The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)

[mozo]

3 hours ago, daored said:

My main point is if they’re able to source these tests and labs - I believe it would be beneficial if these were offered to key workers then the general public. 

That's the government's responsibility, not the EFL and Prem. Anything the EFL and Prem caj do, the govt can do easier.

44 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Indeed.

As with everything, it boils down to which side you stand on:

Money first, whatever the human cost or Humanity first, whatever the monetary cost.

Is it worth people dying, so that football clubs businesses survive.

What do the players put first? If they had to take a pay cut to extend the postponement of the season, would they do so? If the postponement of the season is extended, will the millionaire players help the club stay financially fit and will they helps the furloughed staff?

[robin_unreliant]

3 minutes ago, lenred said:

I really think the money thing needs to be taken out of the argument. Footballers - regardless of the money they earn - are as entitled as anyone else to protection from the virus and to not go to work if they feel that they or their families are at risk.  Because some of them are obscenely rich doesn’t mean they have any more obligation to work if they feel it’s not safe than anyone else.  

The fact they are very well paid means they can afford to set up arrangements to live comfortably away from their family without suffering financial hardship. Ordinary employees couldn't afford to do that. For a limited time to finish this season it doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm sure clubs will end up paying for it anyway. 

[BigTone]

21 minutes ago, S25loyal said:

I think you are missing the point. MOST people aren’t able to put money over family welfare, SOME footballers can as they are paid obscene amounts of money. 

Understand your point

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

The fact they are very well paid means they can afford to set up arrangements to live comfortably away from their family without suffering financial hardship. Ordinary employees couldn't afford to do that. For a limited time to finish this season it doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm sure clubs will end up paying for it anyway. 

Most of them won't even choose to do so. If they're regularly tested I doubt the majority will see this as much of a risk to their family. These are people like us that go to supermarkets and probably don't observe the full 2 metre rule (more like 2 feet for most of us!).

Most of these players are incredibly low risk, and most of their household will be too.

Let's not confuse Deeney's situation with the vast majority of footballers!

[lenred]

2 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

The fact they are very well paid means they can afford to set up arrangements to live comfortably away from their family without suffering financial hardship. Ordinary employees couldn't afford to do that. For a limited time to finish this season it doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm sure clubs will end up paying for it anyway. 

Why should they though, if they don’t want to?  They haven’t signed up for it and they  have no moral or legal obligation to do so. Some, maybe most, will be happy to isolate away from family but for some it could have massive affects on their mental health and that of their families.   

[Dolman_Stand]

59 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

so, if it can't be shoe-horned, end it now....how would you decide final league placings?

Always going to be contentious in that you are effectively simulating a result but my personal view would be to take the result between the two sides earlier in the season as the result of the later game as at least it is based on a direct performance between each side rather than a PPG basis which would fail to take into account the strength of opposition yet to play. Different circumstances altogether but they do use the head to head basis in group stages of World Cup / Euro's to decide final positions so there is a basis of precedence for this.

Ultimatley your never going to keep everyone happy with this whole Virus issue as there are so many "what if's" associated with it.

 

[Betty Swallocks]

2 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

Always going to be contentious in that you are effectively simulating a result but my personal view would be to take the result between the two sides earlier in the season as the result of the later game as at least it is based on a direct performance between each side rather than a PPG basis which would fail to take into account the strength of opposition yet to play. Different circumstances altogether but they do use the head to head basis in group stages of World Cup / Euro's to decide final positions so there is a basis of precedence for this.

Ultimatley your never going to keep everyone happy with this whole Virus issue as there are so many "what if's" associated with it.

 

It’s easier to use head to head at the Euros & World Cup because they are one off games at a neutral venue.

 

[S25loyal]

23 minutes ago, lenred said:

I really think the money thing needs to be taken out of the argument. Footballers - regardless of the money they earn - are as entitled as anyone else to protection from the virus and to not go to work if they feel that they or their families are at risk.  Because some of them are obscenely rich doesn’t mean they have any more obligation to work if they feel it’s not safe than anyone else.  

It is made easier for them due to the money they earn, a bloke who is working on minimum wage and has to provide for a wife and two kids wouldn’t have that chance at all. 

 

[Son of Fred]

1 hour ago, BigTone said:

Ooh we've been merged

How was it for you??

[Dolman_Stand]

8 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

It’s easier to use head to head at the Euros & World Cup because they are one off games at a neutral venue.

 

Any method used to simulate the result of anything is going to be easy to pick holes whether its this or PPG, it looks like the season is going to resume anyway so it may not come to it or we may be having the same conversation in a couple of weeks time when more players have tested positive and they make the decision then

[BigTone]

8 minutes ago, S25loyal said:

It is made easier for them due to the money they earn, a bloke who is working on minimum wage and has to provide for a wife and two kids wouldn’t have that chance at all. 

