Dolman_Stand

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

I don’t get it.  Still waiting for a strong argument for scrapping it. Every argument so far can be easily dismissed.

The health of those involved?

37 minutes ago, BigTone said:

So it seems like mid June is the target for the Championship to resume. Not sure myself given that Burnley & Watford in the PL have a few who have just tested positive for Covid19. How do you finish the season otherwise in a way that is fair to all ?  What price  to you put on a footballer's health / life and that of his family ?

Got me stumped TBH.

I agree and think the season should be scrapped but in response to your point re Burnley / Watford my understanding is that everyone was being tested in the PL before anybody attended training and whilst it must be scary for the individuals and their families they won't have spread it within their squads. The fact that each team isn't going into a quarantine period to finish the season though will surely mean that at some point a player or staff member will test positive and by then it will have been too late.

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

These are all important questions. Ultimately companies outside of football are being asked to re-open and being given guidance that is pretty flexible and open to interpretation. The answer is that, if any employer fails to take "reasonable" steps, they may well be open to being sued by employees if things go wrong. The massive question is what is interpreted as "reasonable". Similar with vulnerable workers. Under UK Health and Safety legislation, anyone is entitled to refuse to work if they "reasonably" believe it is not safe for them to do so. Ultimately, if it got that far, a court would have to decide if their concerns were reasonable. If a ruling was made, that would set a precedent for other similar cases but, until it is, I can see employees and employers alike being afraid to push things to that point because it is not at all clear what a court would decide. 

Agreed and everybody still has a reponsibility to adhere to the social distancing requirements which employers would definately lean on and try to prove that the individual has breached should it ever get that far.

9 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

This is no different to the rest of society though, no? Why would a player have any grounds to sue a football club if they became ill/family member became ill (as awful as that would be) anymore than a retail warehouse worker could sue their employer? It does get exceptionally complicated though I agree - what should happen to a vulnerable worker if they refuse to start working again? 

AT present companies are having to introduce changes to the workplace to allow social distancing to be adhered to so a warehouse worker should in theory be in no more danger at work than they are when exercising, going to the supermarket etc, the difference with football is that it is a contact sport (allegedly) and therefore impossible to socially distance whilst playing.

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

This is where it gets really complex in that there are footballers who have had heart problems and then started playing again (forgotten exactly who at the moment) and there are likely to be footballers who are diabetic (I know Gary Mabbutt famously was and I imagine there must be other players one would think). There are other conditions on the "vulnerable but not shielding" list which would not preclude professional footballers so there are surely going to be players who are potentially at risk from COVID-19 to a greater degree than the general population. The implications of them being pressured to continue, or released from a club on the basis of having a health condition, get really complex legally and morally. 

Or similarly say a player with no underlying health problems plays and contracts the illness even if they make a full recovery in the short term who know what the long term implications could be i.e. reduced lung capacity, leduction in immunity which could directly shorten their life expectancy (similar to asbestos exposure) how would this beviewed from an insurance / legal aspect? Or even worse if they contract the illness and either die or they pass it onto a family member and they die? What happens then, lawsuts flying left, right and centre I suspect.

For the players its a moral and financial dilemna particularly those in the last year or 18months of a contract as if they refuse to play they effectively will effectively be making themselves redundant and missing out on £m's over the next few years.

6 minutes ago, cityloyal473 said:

Yep, agree.

Now for those footballers (who I agree with BTW) concerned about health and safety, they are going to have a decision to make should they feel that they don't want to be involved.  If they feel it is not safe, then in my eyes it shouldn't be safe for them until there is a vaccine. With that being years away, they are potentially throwing themselves onto the scrapheap.  

Agreed although this then becomes a contentious issue for the clubs paying their wages especially if some do and some don't

1 hour ago, daored said:

Add in 300 people in the ground , players , staff , media etc

If the clubs get their way and refuse to play at neutral grounds , how do they travel to away games , do they stay over ? Are we then testing hotel staff  etc? If the players go home after a game do we test their families?

Completely after it is naive to think that fans won’t gather to watch games , celebrate winning the league , getting promoted etc. IF football comes back , we will see games of a ‘kick about’ in local parks etc- 1000 people have died in the last two day’s - it is far too soon to be considering this.

Sorry to be a killjoy but if football clubs are able to source these number of tests and test resource - these should be used for NHS staff not tested , care workers , bus drivers , supermarket workers , refuse collectors , post men & women , nursery staff , school teachers and any other key workers - if they’ve all be tested happy days let the football commence 

I agree with the sentiment of your post that football shouldn't be returning at present but as the clubs are hellbent on it I think they will have to accept some compromises i.e. with regards away games they would have to accept that hotel stays are not feasible and the journey would have to be coached in and straight back out after the game no matter the mileage between the teams. All non-essential matchday staff would need to stay away from the games other than the manager, assistant and physio / doctor who else needs to be in attendance? You could even argue the manager should go it alone i.e. no Macca / Deano for us in attendance (although the counter-argument is that they would presumably be spending trainin sessions with the players so why not attend I suppose)

As for activities outside the ground I don't think this is for the clubs to solve, if people choose to ignore social distancing methods then that is their responsibility, for example if football does return and City put together a run of results that takes us into the playoffs and we end up getting promoted I wouldn't even contemplate heading straight into town to celebrate. Anyone who did would be extremely selfish to do so and would be liable for fines in accordance with current police measures.

