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

RobinLFC said:
Good luck with that. If he's refusing to perform services, his employer can refuse to pay his wages and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

He's entitled to his opinion, and it's a valid one as well, but he's speaking from a very privileged position and should accept the consequences of that decision as well in that case.
Click to expand...

Genuine question: can he not point to the massive and out of the ordinary health risks now present in carrying out his job? Surely being contracted to perform a service doesn't mean they can be coerced into carrying out that service in all circumstances, no matter how unsafe? Clubs presumably have an obligation to protect their employees too and I'm not sure how they could argue that they're able to so in these circumstances.

It's not like footballers are being treated in line with the rest of the country in this case, their return to work in an evironment where social distancing is impossible has been massively fast-tracked. I don't see why footballers should be obliged to take extra risks for fear of having their pay cut.
 
sullydnl said:
Genuine question: can he not point to the massive and out of the ordinary health risks now present in carrying out his job? Surely being contracted to perform a service doesn't mean they can be coerced into carrying out that service in all circumstances, no matter how unsafe? Clubs presumably have an obligation to protect their employees too and I'm not sure how they could argue that they're able to so in these circumstances.

It's not like footballers are being treated in line with the rest of the country in this case, their return to work in an evironment where social distancing is impossible has been massively fast-tracked.
Click to expand...
Let's say a "safety clause" would go something like this: "the team will at all times observe a proper healthy and safety policy for the employee when carrying out his duties and services under this contract".

See my other post, it would just be too broad a definition and the PL can easily refute any arguments by pointing out all the measures in place to avoid infections. If they're tested multiple times a week and the day before games, if they're put in isolation, whatnot, ... that would constitute "doing enough to ensure player's safety". These players are not at higher risk for infections than say your average Primark employee - just imagine them not coming into work and then suing their employer because they're not getting paid anymore. I know player-club is a totally different situation than that, but the point still stands. If you've done enough as an employer to reasonably argue that safety measures are in place, your players are not gonna win a lawsuit against you.

For the record, I understand Deeney's view. I also wouldn't want to be playing sports as a professional athlete if I didn't know the long-term consequences this virus has on my body.
 
Are players not having to sign an agreement confirming they accept training protocols? I’m sure the PL’s lawyers will be advising them to cover their arse as much as possible at every step of the way.
 
BigRedScouser said:
That's the thing, it's undeniably put a massive dampener on the title win, I don't think any Liverpool fan would deny that. The only thing giving us a tiny bit of joy from it is the desperation from the other fans as they try to clutch any straw they can to downplay the fact we've dominated and will be rightful champions. They should just be happy we have to lift it in these most unfortunate circumstances. But that's not enough for them, and it's funny.
Click to expand...
You're welcome to the joy in the circumstances. Liverpool have dominated and would be rightful champions. That's undeniable and I personally I wouldn't be saying that grudgingly. Having said that... it would be funny (in that tribalistic way) for there always to be an asterix next to the win. And there always would be for me unless the whole season is played. Wouldn't have to be in front of crowds but played fully and with basically the same rules and standards as normal. And with as full squads as possible without there being half the players isolating.

It just seems to be there's an unseemly rush to get something finished, some box ticked so that the money won't have to be paid back. And it's to hell with what's right or safe. Germany can have it's experiment with football BCD because it has handled the virus much better than Britain. It's in a better position to expect that what it is doing is relatively much safer. The premier league and the UK government seem to me to be barreling forward no matter.
 
Buchan said:
Yep.

As you were.



Vainglorious wankers. The Scousers will be ten times worse, mind.
Click to expand...


When someone says “couldn’t care less whether you’re unionist or nationalist” you know they absolutely care. Why bring it up if it means nothing to you?
 
Finn MacCool said:
When someone says “couldn’t care less whether you’re unionist or nationalist” you know they absolutely care. Why bring it up if it means nothing to you?
Click to expand...


Exactly. That post was created by a Unionist or a Rangers fan who has the hump Celtic are Champions again . It's all about one side getting a rise from the other
 
Buchan said:
That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, though.
Click to expand...


