Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th

90 + 5min said:
Clubs can survive whitout problems. You just need to plan economics little bit more. Cutting wages, less transfers and so on. Quality will surly be lower but clubs can survive if they lower their ambition. And because other clubs will be in similar position it wouldn't be that different to other teams.
Click to expand...

The problem is right now, you cannot plan economics. There is so much uncertainty. If players who are coming into their last year of the contract, will they sign a new contract on a lower salary? Why would they? they could wait it out and go to another club for free.

There are going to be huge problems, if you think they can survive without any, certainly not looked at how much income clubs generate from match day revenue?
 
Pep's Suit said:
Probably none but if they simply claim to feel unwell or sick or whatever then they won't play and clubs will have to pay them anyway. Like I said before: clubs need more power over players because right now it's the opposite.
Click to expand...

11101 said:
Probably more than you would think. The money they make gives them the freedom to say feck it and sacrifice their salary for a few months if they fear for their health.
Click to expand...

Yeah it creates quite a weird dynamic for the club as well as normally they fall over themselves to keep star players happy, but now they may have to ruffle a few feathers just to get some players to actually play.

I've read that Liverpool have said that even if the title is wrapped up after one round of fixtures, they will still continue to play a strong team and won't just stick the kids out for the remaining 8 fixtures.

arnie_ni said:
Its not the same at all. Im not sitting touch tight to my co worker at the office dripping in sweat.

Its incomparable
Click to expand...

Yes a footballer to an office worker is incomparable, but what about a retail worker coming to contact with 100's/1000's of different people everyday? Yes they can put social distancing in place but its not 100% effective. Premier League footballers will be much safer than B&Q workers for instance.
 
romufc said:
The problem is right now, you cannot plan economics. There is so much uncertainty. If players who are coming into their last year of the contract, will they sign a new contract on a lower salary? Why would they? they could wait it out and go to another club for free.

There are going to be huge problems, if you think they can survive without any, certainly not looked at how much income clubs generate from match day revenue?
Click to expand...
I agree that the problem is now. That is why we should stop and cancel leagues so clubs can plan. Going forward with no end is tearing up clubs even more.

Players will come and go. It is a risk but at the same time, if every club have problems than saleries would go down wherever player would go.
 
Brightonian said:
I'm all for players having the option to refuse to play. No one should be forced to put their health or, more pertinently, that of their loved ones, in danger. But if they continue to do so after the rest of us have had to go back to work then they should be furloughed and put on £2500 a month. And be grateful, since by then plenty of the rest of us won't even have that option - it'll be work or lose your job/pay.
Click to expand...
There's an argument that should have been the case since the suspension, especially by clubs who are on sketchy finances.

I know it's not the players fault but when all said and done they're being paid for a service they can't at this minute provide and for the most part paid by money that clubs earn while they provide said service.
 
arnie_ni said:
Its not the same at all. Im not sitting touch tight to my co worker at the office dripping in sweat.

Its incomparable
Click to expand...

The key difference is that footballers can be constantly tested. The clubs can easily afford to privately source tests to do this. If players are tested in advance of every game, which appears to be the Bundesliga plan, then they are not exposing themselves to any significant added risk.

And before anyone pitches in with the argument that this 'takes tests away from healthcare providers'... clubs will pay for these tests with money that would otherwise just sit in their accounts. Countries are not struggling to get hold of enough tests because more can't be manufactured, but because more can't be manufactured at the price a country is realistically able to pay given the vast scale of testing required. A club can pay to get hold of tests through sources with nothing to do with those an organisation like the NHS uses.
 
Dancfc said:
There's an argument that should have been the case since the suspension, especially by clubs who are on sketchy finances.

I know it's not the players fault but when all said and done they're being paid for a service they can't at this minute provide and for the most part paid by money that clubs earn while they provide said service.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't mean it in a punitive way, and personally I wouldn't have called for it before the recent start of the return to work for the rest of the country, because that would have been unfairly singling out footballers when plenty of other very well paid professions were also no doubt paying their employees for less than their usual full services. But now, if footballers continue to refuse to go back to work but expect to continue to be paid, then they are demanding a privilege being afforded to no other profession in the country. In fact, if they were offered 2500/month, that's more than many whose employers will no longer have to offer them the option of furlough, and can simply refuse to pay them or even fire them if they won't return to work.

Again, this is not a moral judgement. There are plenty of good reasons why a footballer might refuse to go back. This is just about their wages.
 
I suspect I am being extremely naive here, but why can't we just restart football and only allow people under 50, without pre existing conditions, to attend? Basically I don't understand why we aren't doing that for society as a whole, let alone football.

