I would feel for the likes of Leeds and West Brom were the season to be voided. I'd be in favor of promotion but no relegation. It's hard to argue those teams don't deserve to go up. And it's also hard to relegate a team and potentially change their fate for years to come (more so than will already happen post-COVID) based on only part of a season.
Had the season continued, I fully expected we would have gone down. It was clear in January, not just from the additions, or lack thereof, but that players had forgotten how to win and Bowyer wasn't capable of changing that. Not just the results, but the type of football we played was awful.
That said, I'd be fucked off if we were relegated without having played the full season.
What I suspect is going to happen is they're going to try to restart the season at Prem and maybe Championship level. Players will go back to partial training. Some will test posivite. Teams will be quarantined, they'll keep pushing the start date back, and then eventually they'll be left trying to figure out how to do this in July 15th, and it will all be slapdash.
A much better use of their time will be figuring out how to keep clubs afloat when they have to go a year without supporters in stadiums. But given I haven't seen any mass planning for that, I suspect it's a case of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.
What sort of logic is that....? WBA & Leeds deserve to go up because they have been top all season but Luton & Barnsley dont deserve to get relegated.....because they hadn't completed the season. Wtf ?
Why cant you just do one thing or the other. Play the season to a conclusion (whenever that is) or null & void it. Black or white. There is no grey.
The former is not really an option as there might not be an "end" to the season until.....who knows when. And then there is the problem of contracts finishing on June 30th. And then playing to empty stadiums.......
It's about trying to find a logical solution that has a high degree of fairness, will be acceptable to the vast majority of clubs (thus avoiding legal actions) and most importantly, keeps people safe. Leeds and WBA, will not complain if they are promoted (and in fairness, they deserve it) whilst relegated clubs, including us who had spend only one week in the bottom three, should kick up merry hell if they put us down. Allowing top two to be promoted, whilst cancelling relegations, ticks all the above boxes, no other solution does that, including voiding the season.
I think we need a Duckworth-Lewis type of system. We only dropped into the bottom 3 after our last game. If we knew before that game that was going to be the case then we might have tried harder/gone for it more.
I would feel for the likes of Leeds and West Brom were the season to be voided. I'd be in favor of promotion but no relegation. It's hard to argue those teams don't deserve to go up. And it's also hard to relegate a team and potentially change their fate for years to come (more so than will already happen post-COVID) based on only part of a season.
Had the season continued, I fully expected we would have gone down. It was clear in January, not just from the additions, or lack thereof, but that players had forgotten how to win and Bowyer wasn't capable of changing that. Not just the results, but the type of football we played was awful.
That said, I'd be fucked off if we were relegated without having played the full season.
What I suspect is going to happen is they're going to try to restart the season at Prem and maybe Championship level. Players will go back to partial training. Some will test posivite. Teams will be quarantined, they'll keep pushing the start date back, and then eventually they'll be left trying to figure out how to do this in July 15th, and it will all be slapdash.
A much better use of their time will be figuring out how to keep clubs afloat when they have to go a year without supporters in stadiums. But given I haven't seen any mass planning for that, I suspect it's a case of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.
What sort of logic is that....? WBA & Leeds deserve to go up because they have been top all season but Luton & Barnsley dont deserve to get relegated.....because they hadn't completed the season. Wtf ?
Why cant you just do one thing or the other. Play the season to a conclusion (whenever that is) or null & void it. Black or white. There is no grey.
The former is not really an option as there might not be an "end" to the season until.....who knows when. And then there is the problem of contracts finishing on June 30th. And then playing to empty stadiums.......
It's about trying to find a logical solution that has a high degree of fairness, will be acceptable to the vast majority of clubs (thus avoiding legal actions) and most importantly, keeps people safe. Leeds and WBA, will not complain if they are promoted (and in fairness, they deserve it) whilst relegated clubs, including us who had spend only one week in the bottom three, should kick up merry hell if they put us down. Allowing top two to be promoted, whilst cancelling relegations, ticks all the above boxes, no other solution does that, including voiding the season.
You cannot change the rules during the season.
Is abandoning the season with only 10 games remaining, in the "rules" ? Point being, we are in exceptional circumstances and that all normality has gone out of the window. What is needed is a solution that will be acceptable to not only the clubs, but millions of supporters of those clubs. It's a case of damage control and finding a solution acceptable to the vast majority. Voiding the season, simple, easy solution yes, but the legal ramifications would be massive, and likely continue for years to come.
I would feel for the likes of Leeds and West Brom were the season to be voided. I'd be in favor of promotion but no relegation. It's hard to argue those teams don't deserve to go up. And it's also hard to relegate a team and potentially change their fate for years to come (more so than will already happen post-COVID) based on only part of a season.