 

Trying to see both points of view and understand both. However, say for example from a mental health perspective then the size of your bank account means nothing. Whilst maybe the players may be able to stay away from their families for an extended period what effect does that have on his wife or especially young kids. There are many possible situations to consider.

[robin_unreliant]

35 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Trying to see both points of view and understand both. However, say for example from a mental health perspective then the size of your bank account means nothing. Whilst maybe the players may be able to stay away from their families for an extended period what effect does that have on his wife or especially young kids. There are many possible situations to consider.

I agree that you can look at this from different angles. It should be a free choice for the individual player, based on their circumstances, as to whether they take part in games to end the season. 

I take the view that this choice to not return to work should mean they get no salary - or maybe the £2,500 per month that everyone else gets when furloughed. 

What a few seem to want is a right not to play and still receive a very good salary. Possibly deferred, possibly with a 20-30% reduction, but still a great deal of money to stay at home. 

Some will say this is right and proper as their employer has a duty to ensure their safety at work and in the absence of that they are entitled to be paid. I don't agree with this but can see it is a reasonable argument. 

[lenred]

1 hour ago, S25loyal said:

It is made easier for them due to the money they earn, a bloke who is working on minimum wage and has to provide for a wife and two kids wouldn’t have that chance at all. 

 

But the point is that when it comes People’s health - both physical and mental - money has no bearing at all. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by lenred

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

I agree that you can look at this from different angles. It should be a free choice for the individual player, based on their circumstances, as to whether they take part in games to end the season. 

I take the view that this choice to not return to work should mean they get no salary - or maybe the £2,500 per month that everyone else gets when furloughed. 

What a few seem to want is a right not to play and still receive a very good salary. Possibly deferred, possibly with a 20-30% reduction, but still a great deal of money to stay at home. 

Some will say this is right and proper as their employer has a duty to ensure their safety at work and in the absence of that they are entitled to be paid. I don't agree with this but can see it is a reasonable argument. 

I think you’re onto something here.  I’m not sure of the legalities, nor have I read the Abraham and Deeney stories in any detail other than the basic premise that they have family health concerns.  As a minimum I think the clubs have to treat them as “unavailable” to allow the rest of the squad to continue.  Things happen.  Look at Benik, he’d have been given time to himself when his daughter tragically passed away (RIP Amora).  So Watford and Chelsea can treat their cases a bit like compassionate leave....if that means pay them in full, so be it.  If the player is truly worried (no reason to doubt that) then they’d not be in the best place mentally to train and play anyway.

This isn’t about individual nuances, it’s about the team and the league.  An individual can’t stop the club playing.

[phantom]

From the meeting this afternoon only 4 clubs in the Championship don't want the season to commence. 

One of those is Hull.

The other 3 are currently unknown 

[kevinmabbuttshair]

Yawn ******* yawn. Does anyone really care anymore?

 

When you sell your soul somebody, one day, somebody will come calling.  Time to crap or get off the pot

Edited May 20, 2020 by kevinmabbuttshair

[BS4 on Tour...]

7 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Personally I think the season should be voided -no promotion or relegation.

However, this may be a bit unfair on Leeds so I would like to see Ted Rodgers come back and show them what they could have won- you know - pictures of travelling to Arsenal, Liverpool etc along with untold riches and then present Bielsa with Dusty Bin. It was an extremely popular method of settling a competition funnily enough on TV the last time Leeds were in top flight.

I’m sure you knew it was Jim Bowen really ... 

 

[Ronnie Sinclair]

6 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I’m sure you knew it was Jim Bowen really ... 

 

A Mini Metro, which shortly afterwards became Rusty Bin (the only one I've seen for years is parked up off Somerset Street, the rest of the production rotted away I supsect)

[BS4 on Tour...]

6 hours ago, phantom said:

Not sure why but Norwich only tested yesterday

TAKEN FROM: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52726278

One player and two staff at Watford and Burnley assistant manager Ian Woan are among six positive Premier League tests for coronavirus.

The other two are at a third club, the details of which have not been revealed.

Players and staff who have tested positive will now self-isolate for seven days.

It comes as squads started non-contact training on Tuesday, as the Premier League steps up plans for a restart.

A total of 748 players and staff from 19 clubs were tested. Norwich City did their tests on Tuesday.

Watford confirmed a player and two members of staff had tested positive but they would not be naming those involved as they had asked for medical confidentiality.

Before the news about Watford's positive tests emerged, captain Troy Deeney said he would not return to training because he feared for his family's health.

"We're due back in this week. I've said I'm not going in," Deeney, 31, told Eddie Hearn and Tony Bellew on the Talk the Talk YouTube show.

"It only takes one person to get infected within the group and I don't want to be bringing that home.

