Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas (usually).
Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th
- Thread starter Tarrou
- Start date
Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas (usually).
His article acknowledges the self-serving nature of football’s return. It doesn’t make him any less accurate. Football will struggle to survive unless a return takes place. If the money doesn’t trickle down the pyramid, then clubs will go bust right across the spectrum. Furthermore, this has an impact on the wellbeing of communities, as well as employment within the community.
The entire debate is significantly more nuanced than the mere return of Premier League millionaires.
Last edited:
Thanks mate although I'm sure plenty disagree with you!
It seems the Germans hate me
Probably still pissed about 99.
What? I was replying to someone who said the biggest fear was xxxx and i said more like a biggest fear is a much worse scenario.
Total non starter. You either finish this season, either bcd, or wait, or whatever. You don't merge it with a new season. That'd be bizarre.
Especially as a new season might have massive doubts at being complete anyway.
Yeah that's what people don't realize, football is the lifeblood of communities down the lower league, look at Bury fans and how they reacted when they lost their club.
People getting all outraged over football seem to support a club who will survive regardless, worst case scenario they miss out for a year then they go back to challenging top 4/title. For example I lived in Exeter in the late 00s and if (as a community) they lost their football club i dread to think how many would cope, I meet someone there who got over some of the darkest times in his life thanks to Exeter City being there, it's underestimated just how much a wet trip to Carlisle can make a difference to someone if the alternative is sitting at home alone with his thoughts.
That's what get lost in all this. The big cats, big clubs and world class players people are getting angry at won't really lose out in the long run, if this say goes on for over a year they will lose money and part of their career but ultimately they'll be able to eat well in the interim and the fans will still go back to seeing their club challenge for top 4/title like the game never went away. The real losers in such scenario would be the hand to mouth workers at football clubs, lower league players (who's wages are a lot lower than people think) and fans of communities like Exeter where the game brings people together.
The reality of the whole problem is that mankind will not return to normality until one of two things:
1) a medicine currently on the market works against Covid-19;
2) a vaccine is found.
But some humans are more interested in ending a football season, at all costs and in any way possible, and to the possible detriment to everyone and anything else.
1) a medicine currently on the market works against Covid-19;
2) a vaccine is found.
But some humans are more interested in ending a football season, at all costs and in any way possible, and to the possible detriment to everyone and anything else.
Last edited:
On the various podcasts I've been listening to over the last week the Journalists who seem to have the inside line at the PL said it is accepted that it can't be seen to be "jumping the queue" for testing. Since testing is being ramped up that issue may now not be as pressing.
They dont. It is possible to test both though? It's not an either or scenario. By the time football is due to restart we should have scaled up testing to be able to test people in all industries if required.
My own theory is that they are deliberately not testing Nhs staff because they know that many of them would test positive and have to stop working. Nhs workers are being treated as cannon fodder in this pandemic.
Not one person ever said that, this is just the typical faux outrage to people who secretly/subconsciously hate football.
People have all been in wide agreement that a restart should only be considered once logical (NHS not underwhelmed, cases at a massively manageable rate etc) but ofcourse people like you ignore that then pretend they never said it so it suits your narrative that people that want football back also want people to die.
It isn't that simple though is it. There are varying shades of normality and things won't stay as they are now for months and years. Restrictions will be relaxed to some degree over the coming months. That is a certainty.
I also don't believe that your last point is the case at all. I don't see anyone saying that. That's an emotionally loaded statement and it doesn't reflect the reality of what people think at all.
I personally think the plans won't be viable, bit I have no issue in an industry trying to get itself back on its feet and trying to be innovative.
As far as im concerned the League has finished.
Whatever they bring back wont be the same and have no more interest for me other than 9 friendly matches.
Right now i have free Sky Sports, if football comes back Ill still cancel Sky Sports for 2 reasons, financial costs and no interest in 9 friendlies.
Imagine scoring a goal. Only for your teammates to give a clap or a reassuring nod as they maintain the 2 mtr distance rule.
The season is done, regardless of what they say or do, it already finished for me back in March during that souless, lifeless behind closed door match against Lask.
Whatever they bring back wont be the same and have no more interest for me other than 9 friendly matches.
Right now i have free Sky Sports, if football comes back Ill still cancel Sky Sports for 2 reasons, financial costs and no interest in 9 friendlies.
Imagine scoring a goal. Only for your teammates to give a clap or a reassuring nod as they maintain the 2 mtr distance rule.
