James54De Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, phantom said: WRONG @lenred it wasn't just players tested As above these were from only THREE clubs - there tests ARE A VERY good start Well get simple facts right then !! God you’re thick 1 minute ago, phantom said: Edited May 19, 2020 by James54De 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 Just now, James54De said: **** off you tool. Not sure what your problem is. Calm down. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Dicks' Barmy Army Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, James54De said: Okay you pedant. Your point is ******* irrelevant. Still stands that of 748 tested, only 6 came back positive. 1 minute ago, James54De said: **** off you tool. @James54De area you a bit unstable? If you can not get basic facts correct do not waste our time you simpleton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted May 19, 2020 Admin Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, James54De said: God you’re thick Why am I thick @James54De ? Also confirmed that EVERY person attending training will be seen by a Dr first and complete a questionnaire and undergo various medical checks EVERY day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 Contrary to what some have said on here, anyone is entitled to refuse to work if they reasonably believe their employers are not providing a safe environment to work in. If a company wanted to sack someone in those circumstances, then, if taken to court, they'd need to be able to prove that employee's fear for their safety was not reasonable. Obviously the reality is most employees in most jobs would be scared to do that, and not be able to afford the court action or the risks of losing but the fact employees are strongly disincentivised from using those rights does not change the fact those rights are there. The difference with footballers is that they can afford to take the risk and have sufficient count that employers won't sack them or risk losing them but there is no moral dilemma or hypocrisy in any player refusing to return if they genuinely believe it is unsafe for them or their families if they do so. Health has to take precedence and any footballer refusing to return due to legitimate safety concerns is perfectly within their legal and moral rights. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenred Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, phantom said: WRONG @lenred it wasn't just players tested As above these were from only THREE clubs - there tests ARE A VERY good start Well get simple facts right then !! Ok doke. Any need to for the shouting? Was just relating what’s on SSN! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James54De Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, phantom said: Why am I thick @James54De ? Also confirmed that EVERY person attending training will be seen by a Dr first and complete a questionnaire and undergo various medical checks EVERY day What admissible difference does it make whether it’s was 748 players or players+staff tested. Absolutely none 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, lenred said: Six players tested positive already in the Prem. Not a great start but not massively surprising. Will certainly give ammunition to those not wishing to proceed so soon though. My feeling is that it is inevitable there will be more cases over the coming weeks as the lockdown eases and likely there will be a further spike in the Autumn. I don't think it is by any means inevitable that will lead to a further widespread wave of infections but it is vital that the government get an effective tracing and tracking system in place. Hypothetically that will enable people to isolate potential spikes and prevent their return. Edited May 19, 2020 by LondonBristolian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James54De Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, Super said: Not sure what your problem is. Calm down. 5 minutes ago, Alan Dicks' Barmy Army said: @James54De area you a bit unstable? If you can not get basic facts correct do not waste our time you simpleton @phantom came in with a pedantic sweep of about 4 posts. In doing so he added zilch to the conversation. Just came in with posts full of capital letters. Yes I’d understand if they was obviously misrepresenting of information, with a clear agenda but that wasn’t the case. Almost appears like we jumps on any mistake (tiny mistake at that) to make himself feel good and important. Just so he can shout people down. That’s my problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted May 19, 2020 Admin Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, lenred said: Ok doke. Any need to for the shouting? Was just relating what’s on SSN! The shouting was not aimed at you @lenred you can see that from above The shouting was at the plum shouting insults 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 3 hours ago, hodge said: Interesting financial point for null/voiding a season and transfers, how many payments would have to be reversed by clubs because appearances/goals no longer had taken place? X amount of money after a certain amount of appearances or goals, how many smaller clubs may have to pay back sums to bigger clubs because those appearances had no longer taken place.... There’s a null and void from a “records” perspective, and there’s a null and void from a contractual / legal perspective. I don’t know the answer, but I cannot believe a club would claim back a performance related add-on just because records expunged. But who knows, I could easily be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenred Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said: My feeling is that it is inevitable there will be more cases over the coming weeks as the lockdown eases and likely there will be a further spike in the Autumn. I don't think it is by any means inevitable that will lead to a further widespread wave of infections but it is vital that the government get an effective tracing and tracking system in place... Indeed and there were always going to be positive tests as soon as they introduced the formal testing procedure and tbh the figures aren’t too bad. My point was that any positive tests will give ammunition to those players / clubs resisting the restart - whether that be for genuine personal reasons or in the case of some clubs more self interest / preservation reasons. Edited May 19, 2020 by lenred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Dicks' Barmy Army Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 minute ago, James54De said: @phantom came in with a pedantic sweep of about 4 posts. In doing so he added zilch to the conversation. Just came in with posts full of capital letters. Yes I’d understand if they was obviously misrepresenting of information, with a clear agenda but that wasn’t the case. Almost appears like we jumps on any mistake (tiny mistake at that) to make himself feel good and important. Just so he can shout people down. That’s my problem. Chill out it is not that important Just hold your hands up and admit your wording was a bit misleading, no big deal I do not think the caps etc was aimed at you, but more so highlighting key points @phantom is not the sort of poster to shout you down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 minute ago, James54De said: @phantom came in with a pedantic sweep of about 4 posts. In doing so he added zilch to the conversation. Just came in with posts full of capital letters. Yes I’d understand if they was obviously misrepresenting of information, with a clear agenda but that wasn’t the case. Almost appears like we jumps on any mistake (tiny mistake at that) to make himself feel good and important. Just so he can shout people down. That’s my problem. Still doesn't justify the insults. You are like it on other threads as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James54De Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 20 minutes ago, phantom said: WRONG @lenred it wasn't just players tested As above these were from only THREE clubs - there tests ARE A VERY good start Well get simple facts right then !! WRONG @phantom THE TESTS WERE COMPLETED FROM 19 CLUBS. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 6 positive results is an amazing outcome. Get it back as soon as testing is readily available for all this Just now, James54De said: WRONG @phantom THE TESTS WERE COMPLETED FROM 19 CLUBS. Mate. Breath and chill 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, Davefevs said: There’s a null and void from a “records” perspective, and there’s a null and void from a contractual / legal perspective. I don’t know the answer, but I cannot believe a club would claim back a performance related add-on just because records expunged. But who knows, I could easily be wrong. Would make sense on one level, because if season null and voided: Refund TV money or chunks of it Refund seaosn ticket money or chunks of it. Refund some sponsorship perhaps. Some corporate hospitality- say % of a season ticket in that zone still remaining Etc, etc- down the line, down the chain. So players having to reimburse say performance related add-ons...contractually entitled surely? In a sense, why not if they're having to refund decent chunks of their revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 There are many options but finishing season whenever risk is classed as small/minimal (it won’t be zero for ages) is the least bad option. I’m yet to hear an argument for scrapping the season that cannot be easily dismissed. Bearing in mind any decision now is the precedent for the future 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 30 minutes ago, And Its Smith said: There are many options but finishing season whenever risk is classed as small/minimal (it won’t be zero for ages) is the least bad option. I’m yet to hear an argument for scrapping the season that cannot be easily dismissed. Bearing in mind any decision now is the precedent for the future I think my only issue is that nobody should be forced to return to their workplace until their employers are able to reassure them it is a safe environment. Especially as players may have family members who may be vulnerable and it is reasonable for BAME footballers in particular to be concerned due to the evidence of increased risk. I don't think the risk is necessarily unmanageable but I don't think any player should be penalised or criticised for not feeling it is safe to go back and choosing not to do so. I think it is especially important because players have a power and clout that most employees don't and, as you say, decisions now are the precedent for the future. The precedent has to be that the onus is on employers and organisers to prove that they are managing risks and providing a safe working environment. IF not, no players should be criticised for exercising a legal right not to put themselves at risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldlandReddies Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, lenred said: Six players tested positive already in the Prem. Not a great start but not massively surprising. Will certainly give ammunition to those not wishing to proceed so soon though. They can isolate them and squads in both Prem and Championship are enormous so no issues there. Edited May 19, 2020 by OldlandReddies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted May 19, 2020 Admin Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 hour ago, James54De said: WRONG @phantom THE TESTS WERE COMPLETED FROM 19 CLUBS. Are you really that stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldlandReddies Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) Govt looking to fit in extra Bank Holiday in October to help with British Tourism. Think that is a massive pointer to us being back to normality then plus us being able to watch our football team from the stands !! Here's hoping !! Edited May 19, 2020 by OldlandReddies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Davefevs said: There’s a null and void from a “records” perspective, and there’s a null and void from a contractual / legal perspective. I don’t know the answer, but I cannot believe a club would claim back a performance related add-on just because records expunged. But who knows, I could easily be wrong. Villa anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie andrews Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 49 minutes ago, OldlandReddies said: Govt looking to fit in extra Bank Holiday in October to help with British Tourism. Think that is a massive pointer to us being back to normality then plus us being able to watch our football team from the stands !! Here's hoping !! what effing difference is that gonna make? got 2 hopes watching football in October too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Would make sense on one level, because if season null and voided: Refund TV money or chunks of it Refund seaosn ticket money or chunks of it. Refund some sponsorship perhaps. Some corporate hospitality- say % of a season ticket in that zone still remaining Etc, etc- down the line, down the chain. So players having to reimburse say performance related add-ons...contractually entitled surely? In a sense, why not if they're having to refund decent chunks of their revenue. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant club to club performance related add-ons, e.g. Brighton paid us £100k because Webster played 10 games. I made that up, but I can’t see City having to pay that back. Does that make sense? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldlandReddies Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 hour ago, archie andrews said: what effing difference is that gonna make? got 2 hopes watching football in October too They feel at that time people will be able to spend time away at Main cities/seaside resorts together without distancing during half term to enjoy themselves. Why are people so ******* negative. Beats me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 hour ago, OldlandReddies said: They feel at that time people will be able to spend time away at Main cities/seaside resorts together without distancing during half term to enjoy themselves. Why are people so ******* negative. Beats me. I can give you 35,000 reasons. (Obviously a lot more) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldlandReddies Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Super said: I can give you 35,000 reasons. (Obviously a lot more) I hear you but I doubt any of those 35000 would want their families or any of us to be beaten by this virus. We have to rise above it as opposed to give into it, be positive and be strong and get back to normality as quickly as we can. It's the only way to win. Edited May 19, 2020 by OldlandReddies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddoh Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 6 hours ago, James54De said: WRONG @phantom THE TESTS WERE COMPLETED FROM 19 CLUBS. what happened to the twentieth are they all dead? just remember we all get facts from different sites we may all be wrong. the truth is out there but we may never stumble across it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted May 19, 2020 Report Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 minute ago, reddoh said: what happened to the twentieth are they all dead? just remember we all get facts from different sites we may all be wrong. the truth is out there but we may never stumble across it. Think they tested today so will be revealed amongst the second set of results this week Watford have 3 confirmed cases, seems Deeney had a point when not wanting to return Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.