"My son is only five months old. He had breathing difficulties, so I don't want to come home to put him in more danger."

Burnley said Woan was "asymptomatic" and "currently safe and well at home".

"He will remain in close communication with club personnel regarding his re-engagement in training once he is clear of the virus," the club added.

Brighton announced on May 10th that three of their players had tested positive, a while before this latest round of testing - are they included in the six? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52605961

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 hours ago, mozo said:

What do the players put first? If they had to take a pay cut to extend the postponement of the season, would they do so? If the postponement of the season is extended, will the millionaire players help the club stay financially fit and will they helps the furloughed staff?

The Health .v. Economics question that Pickle Rick highlighted, and I responded to, will be decided by the powers-that-be: Premier League, EFL, FA, Government.  

It's not the players' decision whether to resume or abandon this season.

[mozo]

35 minutes ago, phantom said:

From the meeting this afternoon only 4 clubs in the Championship don't want the season to commence. 

One of those is Hull.

The other 3 are currently unknown 

Given that the top 13 teams still have a chance of promotion, and the bottom 3 will want to protect their status, I suppose the only surprise is that of the teams in 17th to 21st, theres a team that voted to resume. 

[Nicki's soulmate]

26 minutes ago, Ronnie Sinclair said:

A Mini Metro, which shortly afterwards became Rusty Bin (the only one I've seen for years is parked up off Somerset Street, the rest of the production rotted away I supsect)

That speedboat would have come very handy in Birmingham

[OldlandReddies]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

From the meeting this afternoon only 4 clubs in the Championship don't want the season to commence. 

One of those is Hull.

The other 3 are currently unknown 

Right, so just a question of when we get things started again then. Slow progress, but progress nonetheless. The promotion carrot is still there. COYR's !

[A Horse With No Name]

This has probably been asked before, but when the games are played behind closed doors, will the home club have to announce an official attendance, ie the number of ST sold , for tax reasons? Whenever an attendance was queried before, the answer is always, they count tickets sold not bums on seats.

[And Its Smith]

5 hours ago, Dolman_Stand said:

You can only wait so long before the impact on next season, Euro's, 2021/22 season, World Cup becomes too great to allow due to the backlog of fixtures. On top of this you have issues with player contracts, loans and the like which all expire at the end of June as well as a number of players which will not return to play in the current circumstances which then compromises the integrity of the competition if those players are no longer involved, you can imagine the arguments and possible legal challenges from clubs that are relegated from the PL or miss out on promotion from the Champ due to not having their best players available

To me it feels too early and the authorites are trying to shoehorn it all in to avoid the commercial mess that comes if they don't finish the season which I can appreciate however if one player contracts the illness and either dies themselves or passes it on to a family member there would be massive consequences.

 

Every option has issues. Carrying on, when safe, has the fewest.  It should be quite simple for players to have rolling contracts.  Certainly simpler than law suits from the likes of West Brom for lost revenue. 

Your comment regarding it being too early isn’t relevant in a debate of scrap v finish. German football will hopefully prove what’s achievable. 

[OldlandReddies]

The number of patients left  in hospital with the virus would barely fill the Memorial Stadium. Now if that isn't brilliant news I don't know what is. We are deffo smashing this thing down now. 

[Davefevs]

Looks like Grandmaster Flash and Melle Mel over at Derby wants the season voided.....despite being in the playoff hunt in his opinion.

Looks like the FFP police are calling round again and with Reading, Sheffield Wed and Derby in their sights, the current bottom three are pushing for points deduction!!

[Lrrr]

2 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Brighton announced on May 10th that three of their players had tested positive, a while before this latest round of testing - are they included in the six? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52605961

I'd imagine no, because the 6 were part of this weeks testing whereas the Brighton players were people tested who happened to be associated with football rather than people who were tested because they're associated with football. 

[Lrrr]

2 hours ago, phantom said:

From the meeting this afternoon only 4 clubs in the Championship don't want the season to commence. 

One of those is Hull.

The other 3 are currently unknown 

I think Charlton would call for non and void rather than just not wanting to restart as that would mean PPG and they'd be down, their whole case for 'unfairness' is they'd been in the drop zone for 6 days before the season was cancelled with 9 games to go, if it were cancelled a week earlier or later they'd have either been safe or had the potential to be safe. 

Perhaps Barnsley/Luton almost accept they're relegated and don't want the expense of having to play behind closed doors/testing and would therefore rather PPG and be able to keep staff furloughed?

[BS4 on Tour...]

51 minutes ago, hodge said:

I'd imagine no, because the 6 were part of this weeks testing whereas the Brighton players were people tested who happened to be associated with football rather than people who were tested because they're associated with football. 

Fair enough, so it looks as though Brighton returned a zero positive number from this week’s testing even though three of their players tested positive 10 days ago ... confusing!