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

See my post above....it’s paid up front....plus Sky have advanced some of next year’s money too

I worked out a few weeks ago that City might have to refund about £700k in season ticket revenue for the remaining 5 home games, about £50 per season ticket holder on average.

So City looking at a loss of 1.7m currently plus loss of matchday revenue from the remaining home games? Call it £2-2.25m? A lot of money to the man on the street but in relation to SL's weath it's not going to see us out of business thankfully 

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed.

Any full or say 50% (just picked a number out of the air) would have to go down the line, ie clubs refund Sky etc, Sky refund subscribers- maybe the prorata is simpler and easier for all concerned.

No easy way out though, as you said earlier- Lawyers on all sides would have a lot of work coming their way in a null and void IMO.

At the moment the clubs are carrying all the risk at the moment as presumably TV companies dont pay up front for the full season. So the clubs are looking at lost TV revenue for as long as this lasts as well as having to reimburse season ticket holders for the remainder of this season as a minimum and probably a period of next season without matchday income, not to mention that even when the gates do open there wont be as many supporters anyway due to deaths, nervousness over mass gatherings, lack of disposable income etc all of which will mean ticket prices being driven down if anything.

No wonder so many are worried about going to the wall

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is all definite is it- the prorata route? That may resolve a few issues. In fact, prorata could form part of a compromise, where both sides or all parties take a hit to keep the show on the road- but I'm wondering if that's where it all stands contractually.

No idea but it would be my guess as games have still been broadcast up to mid march therefore tv companies have had months worth of their product to sell to subscribers, anyone with Sky isn't going to now be receiving a refund on the last 7 months of their bills just because the season hasn't finished. One for the lawyers I suppose but if Sky want a full seasons broadcasting rights back then presumably this would have to be passed down to the consumer?

The main issue with behind closed doors games will be if a player tests positive after a couple of weeks of the restart by which time the infection could have spread to another 6 or 7 clubs all of which would then have to isolate and mean further delay and make a nonsense of the whole process as it still couldn't be finished.

1 hour ago, Super said:

Would you be saying this if City were in the top 2? Not totally sure you can relegate teams but i wouldnt have a problem promoting teams.

Who knows, but the counter argument to your point is that Fulham in 3rd place could conceivably catch both WBA and Leeds as it stands so why should they miss out? If you apply the top two rule in our league then it would also presumably be applied to League 1 where Rotherham are currently only 2 points clear of 8th place so how is that fair? In L2 Exeter and CHeltenham are within reach of 3rd with plenty of games left to catch the automatic places so same goes for them.

Finish the season or null and void it are the only options for me personally (others disagree and I do see why) and the first option is fast running out of time.

Its an absolute shitstorm waiting to happen whichever way it goes but I do think the longer this all goes on for without a decision the worse it will get for all involved with player contracts on the horizon, impact on next season etc

54 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

IF null and void applied, that means it didn't happen basically.

Are the TV payments valid? TV companies would withhold the remaining money on a pro rata basis

How about season tickets sold for the existing season? Prorata refund

Goal, clean sheet bonuses and probably much more besides. Keep what has been paid up to point of lockdown

Sponsors probably would have somethintg to say. Roll over into the first quarter of next season before any new deals can come into force

In theory, it could be a great day for commercial litigation, if and when null and void officially aannounced.

No easy way out of this but if litigation is the concern relegating teams before it is mathematically confirmed is about as bad as it could get I imagine

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

not in PPG.

If you want to go with a pool panel / DL method, then my argument is you should do it for all 46 games, not just the remaining 9....which is futile imho

It's impossible to be fair in a scenario where you simulate the games left to be played, a PPG basis doesnt take into account the standard of opposition left to play, form of both teams at the point of lockdown etc. In my opinion the best way forward would be to null and void the season and start again from fresh whenever safe to do so.

Think it is becoming more and more apparent with each day that this season is going to be null and void, the planning effort from the sporting authorities should really be going into making sure that next season is achievable by which time you would hope lockdown measures, testing and vaccines will be much more advanced than they are at this point in time. The financial aspect of this is going to be grim but from where we sit at present it is almost inevitable.

10 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

An article in the Daily Heil today has them as one of the clubs least likely to survive all this.

I actually hopethey don't go to the wall, what will make us feel beetter about ourselves?

With their perilous financial postion surely its a possibility the Gas don't come back at all after the Virus outbreak?

9 minutes ago, Gifford said:

Might beat Preston for a change then.

Doubt it

3 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

What a monstrous paper the Telegraph is. 

Bad enough to think it but to go into print on it is unbelievable.

Denly

Sibley

Crawley

Root

Stokes

Pope

Buttler

Curran

Bess

Broad

Anderson

Buttler must be pissed off with this, finally comes in with a decent platform and plenty of wickets in hand and within a few overs its back to clinging on with Leach and Broad

6 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Anywhere I can watch this one on replay chaps? Sounds like a cracker

Quite a big night of boxing on the 23rd and only four weeks until AJ v Ruiz to round the year off. Still massively worried for AJ in that one, could be career over if he loses.

It'll be on sky on demand I imagine

Hope Derby draw Leicester in the cup

5 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Closest I've found is 17/18.

Pikeys had an average of 840

We had 1240

On the face of it that is remarkably close, would be good to know if we had more in the way of long distance journeys than them though I.e. Sunderland, Boro, Hull etc

14 minutes ago, RedLionLad said:

Non smoking STADIUM

Take the word "smoking" out and that sign is spot on