The season is done, regardless of what they say or do, it already finished for me back in March during that souless, lifeless behind closed door match against Lask.
It's 9 for us. 90 games total for epl
Read through the whole thread and you will see that there are many who said that and kindly don't insinuate that i secretly/subconciously hate football.
''People have all been in wide agreement that a restart should only be considered once logical (NHS not underwhelmed, cases at a massively manageable rate etc)''
Your quote is such a sweeping statement saying ALL have been in wide agreement - that's simply not true but ofcourse people like you ignore that then pretend they never said it so it suits your narrative.
Absolutely. At Carlisle alone you will have admin staff, cleaners, groundstaff, a small media team and more. These people will already be on furlough, and live in a region that is economically difficult and short of employment as it is. You will also have the man who has a burger van just down the road, or the small pubs in and around the stadium that get much-needed custom every match day. Of course, jobs are doing to be lost in all of this, but let’s not pretend this issue boils down to Liverpool and Manchester United at the top of the pyramid.
I’m more convinced of this now than ever; too many people need to pull their heads out of the arse of this virus and think a little bigger. It’s an awful virus, and very real, but the world is still turning and people are still suffering elsewhere. Allowing football to collapse, among other sports, only serves to extrapolate that suffering.
Yeah I'm feeling pretty much like this. This season is now irrelevant and it makes sense to just finish it with minimum risk and fuss.
Have you got one quote, just one, from someone that states they want football back at all costs?
What happens if we never develop a vaccine or treatment that works?
if it's not safe to finish this season in June and July then it certainly won't be safe to start a new season in August/ September.
My own preference would be to wait until later in the year or even next year to finish the season at a safer point, but that doesn't seem to be an option? Of the two options that are being presented, Finish the season based on the current table or finish behind closed doors, I would prefer the first option.
I think that's the point really. No one is that interested in finishing this season by playing it now or in a few months. The integrity is gone. It should be ended now, prize money paid and clarity given to clubs. They can then think of a way as to how they will call it and what model they use but at least it deals with this will they, won't they scenario that leaves everyone guessing. It also allows clubs to prepare properly for the future without the burden of these 9 compromised games to circumnavigate.
It's totally pointless.
I think its actually 92 as theirs a few that have games in hand, villa being one I think (I could check the table for confirmation, but I can't be arsed)
Have you got one from someone saying they hate football? Youve accused half the posters of it at this stage
hey I have no problem with you or anyone else trolling Liverpool fans.. nothing wrong with it in this situation. Every fanbase under the sun would do the same.. let's just not pretend otherwise.
The Bundesliga is still on path to return btw and we will see if this works or not.. I'm pretty sure everyone around here hopes that it succeeds and that it can be a blueprint for the PL
Probably no EL/CL next season.
So we probably have nothing to play for if it is finished.
The reality is, if a pub or club had the ability to be certain that everyone inside Their premises had tested negative, what are they closing for exactly? Just to seem like ‘we’re all in this together?’.
There are no tests that give you an on the spot result, so the example is pointless.
So this is a project that involves close to a 100 games, the majority of which are or could be meaningless. The claim of maintaining integrity is pretty weak.
How about a middle path?
I say this because when I looked at the tables of all the divisions, the unresolved issues and teams involved seemed pretty obvious.
They could trial the idea via the organisation of some playoffs.
It's different enough to create some interest and could involve all the Leagues. And a lot fewer games.
If people start getting ill, you're only back at the start, you haven't created a load of new problems.
How about a middle path?
I say this because when I looked at the tables of all the divisions, the unresolved issues and teams involved seemed pretty obvious.
They could trial the idea via the organisation of some playoffs.
It's different enough to create some interest and could involve all the Leagues. And a lot fewer games.
If people start getting ill, you're only back at the start, you haven't created a load of new problems.
Indeed. The purposed idea is not the same competition. Instead, it is equivalent to the PL stopping 3/4's of the way through, then deciding and add a separate tournament to finish the league.
We are talking about ‘causing people to die unnecessarily’, which was the I think hyperbolic way it was described. Again, football, especially without fans, is not just an but of fun’, it is just work for the majority of the 300 people that will be in the stadium.