I just don't understand what the big deal is for full stadiums of younger people is, as long as we practice social distancing and isolating from older people. I haven't been within 5 meters of my elderly parents since mid march. Why would I or anyone else change doing stuff like that is we started going to football?

Given a vaccine isn't on the horizon, wouldn't football be a great way to spread heard immunity? Surely keeping younger people locked down due to Covid-19 is the equivalent to locking down pensioners every winter for seasonal flu. The death rate among people under 50 must be lower than seasonal flu is for pensioners, or am I totally wrong about that?

Before anyone starts ranting, I'm not saying this is what we should do and we are idiots for not doing it, I'm just asking if I'm being naive (dumb). I guess I should have followed the Covid thread as I'm sure this has all been discussed. From what I've seen I just don't get why footballers are so worried about it. Surely they are all keeping their distance from vulnerable groups already.
 
redmeister said:
I suspect I am being extremely naive here, but why can't we just restart football and only allow people under 50, without pre existing conditions, to attend? Basically I don't understand why we aren't doing that for society as a whole, let alone football.

I just don't understand what the big deal is for full stadiums of younger people is, as long as we practice social distancing and isolating from older people. I haven't been within 5 meters of my elderly parents since mid march. Why would I or anyone else change doing stuff like that is we started going to football?

Given a vaccine isn't on the horizon, wouldn't football be a great way to spread heard immunity? Surely keeping younger people locked down due to Covid-19 is the equivalent to locking down pensioners every winter for seasonal flu. The death rate among people under 50 must be lower than seasonal flu is for pensioners, or am I totally wrong about that?

Before anyone starts ranting, I'm not saying this is what we should do and we are idiots for not doing it, I'm just asking if I'm being naive (dumb). I guess I should have followed the Covid thread as I'm sure this has all been discussed. From what I've seen I just don't get why footballers are so worried about it. Surely they are all keeping their distance from vulnerable groups already.
Click to expand...
Footballers are human too, if the messaging has frightened a significant number of the population into thinking they're going to drop dead if they leave the house law of averages suggest they'll be some footballers who have had that fear ingrained into them aswell.
 
redmeister said:
I suspect I am being extremely naive here, but why can't we just restart football and only allow people under 50, without pre existing conditions, to attend? Basically I don't understand why we aren't doing that for society as a whole, let alone football.
Click to expand...

1. Healthy under 50s can catch it
2. Healthy under 50s can catch it and get extremely ill
3. Healthy under 50s can catch it and die
4. Healthy under 50s could catch it, show no symptoms, and then go on to infect other people. For those other people see 1, 2, 3 and then 4.

It's just too risky at this point....maybe when we know more about the virus, and effective treatments
 
Dancfc said:
Footballers are human too, if the messaging has frightened a significant number of the population into thinking they're going to drop dead if they leave the house law of averages suggest they'll be some footballers who have had that fear ingrained into them aswell.
Click to expand...

I understand that and it's not at all unreasonable they should think that and be nervous. But surely the club Dr could explain to them the reality. I think I read something like only 350 people under the age of 45 have died and 90% of those had a pre existing condition. Doesn't that mean that the risk for footballers is massively lower than what the average pensioner risks every year, in terms of seasonal flu, from just going about their business. I think the risk for a young, healthy person, is something like one in a million.
 
redmeister said:
I suspect I am being extremely naive here, but why can't we just restart football and only allow people under 50, without pre existing conditions, to attend? Basically I don't understand why we aren't doing that for society as a whole, let alone football.

I just don't understand what the big deal is for full stadiums of younger people is, as long as we practice social distancing and isolating from older people. I haven't been within 5 meters of my elderly parents since mid march. Why would I or anyone else change doing stuff like that is we started going to football?

Given a vaccine isn't on the horizon, wouldn't football be a great way to spread heard immunity? Surely keeping younger people locked down due to Covid-19 is the equivalent to locking down pensioners every winter for seasonal flu. The death rate among people under 50 must be lower than seasonal flu is for pensioners, or am I totally wrong about that?

Before anyone starts ranting, I'm not saying this is what we should do and we are idiots for not doing it, I'm just asking if I'm being naive (dumb). I guess I should have followed the Covid thread as I'm sure this has all been discussed. From what I've seen I just don't get why footballers are so worried about it. Surely they are all keeping their distance from vulnerable groups already.
Click to expand...
I hope you read news but to answer some of your question in a very simple way even if every question isn’t that simple to answer.

