Coronavirus & The Premier League

[LFCMike]

2 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

What’s this from?

Standard Chartered Liverpool app. 

[Smiley Culture]

Yeah, suddenly we’re going to get thousands and thousands of tests for key workers and enough left over for some footballers to get tested. Seems legit. 

[DeadLinesman]

17 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Standard Chartered Liverpool app. 

9pm? Sounds dodgy. Must just be testing or something?

[LFCMike]

24 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

9pm? Sounds dodgy. Must just be testing or something?

That's what I thought

[Stan]

Only one club brought up the issue of having no relegation and it was hastily dismissed at the latest PL meeting apparently.

Seems like that idea is all media narrative (?) as opposed to any club realistically wanting it.

 

The notion of having games less than 45mins each way has also been raised by Gordon Taylor. Hope that is/was hastily dismissed too. 

[Carnivore Chris]

On 01/05/2020 at 00:50, Dan said:

Watched Juventus v Inter behind closed doors, a massive game, and it was honestly unwatchable. It's just wrong.

But then you've got to think of players keeping up their fitness, the TV money lost, etc. It's something that will need doing to keep the sport alive as people won't be going to stadiums for years at this rate.

[Smiley Culture]

Can’t see how neutral venues doesn’t cause chaos tbh. Without the normal 19 H&A game schedule, is neutral venues actually a fair way to end the league season?

Only one team (Southampton) has a better record away than at home this season in the Premier League. Home advantage is a thing. Whether you believe it’s down to home crowds giving players a psychological lift, history of sides not winning at certain grounds for years is a real influence on results or think something more mundane like a routine is at work, there’s concrete evidence beyond this season’s twenty-eight games that there’s such a thing as home advantage.
Only Palace (18/19), Manchester City (16/17), Manchester United (16/17), Chelsea (15/16), Bournemouth (15/16) and Palace (14/15) have had better away records than home over the last five seasons, so you can’t tell me that a fair way to end the season is to play the remaining games at neutral venues. 

Now Villa are in the most precarious position with a game in hand. If I’m right, their game in hand is against Arsenal at home. I think it’s pretty clear that Villa would rather that game be at Villa Park than the Emirates anyway. If for the majority of the crowd backing them but also because their home record is W5 D2 L6. Okay, that’s hardly amazing form and tells you why they’re where they are. Take into account though, Arsenal’s away form. Arsenal’s away record reads W2 D8 L3. Now, that doesn’t guarantee anything. Because Villa’s home record is better than Arsenal’s away record, it doesn’t mean Villa would win but given Villa have won just twice away, I think they’d fancy their chances more at home. 

If this game is now at a neutral venue, is that really fair? The teams around Villa in the table have played an extra home game than Villa, is it fair to make them play at St George’s Park or wherever? 

I think neutral venues brings up more issues than it solves and wouldn’t back that idea. 

[LFCMike]

30 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

Can’t see how neutral venues doesn’t cause chaos tbh. Without the normal 19 H&A game schedule, is neutral venues actually a fair way to end the league season?

Only one team (Southampton) has a better record away than at home this season in the Premier League. Home advantage is a thing. Whether you believe it’s down to home crowds giving players a psychological lift, history of sides not winning at certain grounds for years is a real influence on results or think something more mundane like a routine is at work, there’s concrete evidence beyond this season’s twenty-eight games that there’s such a thing as home advantage.
Only Palace (18/19), Manchester City (16/17), Manchester United (16/17), Chelsea (15/16), Bournemouth (15/16) and Palace (14/15) have had better away records than home over the last five seasons, so you can’t tell me that a fair way to end the season is to play the remaining games at neutral venues. 

Now Villa are in the most precarious position with a game in hand. If I’m right, their game in hand is against Arsenal at home. I think it’s pretty clear that Villa would rather that game be at Villa Park than the Emirates anyway. If for the majority of the crowd backing them but also because their home record is W5 D2 L6. Okay, that’s hardly amazing form and tells you why they’re where they are. Take into account though, Arsenal’s away form. Arsenal’s away record reads W2 D8 L3. Now, that doesn’t guarantee anything. Because Villa’s home record is better than Arsenal’s away record, it doesn’t mean Villa would win but given Villa have won just twice away, I think they’d fancy their chances more at home. 

If this game is now at a neutral venue, is that really fair? The teams around Villa in the table have played an extra home game than Villa, is it fair to make them play at St George’s Park or wherever? 

I think neutral venues brings up more issues than it solves and wouldn’t back that idea. 