I didn’t say football and buying food was of equal necessity, I’m saying that the premise of going to a supermarket presently is NOT that it is okay for the 300 people in there ‘to die’. Hence the precautions in place when you go to a supermarket, as opposed to before this pandemic. The idea is for people to be able to buy food (and others who are simply at the supermarket doing their jobs) without dying. These precautions are absolutely nothing in comparison the precautions proposed at a stadium.
There is no point at all if having tests of society just proceeds as we were before testing was available. If the fact that everyone in a room has tested negative does not enable them to proceed as if they will not transmit a virus that they don’t have - then I don’t understand the hysteria and drive for urgent testing to be rolled out by the public. We should just continue with this model of isolating, and contacting the medics if you show symptoms. The main benefit and point of testing is to allow people to confidently engage with others in the knowledge that they will not transmit or contract. The then minute percentage of a chance that people somehow still contract the virus is the price we pay for not having to live in solitary confinement forever. It is the same as the risk you take in having unprotected sex with someone who has tested negative for an STI. You could still refrain on the basis of ‘well, you never know’. But then testing is almost pointless. Just live in fear.
I’m only proposing football be allowed to resume NOT because of the importance or essential nature of it, but due to the steps the industry will take to ensure it’s safety. If other industries were able to take such measures, I think they would open sooner too, at least in a controlled manner, which is being proposed at football. I don’t think it’s feasible that everyone should stay in home until further notice personally. Reintegration needs to be controlled and phased, but it will need to happen.
OK, how do you feel about the football we get to watch.
And is 90+ games banged out like this the best most sensible approach when there shouldn't be any in the summer anyway.
Fresh start is better I'm saying I suppose. Trial of project and fresh start, even.
To be fair, you are correct. I didn’t mean to direct my ire at Wallace or his writing, per se; more so the message he was conveying that football should resume, despite the health and safety risks, simply because some football clubs could fold. My point was ‘So what?’. Is John, from Moston and recently unemployed with five mouths to feed at home, going to be aggrieved that some multi-millionaire/billionaire owner is struggling to keep his play-thing football club afloat?
No chance, and it’s high-time that football clubs realise this. They are inconsequential in the scheme of things and only entertainment at the end of the day.
I’m not against a restart at the normal time in August. I was more speaking about the issue with footballers playing football at all. I don’t agree that they should close for a year.
I can of course appreciate the willingness to complete a season that has already gone 3/4 of the way for integrity’s sake. Many team’s fates were already all but determined. This is before we even get to the financial implications, which is not as crass to consider as people are making out.
Regarding the football I get to watch, of course, it will not be the same in an empty stadium. That said, that isn’t important either. Nobody asked for this virus and we’re all trying to make the best of the situation. Obviously fans at the stadium is ideal, but equally obvious is why it can’t happen right now, so we just have to get on with it. Unless, of course, we close it down until some time next year because we like our football how we like our football and refuse to watch it until we get the full experience. Compromise is needed. Many clubs wouldn’t last. And people worry about the football now - I can only imagine the standard of football if players all take a year off. They’d need a 6 month pre-season!
Now I hear more clubs are open to neutral venues if the threat of relegation is removed. Making less and less sense. What would be the purpose of finishing if the usual outcomes won't apply? Crown a champion and fill European places but no relegation??? Farce...
So every side outside of European places wont even try anymore.
That will suit United more since thats the rest of our fixtures after Spurs but what an unfair waste of time that is
Anyone hear this nonsense of finishing the season but no Relegation because of neutral grounds?
If that happens the PL are absolute idiots.
If the league gets finished their must be relegation.
If it doesn't get finished then sure you can not relegate anyone but if it's finished the standings have to be final. Simple as.
If that happens the PL are absolute idiots.
If the league gets finished their must be relegation.
If it doesn't get finished then sure you can not relegate anyone but if it's finished the standings have to be final. Simple as.
And what about John's next door neighbour Derek who's employed as a cashier in that clubs megastore and needs football resumed in some capacity to be able to feed his five kids? Or Donna across the road who's the secretary at that clubs training ground and has a son with cerebral paulsy who's needs don't come cheap? Or the many communities and businesses where football is their life blood? (both emotionally and economically) What about the bloke in the burger van outside Oldham who has kids and lives hand to mouth?
As I've said it won't be the multimillionaires that suffer in the grand scheme of things, it will be the random John and Derek's and small communities like Exeter/Carlisle etc al, that use football as an escapism of reality and such outlets will be needed more than ever once this is over/threat is minimal.