1. You can’t play a game of 50 people. 36 players + staff is over 50 people. Then you got officials, media, statistic people, ball boys, medics, security and more.

2. If you try going for herd immunity (no facts that everyone becomes immune) you are putting NHS at great risk for being overcrowded by people at the same time.

3. Football is not centrum of Universe or UK. A big majority of society dont care as much as we football fans.

4. Full stadiums of young people is a great risk for spreading virus.

5. Footballers are worried for their famillies and themself.

6. Even if there is higher risk for the older people, everyone can get infected. And with no medicine it is a big risk.

Esch and one of those answers could be discussed a lot more. And have been in this thread. If you have time just read.
 
Tibs said:
1. Healthy under 50s can catch it
2. Healthy under 50s can catch it and get extremely ill
3. Healthy under 50s can catch it and die
4. Healthy under 50s could catch it, show no symptoms, and then go on to infect other people. For those other people see 1, 2, 3 and then 4.

It's just too risky at this point....maybe when we know more about the virus, and effective treatments
Click to expand...

But isn't that a good thing, as long as they are keeping away from vulnerable groups?

Is it sufficiently risky to shut down football, compared to other risks?
 
redmeister said:
But isn't that a good thing, as long as they are keeping away from vulnerable groups?

Is it sufficiently risky to shut down football, compared to other risks?
Click to expand...
Here's the thing, everyone is vulnerable. It is still risky, you seem like a responsible guy but you can't speak for everyone else. Death rate is pretty high at the moment, if you overcrowd that might rise. In my opinión the risk is too high. Even within teams you have staff over 50 including managers who are pretty important.
 
90 + 5min said:
I agree that the problem is now. That is why we should stop and cancel leagues so clubs can plan. Going forward with no end is tearing up clubs even more.

Players will come and go. It is a risk but at the same time, if every club have problems than saleries would go down wherever player would go.
Click to expand...

So how exactly do you see this ending ? This virus isn't going away. Probable 2nd wave come October/November time. People will still continue to die from the virus. People will still continue to become ill with the virus. Social distancing will become the new normal.

There is no end game as far as I can see. So when you talk about planning, maybe we should think about planning how we're going to live with this thing. Socializing, work, hobbies, football & other sports etc. What is the future for those sort of things if we can't see beyond the here & now & all the fear that goes with it ?
 
redmeister said:
But isn't that a good thing, as long as they are keeping away from vulnerable groups?

Is it sufficiently risky to shut down football, compared to other risks?
Click to expand...

One of the main issues is that the more people that get it, the higher the amount of hospital admissions it will cause and it could completely swamp the NHS. This is what happened in Lombardy in Italy.

Another key point is, how many people under 50 have got an underlying health condition that they aren't aware of yet?

Playing football behind closed doors, is fairly low risk, but opening it up to spectators is a completely unnecessary risk at the moment.
 
Don't think anyone's posted it yet, but it looks like they'll try and stop Leagues 1 & 2, but hold play offs. But play the championship out, or attempt to!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/championship-season-set-resume-before-22022838

So whereas the previous debate was whether Oxford or Wycombe went up as 3rd, depending on PPG or the home/away split version, that debate now looks to involve Portsmouth or Peterborough for the playoffs!

Having games would be more satisfactory than losing out on a vote, and a lot more doable with a couple of games rather than 9-10 rounds, so we'll see what happens there.
 
redman5 said:
So how exactly do you see this ending ? This virus isn't going away. Probable 2nd wave come October/November time. People will still continue to die from the virus. People will still continue to become ill with the virus. Social distancing will become the new normal.

There is no end game as far as I can see. So when you talk about planning, maybe we should think about planning how we're going to live with this thing. Socializing, work, hobbies, football & other sports etc. What is the future for those sort of things if we can't see beyond the here & now & all the fear that goes with it ?
Click to expand...
Exactly. They should be planning on it being something we have to live with. People keep going on about when they find a vaccine. What if they don't? Everything stops. They have to make plans how things can carry on around the virus. If they find a cure then great and things can then move on from there. If they don't plan it will be the end of sport.
 
redman5 said:
So how exactly do you see this ending ? This virus isn't going away. Probable 2nd wave come October/November time. People will still continue to die from the virus. People will still continue to become ill with the virus. Social distancing will become the new normal.

There is no end game as far as I can see. So when you talk about planning, maybe we should think about planning how we're going to live with this thing. Socializing, work, hobbies, football & other sports etc. What is the future for those sort of things if we can't see beyond the here & now & all the fear that goes with it ?
Click to expand...