You've argued for relegating Aston Villa with a game in hand in another thread. Is that really fair?

There's no perfect solution. But surely playing out the season when it's safe for the players to do so is much fairer than relegating a side with 10 games left when they had a chance of staying up.

If you cancel the season as it stands or wait until it's safe for fans to start attending games again then some of these clubs are struggling to survive without TV money. 

[Smiley Culture]

40 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

You've argued for relegating Aston Villa with a game in hand in another thread. Is that really fair?

There's no perfect solution. But surely playing out the season when it's safe for the players to do so is much fairer than relegating a side with 10 games left when they had a chance of staying up.

If you cancel the season as it stands or wait until it's safe for fans to start attending games again then some of these clubs are struggling to survive without TV money. 

It’s fairer than neutral venues. It’s hardly like we’re drawing clubs out of a hat for relegation, they’re where they are on merit. 

Neutral venues just creates more chaos and it’s absolutely right that the bottom eight or so are/should be campaigning for no relegation should that be the route taken. 

When it’s safe to do so is just a PR own goal, for me. There’s barely enough tests for key workers as it is, when restrictions start getting lifted, even ever so slightly, tests are going to be needed for the next group allowed to go back to work that fall in the “key workers” category. Sports people don’t fall anywhere close to the top of that list and you’re going to need thousands of tests to complete English Football this season. 

[LFCMike]

52 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

It’s fairer than neutral venues. It’s hardly like we’re drawing clubs out of a hat for relegation, they’re where they are on merit. 

Neutral venues just creates more chaos and it’s absolutely right that the bottom eight or so are/should be campaigning for no relegation should that be the route taken. 

When it’s safe to do so is just a PR own goal, for me. There’s barely enough tests for key workers as it is, when restrictions start getting lifted, even ever so slightly, tests are going to be needed for the next group allowed to go back to work that fall in the “key workers” category. Sports people don’t fall anywhere close to the top of that list and you’re going to need thousands of tests to complete English Football this season. 

It absolutely isn't though. Your argument is ridiculous. You can't take away home advantage because it's unfair but we'll relegate you when you have a game in hand. 

People suggesting ending the season as it is just seem to be doing that because it seems like the most simple solution. This isn't simple and ending the season as it is has all sorts of financial implications that people don't seem to have an answer to. Some of these clubs won't survive without getting the games played

[Dr. Gonzo]

It’s just 6 clubs that want to avoid relegation because they’re fucking shite, I don’t get where the “protecting the integrity of the sport” argument comes from. Scrapping an almost complete season to avoid relegation because they’ve not done well, at the expense of the sides in the championship that go up, as well as us - the only side that qualified for the CL and a few points away from the title - is not maintaining football’s integrity at all.

There will be no fans regardless of the venue. So the impossible request of home venues being used doesn’t really make sense - home field advantage comes from having fans. West Ham have been playing in a neutral venue all season FFS. Do any of these clubs even have a decent home record?

If it we’re down to me I’d relegate all 6 of them and promote the top 6 in the Championship just for their idiotic “InTeGrItY” argument.

[Dave]

 

[RandoEFC+]

There are two viable options here. Either scrap this season, in which case you have to make a sub-decision on whether the table stands as it is, whether it's null and void, or whether you do it on points per game. None are ideal in terms of fairness but that pales in significance compared to the non-stop idiotic background noise of neutral venues and 30 minutes halves and training concentration camps that have been touted.

The other viable option is to announce that this season will definitely be completed, as normal, normal venues, normal rules, preferably not behind closed doors but that's negotiable. Resume this season when it is safe to do so, complete the 38 game season in a totally fair manner, and then cross the bridge of next season when we come to it.

It's much more viable to adapt future seasons than the current one. Put this season on ice indefinitely, finish it when it's safe, if that takes us up to December then the following season, you can have a 19 game season or something, where it all gets thrashed out and agreed before the season starts rather than trying to decide how to finish a season which is in progress. Okay, a 19 game season involves either neutral venues or half of the teams getting one fewer home game than the other half. Does anyone actually give a flying fuck? It's not fair, it's disruptive, it's not as unfair or disruptive as the loss of family members, jobs, money to thousands of people across the country who will actually feel the impact.