And that's before I mention how much taxes football as a whole puts into the pot, taxes that go a long way to keeping the NHS running and unemployed families fed (figures that's are already at record numbers and counting, numbers that probably won't drop significantly for many years at best).
Last edited:
European football under the current format is gone for 20-21 IMO unless they cancel the Euros again and play into July 2021.
They need to play 80+ CL matches and around 180+ Europa League matches from late June to late August. That can't happen for French clubs and Dutch clubs as their governments have banned football till Sep. I'm sure other European countries will have a similar ban.
They just can't fit it all in as things stand.
It's all about the balance between risk and benefit. Opening a supermarket is risky, but it benefits a lot as it provides necessities to the public and many of the staffs are actually living hand-to-mouth. On the contrary, the 300 people in the stadium include 40 players, 32 coaching and medical staffs, 12 match officials, 8 doctors, 3 league officials and 130 or more media personnel. For most of them, I think they are well paid enough to live for years without football, especially we are talking about the Premier League.
I haven't looked into the proposed precautions in detail, but there are just some precautions you can't implement in football. You can wear a surgical mask in a supermarket, but you can't wear one during a match; you can stay distant from others in a supermarket, but you can't ask players to stay away when playing; you can manage the customer flow in a supermarket, but you can't avoid crowding in corners; you can avoid conversation in a supermarket, but you can't avoid contacts in football.
Testing should never be treated as an indicator of "safe to proceed", rapid tests in particular. It's indeed dangerous to do so especially when the false negative rate is so high and the virus has a latent period of 14 days. The actual point of testing is for epidemiological study so that the government can have a better picture about the rate of transmission, make estimation and tighten/loosen the measures accordingly. The more testing is performed, the better the estimation is. Testing in healthcare professionals also helps assess the adequacy of PPE and prevent transmitting to other patients. So, it isn't pointless after all.
For your suggestion to be an effective one, testing for the coronavirus must return 100% accurate results, but the problem is no such testing exists.
There are two tests available to the NHS that can determine if you're carrying the virus; a swab test, and a blood test, neither of which are even remotely accurate. Scientists from China who have been studying the virus the moment it emerged are saying 3 out of 10 confirmed carriers might return negative results.
All it takes is for one person among the 300 in attendance of a BCD match to be carrying the virus (but test negatively) to begin another outbreak in that area. Considering there will be 100's of BCD matches going on across the country at the same time, all with a minimum of 300 people working in close proximity of one another, the likelihood of an infected person testing negative seems dangerously high.
It's an unnecessary risk.
Risk isn’t calculated simply as benefit of football vs cost, which is naturally causing everyone to turn their noses up because footballers with their Ferrari’s practically caused this virus. It is the benefit of ‘normality vs cost’ in this instance. The alternative isn’t as simple to me as not playing football, it is more a question of living in fear of human interaction for indefinite amount of time, and not.
I don’t say that footy is risk free completely, but do resent the dehumanising of everything football related. I don’t think footy is comparable to Supermarkets in significance, but as I’ve said, I do think that when people other than docs and check-out assistants can leave their homes - footballers should be allowed to play too. I appreciate that everyone doesn’t necessarily go body to body at work - but then they will not be policed to the same level of precaution either. You say they can wear surgical masks in a supermarket, but it isn’t a requirement. It isn’t a requirement for everyone in there to be tested, regularly, and their isolation when not in the supermarket is not Policed to the extent of the isolation camps being proposed for footballers. And why not? Is it because we are saying their lives don’t matter? Everyone now suddenly cares so much about the risks being posed to footballers - why are essential supermarket people not being protected in the same way? People are all touching the same surfaces in a supermarket, regardless of going body to body. Nobody is testing people at the door.
A footballer who is isolated in a camp and tested 2-3 times a week, I imagine, is less likely to contract the virus than the rest of the country is by simply shopping and using public transport daily. And again, I’m also a believer in managing/learning to live with the risks as opposed to just staying at home until it goes away, whenever that is.
And while the 300 are financially better off than hourly rare checkout assistants, after that group, they are the same as everyone else. People are so quick to say anyone footy related basically doesn’t need any money, but I reckon only a third at most of that 300 can afford to not work for a year. The footballers perhaps, coaching staff possibly, but probably not the rest. Not to mention the several others who make a living off the football business who do not need to be in the stadium, such as pubs, cabs, hotels, staff who work at William Hill or whatever.
One of the first few journalists I’ve seen take this logical stance.