The aim at the moment is just to slow infection rates so that the NHS can cope, I think it's widely accepted a high percentage of the country will get this disease at some point, but as long as there is adequate and available hospital care most should survive. The problem with having stadiums full for football would be the speed at which it spreads hospitalising hundreds and thousands more than necessary and overwhelming the NHS.
 
Megadrive Man said:
One of the main issues is that the more people that get it, the higher the amount of hospital admissions it will cause and it could completely swamp the NHS. This is what happened in Lombardy in Italy.

Another key point is, how many people under 50 have got an underlying health condition that they aren't aware of yet?

Playing football behind closed doors, is fairly low risk, but opening it up to spectators is a completely unnecessary risk at the moment.
Click to expand...

Again very reasonable points and I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong and that I don't necessarily agree with them or rather I'm not a confident enough person to resolutely disagree with them and I hate going against the grain of public consensus.

However, I just checked and it seems 20,000 pensioners die every year in the U.K of seasonal flu. There are only 12 million over 65's in the U.K.

There are 30,000,000 people under the age of 45, yet only 360 Covid-19 deaths. In general it seems 50-60% of people who die of coronavirus have a pre existing condition, but in people under 45 it's more like 90%.

So let's say those who have dies, under the age of 45, that had no conditions or weren't aware of conditions, is 175. Out of 30,000,000, it's hard for me to accept, even with my un-confident nature and being the type of person that ers on the side of caution, that it's the right thing to do, to lock us down and can't get my head around cancelling football. The main reason for my thinking like this, is because we don't lock down OAP's every winter for risk of them catching and dying of seasonal flu. Yet the risks are massively higher.

Now, I understand the point about swamping the NHS, but we are entering the summer months, so wouldn't it be better to do it now and get some heard immunity, than wait for a second waive in the winter, when they will be dealing with the usual onslaught from seasonal flu?

Let's say we allow younger people back into society and start football up again and the spread increased 10 fold. We are talking less than 2000 deaths. Of course 2000 as a statistic is small, but each of those individuals is a real person and every death is too many. But can we live like that? If we do, then why aren't we locking down OAP's every winter, as they could be saved by isolating and avoiding seasonal flu? In fact, how many people die needlessly in road traffic accidents on the way to recreational activities they don't need to attend? Things like that would dwarf the 2000 we'd lose from Covid, yet we don't think about them in the same way.

As I've clearly said, I'm certainly not confident enough to be demanding football is started back up, or telling anyone they are over reacting or plain wrong. But I just can't get my head around shutting everything down for everyone, when I see the seasonal flu numbers for over 65's, compared to the Covid-19 numbers for under 45's.
 
redman5 said:
So how exactly do you see this ending ? This virus isn't going away. Probable 2nd wave come October/November time. People will still continue to die from the virus. People will still continue to become ill with the virus. Social distancing will become the new normal.

There is no end game as far as I can see. So when you talk about planning, maybe we should think about planning how we're going to live with this thing. Socializing, work, hobbies, football & other sports etc. What is the future for those sort of things if we can't see beyond the here & now & all the fear that goes with it ?
Click to expand...
I haven't answers how this is going to end. Maybe we can start in September. Maybe not until 2021. What I do know is the sooner we get some decision the better is it for clubs to plan. If it keeps going like this club will not know what to do. Decision, for me is simple, shutdown of this season. Even if I'm ManUtd supporter I would give some kind of title to Liverpool and start working on the rest: promotions, relegations, places for Europe, leagues under PL. Time is running out for this season to end because of many reasons.

I agree that football should be in the plans as should every aspect in society be. Football is not different to anything else. But to do like TheFA and try to push it through at every cost is not the answer. Just look at all those ridiculous rules that are coming out. As much as I respect TheFA for trying they must realise that the best thing is to stop it.
 
Whilst it’s not likely an under 50 would die, they can get bad symptoms requiring hospital treatment though. Considering that could be anywhere between 5-15% of people infected
 
redmeister said:
Again very reasonable points and I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong and that I don't necessarily agree with them or rather I'm not a confident enough person to resolutely disagree with them and I hate going against the grain of public consensus.

However, I just checked and it seems 20,000 pensioners die every year in the U.K of seasonal flu. There are only 12 million over 65's in the U.K.

There are 30,000,000 people under the age of 45, yet only 360 Covid-19 deaths. In general it seems 50-60% of people who die of coronavirus have a pre existing condition, but in people under 45 it's more like 90%.