I've passed through the phase of apathy towards this discussion now, and re-emerged into a new phase where the whole thing is just really pissing me off. Every day I have a quick look on Twitter and half of the football-related stuff I see is dickhead Everton and Liverpool fans point-scoring against each other about whether the season will be null and void or not, and the other half is stupid suggestions like Gordon Taylor suggesting we play shortened matches so that the Premier League can "get away" with restarting while the coronavirus crisis is still going on. By all accounts workplaces and schools across the country are going to look completely different for at least the next year and possibly longer. Everyone is discussing within their bubbles how it's going to affect them, including those directly involved in football which is an industry now not a sport. Personally, I don't think most people are perched on the end of their seats waiting for updates from the Premier League on how they're going to finish the season when the majority are dealing with life-changing overhauls to their daily lives, jobs and education, I'm sick of hearing about it. As I've said there are two things you can do that aren't either stupid or irresponsible so enough of the desperate attempts to shoehorn football back before it's the right time.

For what it's worth the players have been a credit to the sport throughout this deal with the odd exceptions of Grealish, Walker, Kean etc. Some of the money men have been a disgrace with the attempts to furlough staff for example, and many irrelevant old men that are trying to pass as pundits giving their hot takes (read: idiotic ideas on how to resolve the season and scheduling crisis) are just an embarrassment frankly.

[Dave]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It’s just 6 clubs that want to avoid relegation because they’re fucking shite, I don’t get where the “protecting the integrity of the sport” argument comes from. Scrapping an almost complete season to avoid relegation because they’ve not done well, at the expense of the sides in the championship that go up, as well as us - the only side that qualified for the CL and a few points away from the title - is not maintaining football’s integrity at all.

There will be no fans regardless of the venue. So the impossible request of home venues being used doesn’t really make sense - home field advantage comes from having fans. West Ham have been playing in a neutral venue all season FFS. Do any of these clubs even have a decent home record?

If it we’re down to me I’d relegate all 6 of them and promote the top 6 in the Championship just for their idiotic “InTeGrItY” argument.

I'd relegate them all on the grounds they have been absolutely shite and offer nothing to this division despite (Norwich aside) spending a lot of money.

The whole wait until fans arguement is dire as far as I'm concerned. People may think it's a noble stand but when over half the football teams go bust because theyve had to wait until 2021 to play a football game it will look really stupid. Most of you support teams that cannot be bothered to create an atmosphere anyway.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, The Palace Fan said:

I'd relegate them all on the grounds they have been absolutely shite and offer nothing to this division despite (Norwich aside) spending a lot of money.

The whole wait until fans arguement is dire as far as I'm concerned. People may think it's a noble stand but when over half the football teams go bust because theyve had to wait until 2021 to play a football game it will look really stupid. Most of you support teams that cannot be bothered to create an atmosphere anyway.

The fans thing is a much bigger issue for EFL sides than premier league sides too. They don’t have the same TV deal or anywhere near the income.

[Dave]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

The fans thing is a much bigger issue for EFL sides than premier league sides too. They don’t have the same TV deal or anywhere near the income.

Yeah, the only way I can see them recuperating some of that money will be through live streaming of matches through the football club. It will only recuperate a portion of what they would receive otherwise but it's better than nothing.

[Dan+]

Am I the only one who is at a loss to see what the benefit of neutral venues is? Is it just less travelling? Surely by default that's absolute bullshit anyway and really won't make that big a difference?

The ideas put forward are just shite. Gordon Taylor serving up a reminder that he's still somehow in a position of some power in the game is also sad to see. Bloke is a complete charlatan.

Behind closed doors is shit but I appreciate it's kind of inevitable. 

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Dan said:

Am I the only one who is at a loss to see what the benefit of neutral venues is? Is it just less travelling? Surely by default that's absolute bullshit anyway and really won't make that big a difference?

The ideas put forward are just shite. Gordon Taylor serving up a reminder that he's still somehow in a position of some power in the game is also sad to see. Bloke is a complete charlatan.

Behind closed doors is shit but I appreciate it's kind of inevitable. 

They're probably going to look at stadiums where they can restrict travel in or to the ground as much as possible i.e. shutting off roads well in advance of kick-off or shutting off public transport routes. I imagine clubs want to avoid some scenes like those from Germany (?) and France (I think) where matches went ahead with no fans but several thousand gathered outside the ground anyway.

Which in turn means there's a policing issue - clubs and police regularly meet before each game to assess risks/fan safety and I guess they'll be doing that even more so with current plans. They'll have to make sure there's enough police to maintain that closed area around stadiums so that crowds don't gather. By having neutral venues I guess it means there are less venues used in total as opposed to 10 on a given day (and that's just for Premier League).  