He says his anger is those who block roads outside a hospital like that's really the reason he posted such a video haha. Mate if you believe that I won't tell you about Santa
 
sullydnl said:
Genuine question: can he not point to the massive and out of the ordinary health risks now present in carrying out his job? Surely being contracted to perform a service doesn't mean they can be coerced into carrying out that service in all circumstances, no matter how unsafe? Clubs presumably have an obligation to protect their employees too and I'm not sure how they could argue that they're able to so in these circumstances.

It's not like footballers are being treated in line with the rest of the country in this case, their return to work in an evironment where social distancing is impossible has been massively fast-tracked. I don't see why footballers should be obliged to take extra risks for fear of having their pay cut.
Click to expand...

What more massive assurances can he get? He's a multi-millionaire so he won't be living in cramped living conditions and can isolate himself and his family more easily. He'll be rigourously tested for Covid along with his workmates and everyone he comes into contact with on a regular basis. He has 24hr a day access to medical professionals. His fitness and health is tested and assessed on a regular basis. He's a young athlete so is unlikely to fall into any high risk categories and any underlying conditions are much more likely to be found in the extensive health and fitness testing he goes through.

If you read the reasoning as to why minorities are thought to be more affected than the white population it's hard to see why minority PL footballers would be more at risk.

I can't really think of any other profession that will be so protected throughout all this beyond high ranking politicians.

If he doesn't want to play because of his kid or be isolated from his family then fine but he should be furloughed.
 
I can understand Deeney's reservations, it's a potentially very dangerous situation, players and staff will slip through the net with testing and you can't keep testing every hour. Also any kind of biosphere as F1 called it can potentially be a spreading event or a very safe zone. Do players isolate from their families for a few months?

If someone like Deeney has stayed virus free so far and ends up passing it on to a vulnerable family member and this person dies, no money in the world can fix that.
 
Klopper76 said:
This'll probably put a stopper in the restart plan:

Click to expand...

Gosh, I so shocked! Who would have predicted that??

Sad for Liverpool fans only, but this whole thing is a farce.

Just accept it's done for and start planning for next season.
 
Aside from a few scousers, Liverpool winning the league is obviously a dreadful prospect for everyone everywhere, but we can all gain some small comfort from the knowledge that it will always be asterisked and can consequently be undermined as an achievement, at every opportunity, till the end of time. As much as we wish it wasn't the case, simply awarding Liverpool the title, would not actually be particularly controversial.

The far bigger problem, is sorting out relegation and the Champions League places - these decisions are worth far more to the clubs involved than the title (from a financial perspective) and are therefore far more likely to be subject cries of unfairness and subsequent legal challenges. The easiest and least controversial route to settling those matters, is to simply allow the remaining games to be played (no matter the delay or the health and safety hoops have to be jumped through to enable it).

That is what restarting the season is actually all about - not Liverpool doing a lap of honour with the trophy in an empty Villa Park.
 
Deeney has a young kid with breathing issues, dont blame him whatsoever.
 
I guess this is why it wont start for at least 14 days? Theres no way they were expecting 0 infections
 
Klopper76 said:
This'll probably put a stopper in the restart plan:

Click to expand...


Why? That's less than the transmission rate of the population at large. I very much doubt any plan is being made on the basis that a minute proportion of positive tests significantly effects anything, otherwise we're packing every up for years and waiting for a vaccine. If this is enough to shut it down, there's no "plan for next season", next season's not happening.

That seems very positive news at this point that tests are catching it and that it's such proportionally low numbers.
 
Klopper76 said:
This'll probably put a stopper in the restart plan:

Click to expand...


How many players have to refuse to play or get tested positive before the league admits this whole thing wont work? The UK is miles behind Germany. How would Leicester feel about playing for top 4 if Vardy was quarantined*


*Not that mutants can catch it, mind
 
RobinLFC said:
Good luck with that. If he's refusing to perform services, his employer can refuse to pay his wages and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

He's entitled to his opinion, and it's a valid one as well, but he's speaking from a very privileged position and should accept the consequences of that decision as well in that case.
Click to expand...

you do know people have and are dying from this thing, right?
 
redshaw said:
If someone like Deeney has stayed virus free so far and ends up passing it on to a vulnerable family member and this person dies, no money in the world can fix that.
Click to expand...

This is no different to anyone else though. I have vulnerable people in my family so we take the necessary precautions. I haven't seen my new born nephew yet and he lives in walking distance from me. It's much easier to stay safe when you are wealthy too.