So let's say those who have dies, under the age of 45, that had no conditions or weren't aware of conditions, is 175. Out of 30,000,000, it's hard for me to accept, even with my un-confident nature and being the type of person that ers on the side of caution, that it's the right thing to do, to lock us down and can't get my head around cancelling football. The main reason for my thinking like this, is because we don't lock down OAP's every winter for risk of them catching and dying of seasonal flu. Yet the risks are massively higher.

Now, I understand the point about swamping the NHS, but we are entering the summer months, so wouldn't it be better to do it now and get some heard immunity, than wait for a second waive in the winter, when they will be dealing with the usual onslaught from seasonal flu?

Let's say we allow younger people back into society and start football up again and the spread increased 10 fold. We are talking less than 2000 deaths. Of course 2000 as a statistic is small, but each of those individuals is a real person and every death is too many. But can we live like that? If we do, then why aren't we locking down OAP's every winter, as they could be saved by isolating and avoiding seasonal flu? In fact, how many people die needlessly in road traffic accidents on the way to recreational activities they don't need to attend? Things like that would dwarf the 2000 we'd lose from Covid, yet we don't think about them in the same way.

As I've clearly said, I'm certainly not confident enough to be demanding football is started back up, or telling anyone they are over reacting or plain wrong. But I just can't get my head around shutting everything down for everyone, when I see the seasonal flu numbers for over 65's, compared to the Covid-19 numbers for under 45's.
Click to expand...
It’s not about deaths, never has been it’s about how many people end up with mild to severe symptoms requiring hospital or other treatment.

that could be closer to 10% of people
 
Zexstream said:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

According to this they have an increase
Click to expand...

I'm repeating myself but you cannot seriously compare infection numbers of two consecutive days. Use a 3-day or 7-day rolling average or at least compare it to previous Wednesday. You will a see a continuous decline. Looking at today's number of infections makes very little sense as that only means they were electronically transmitted today. It doesn't give a true reflection of the current situation. Which explains why Germany on the website you linked had 127 deaths on May 4, ZERO on May 5 and 282 on May 6. Doesn't make much sense, does it? For that reason the Robert Koch Institute (as I'm sure other government agencies around the world) always distributes new cases over the previous days which means the case numbers for each day are subject to change until they are declared final three days (I think) later. Actually, the RKI posted fewer cases today compared to yesterday. And the three institutes I know of that publish daily R values have them between 0.45 and 0.81 today.
 
Last edited:
This is a huge embarrassment for all club owners and lawyers who draw up contracts and get paid insane amounts of money by clubs to make sure that contracts safeguard the club itself. Please tell me why a club should be paying a footballer to not play? They get paid ridiculous amounts of money anyway!
Moreover, if the players are still getting paid, why can’t they all be quarantined to be ready to play football - for the fans who pay their effing wages
- problem solved

put them all in a hotel with the coach driver, manager and staff - why not? Is it that bad? Maybe they will get to know each other and play better!!!!!



all players are regularly tested if possible but first and foremost they also take a hit- yes they can be away from their families

And why shouldn’t they in order to do their job?
I would if i was a player (not a Prince)

Go to work/ play - is it really that bad?

ridiculous
 
yan man utd said:
This is a huge embarrassment for all club owners and lawyers who draw up contracts and get paid insane amounts of money by clubs to make sure that contracts safeguard the club itself. Please tell me why a club should be paying a footballer to not play? They get paid ridiculous amounts of money anyway!
Moreover, if the players are still getting paid, why can’t they all be quarantined to be ready to play football - for the fans who pay their effing wages
- problem solved

put them all in a hotel with the coach driver, manager and staff - why not? Is it that bad? Maybe they will get to know each other and play better!!!!!



all players are regularly tested if possible but first and foremost they also take a hit- yes they can be away from their families

And why shouldn’t they in order to do their job?
I would if i was a player (not a Prince)

Go to work/ play - is it really that bad?

ridiculous
Click to expand...
Being away from families for about 2-3 months? Lot of them have children. You write like football is the most important thing in the world.
 
90 + 5min said:
Being away from families for about 2-3 months? Lot of them have children. You write like football is the most important thing in the world.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I’m sure that poster knows the individual unique situations of every footballer in the league hence he is casting judgement :rolleyes:
 
Pagh Wraith said:
No they are not. How many more times is someone going to post this because they have read a badly sourced Sun article?
Click to expand...
This coming phase going to be the most frustrating thing of this whole crisis for me. So many people are going to refuse/be unable to differentiate between minor spikes and a second wave.

I dread to think about the hysteria it's going to bring when it starts happening in England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.