[Rick]

Whatever venue they use for a game, it should not be announced to the public. Strictly to clubs and staff. Have the game on tv, but don’t announce the venue. I get that people are going to know the stadium once the game is on, but it will stop thousands of bell ends going to stand outside. 
 

Absolutely have to finish this season. Any arguments against make no sense. Doesn’t matter what France or Holland have done, they leagues don’t make anywhere near what the premier league does in terms of TV revenue. It’s bad enough to not have the ticket revenues, but to say to clubs “no you can’t have the money you were relying on” is ridiculous. Administrations and serious money troubles galore among the “smaller” teams especially. 
 

Finish the season behind closed doors, and go from there. There’s 9 games for teams to push for safety or promotion...whether or not they have underperformed so far or not, there’s a quarter of the season for them to fight for something. 
 

[Bluewolf]

Interesting article about PL players allegedly getting tests and test results ahead of key workers, claims are being made that are saying they could have test results in 24 hours where key workers and other front line workers are being told to wait up to 48-72 hours for results... 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/09/premier-league-footballers-receive-coronavirus-test-results-quicker-key-workers-12677023/

Dr John Ashton, the former director of public health in the North West, said: ‘I don’t think we should be doing this until everybody has a level playing field. If football can get results in this amount of time, then why can’t everybody else?’

 

Several high profile players, including the likes of Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero, have raised concerns over football resuming on medical grounds, but last week Chelsea manager Frank Lampard admitted the issue of testing and the ethics of who should represent a priority had been playing on his mind. ‘The health and safety of players and staff is huge,’ Lampard told BT Sport. ‘We play a contact sport we’re all desperate to see – it’s a form of escapism, to watch football, play and train – but how are we not going to put the players at risk within that?

 

‘The other issue is testing. We will probably have a minimum of 70 or 80 staff at Cobham [Chelsea’s training ground] if we’re going to restart training. It’s right that we test regularly, but when we’re looking around the world … I think it’s important for football to take its place. ‘I don’t know the testing numbers for NHS and care workers, people who are doing these incredible jobs over the last two months. I don’t think it would sit well, not just with me, but with anybody, if we didn’t make sure that people who are in that frontline are getting tested.’

 

 

 

 

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Bluewolf said:

Interesting article about PL players allegedly getting tests and test results ahead of key workers, claims are being made that are saying they could have test results in 24 hours where key workers and other front line workers are being told to wait up to 48-72 hours for results... 

 

It's a weird one because first players are almost backed in to a corner to defer wages or take a pay-cut etc, despite the latter's wages contributing to funding to NHS (so decrease that, and you'd decrease the funding surely?)

Then they're told they're needed to keep the nation's spirit alive and have to get back playing as soon as possible. They're puppets and who the fuck knows who the puppet-masters are (the government? the media cos they pull the strings on the narratives we're all led to believe?!)

It doesn't sit right with me however that somehow PL players can get tests completed (with results) quicker than front-line workers that have been slaving away for weeks on end and even putting themselves in danger. It should be the other way round.

Why not start the PL tests (the longer ones) now anyway? There's no sign of a restart or any official date so why not get players/staff (and families if need be) tested now and save the more emergency-style tests (the 24 hours) now? 

It's all a bit backwards but nothing really surprises me these days with how things are run in this country.

[Smiley Culture]

It’s complete bollocks that footballers are a) getting tested ahead of keyworkers and b) getting their results back quicker than keyworkers.

That’s none of this easy target stuff, which is a crap argument in itself, it’s just common sense. Is the nation really missing football that much? And the return of football is only going to exacerbate cases. You only need to look at yesterday to see how stupid people are and a return of football, even behind closed doors, is just going to fuel the idiots.

[DeadLinesman]

8 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

It’s complete bollocks that footballers are a) getting tested ahead of keyworkers and b) getting their results back quicker than keyworkers.

That’s none of this easy target stuff, which is a crap argument in itself, it’s just common sense. Is the nation really missing football that much? And the return of football is only going to exacerbate cases. You only need to look at yesterday to see how stupid people are and a return of football, even behind closed doors, is just going to fuel the idiots.

I got mine within 24 hours and so did a colleague. We had to go to Manchester Airport to get them. That was last week.

[Smiley Culture]

Not that I even knew two players already had it but Brighton have confirmed that a third player has been diagnosed with Covid-19. 

[Dave]

Given there form and fixtures I dont think anybody would care if they got automatically relegated.