I have no issue with any player refusing to play for whatever reason but they should be furloughed. They are far more protected at work than most of us can dream about.
 
Klopper76 said:
I don't think it's a result of players returning to training though is it? I thought they were yet to return?
Click to expand...
My point is there is just no way this can be contained within football over so many games.

There is guaranteed to be undetected asympomatic carriers who get into training and games and infect others, who then take it home. In fact its all the fears and points that Deeney raises above.

Also, because of infection, contact tracing and self isolation protocols, we will quickly reach a stage where it will be 'Everton U23's vs Stratford High School 1st XI (standing in for West Ham)' type scenario.
 
RobinLFC said:
Good luck with that. If he's refusing to perform services, his employer can refuse to pay his wages and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
He's entitled to his opinion, and it's a valid one as well, but he's speaking from a very privileged position and should accept the consequences of that decision as well in that case.
Click to expand...
All this, just so youse can wave an * around. :rolleyes:
 
sammsky1 said:
My point is there is just no way this can be contained within football over so many games.

There is guaranteed to be undetected asympomatic carriers who get into training and games and infect others, who then take it home. In fact its all the fears and points that Deeney raises above.

Also, because of infection, contact tracing and self isolation protocols, we will quickly reach a stage where it will be 'Everton U23's vs Stratford High School 1st XI (standing in for West Ham)' type scenario.
Click to expand...

I don't see how those factors will be any different a few months from now. You either make measures to mitigate risk or we accept football isn't happening in any form until 2022 or further. I'm not sure how any facet of society, never mind sport, could operate on the idea that all risk needs to be entirely eliminated.
 
sullydnl said:


Fair play to Deeney. Hope other players who feel the same are confident in asserting themselves and are supported by their teammates.

I know I sure as shit wouldn't be playing that soon without massive re-assurances. I also wouldn't be quick to give up my wages either. Not Deeney's fault there's a pandemic, or that his profession is completely nonessential, or that it's impossible to social distance within it, or that they can't guarantee his safety, or that a lot of very rich and powerful people have decided to try and put them back to work early for their own reasons. Feck that.
Click to expand...


Is he genuinely that thick that he can’t work out the difference between thousands of barbers and salons opening country wide with basically zero safety protocols in place to the PL with basically every safety protocol under the sun in place.

DoubleDinhos said:
Why? That's less than the transmission rate of the population at large. I very much doubt any plan is being made on the basis that a minute proportion of positive tests significantly effects anything, otherwise we're packing every up for years and waiting for a vaccine. If this is enough to shut it down, there's no "plan for next season", next season's not happening.

That seems very positive news at this point that tests are catching it and that it's such proportionally low numbers.
Click to expand...

You’re doing it wrong, you’re meant to read that and become super dramatic and make a massive deal out of it, you’re not meant to apply common sense and logic.
 
DoubleDinhos said:
I don't see how those factors will be any different a few months from now. You either make measures to mitigate risk or we accept football isn't happening in any form until 2022 or further. I'm not sure how any facet of society, never mind sport, could operate on the idea that all risk needs to be entirely eliminated.
Click to expand...

Football is an activity that requires close physical contact of many many people. 'Society' is going to have to adjust while Covid19 is an issue.

Im OK if there is no football before a vaccine. It's just a game and for entertainment. There is plenty of more important things for society to focus on right now. Also plenty of other sports like cricket, tennis, athletics etc that don't pose the same risks.
 
Sigma said:
They had positive tests in Germany, didn't stop them from restarting. 6 from 748 is pretty insignificant anyway.
Click to expand...

This. it shows what the priorities are.

The PL will continue, I do not doubt that
 
I don't think 6 infections out of 748 is too surprising or going to significantly affect the plans. There were positive tests in Germany and there are always going to be positive tests in England.

The big question will be if the testing is sufficient to stop a transmission in and across different teams.
 
el3mel said:
Ratio is pretty small to be fair. 6 players from 3 clubs only. Won't stop the restarting plan if they want to do it.
Click to expand...

There's a chance that if they contract trace properly that it should be 3 clubs from 20 which cannot start preseason. I wonder how people will feel if Liverpool are included in that 3 or if the 3 players are Van Dijk, Salah and Mane will they be happy enough to start the season without them if they have any difficulties?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.