressure on the EFL and their member clubs to reach an agreement with the players and the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) over wage cuts.

Well placed sources have indicated that a small cut in wages would not get close to tackling the problems and that players will need to agree to more substantial reductions to prevent clubs from going bust.

Some clubs are open to borrowing money but banks appear reluctant or opposed to lend to many and it remains to be seen if pressure is put on the government to encourage lenders to ease those restrictions, although there is also some concern that could just add to the problems over time.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/04/09/efl-plan-withhold-56million-solidarity-payments-clubs-face-financial/

[mozo]

I think I saw a headline today in one of the undesirable papers like the Mail that clubs were considering a landmark agreement regards contracts and loans. I don't know if anyone here has the details?