Had the season continued, I fully expected we would have gone down. It was clear in January, not just from the additions, or lack thereof, but that players had forgotten how to win and Bowyer wasn't capable of changing that. Not just the results, but the type of football we played was awful.
That said, I'd be fucked off if we were relegated without having played the full season.
What I suspect is going to happen is they're going to try to restart the season at Prem and maybe Championship level. Players will go back to partial training. Some will test posivite. Teams will be quarantined, they'll keep pushing the start date back, and then eventually they'll be left trying to figure out how to do this in July 15th, and it will all be slapdash.
A much better use of their time will be figuring out how to keep clubs afloat when they have to go a year without supporters in stadiums. But given I haven't seen any mass planning for that, I suspect it's a case of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.
What sort of logic is that....? WBA & Leeds deserve to go up because they have been top all season but Luton & Barnsley dont deserve to get relegated.....because they hadn't completed the season. Wtf ?
Why cant you just do one thing or the other. Play the season to a conclusion (whenever that is) or null & void it. Black or white. There is no grey.
The former is not really an option as there might not be an "end" to the season until.....who knows when. And then there is the problem of contracts finishing on June 30th. And then playing to empty stadiums.......
It's about trying to find a logical solution that has a high degree of fairness, will be acceptable to the vast majority of clubs (thus avoiding legal actions) and most importantly, keeps people safe. Leeds and WBA, will not complain if they are promoted (and in fairness, they deserve it) whilst relegated clubs, including us who had spend only one week in the bottom three, should kick up merry hell if they put us down. Allowing top two to be promoted, whilst cancelling relegations, ticks all the above boxes, no other solution does that, including voiding the season.
You cannot change the rules during the season.
Is abandoning the season with only 10 games remaining, in the "rules" ? Point being, we are in exceptional circumstances and that all normality has gone out of the window. What is needed is a solution that will be acceptable to not only the clubs, but millions of supporters of those clubs. It's a case of damage control and finding a solution acceptable to the vast majority. Voiding the season, simple, easy solution yes, but the legal ramifications would be massive, and likely continue for years to come.
About as sensible a formula as I’ve seen although I still don’t agree with the idea of ending the season with PPG, weighted PPG or anything other rule change. Even playing games at neutral venues is crossing a line IMO.
Void it or finish behind closed doors (at respective home venues) before the end of June. Anything else is a nonsense.
No matter how much football fans are trying to deny it, the vast majority of views will be at least partially affected by the club they supports situation.
Take us - Null and Void is the most common preference. On a Leeds or Liverpool board it will be play to a finish.
If the roles were reversed and we were two games from promotion back to the prem and a totally different future for the club......
Do we honestly believe this forum would be screaming for null and void?
Next door are the biggest and most passionate Liverpool fans going. Very clearly do not want to restart the season and that means heartbreak for them. But not at the expense of any life. It is after all only a game.
I never knew it was so possible to love the sport like I do, but absolutely hate it, both at the very same time.
I love our club, I love the technical, tactical, psychological, and physical side of the game, I love the analysis, I love the social aspect, I love the feeling and emotional rollercoaster that it provides, I love the pre-match build up, I even love that it either makes or breaks my weekend, I love the home and the away days, the entertainment. All of that stuff and more.
But I absolute hate the money, the self centred, self obsessed, entitled people, views, and clubs in the game. I hate the constant 24/7 soap opera and regurgitation of the same information over and over again. I hate that people in power in the game seem to think it’s absolutely fine to put money and getting football restarted before someone else’s health or their life. Footballers are human beings, but they’re treated as if they’re some kind of robot who must do as the powers that be say or else. I hate the media spin and the blackmailing that happens all the time. I hate that they can’t see what this project restart or the suggestions of PPG to finish the season does to the vast majority.
I honestly don’t believe there is an appetite for a return right now. People don’t want it, players don’t want it, a lot of clubs don’t want it. Of course, clubs need to survive, but rather than trying so hard to sort out a return, why can’t the people in power in our game put all their efforts into ensuring the safety and survival of football clubs and their players and staff. For once, show humility and do the decent thing. Make the beautiful game beautiful again, because everything about it right now is ugly.
I suggest 19/20 season is played to a finish then worry about 20/21. Maybe 20/21 takes some other format but at least everyone is in the same boat. 20/21 could be no cups, play each team once or some other format but at least everyone knows before they start.
A third Brighton player has now gone down with the virus.
Over to you Project Restart. I suppose Brighton will be made to finish the season without whichever player it is who has the virus.
Is this the Brighton who are at risk of relegation and the financial ruin that can bring....
All I am saying is that it wouldn’t surprise me to have them testing every single person connected with the club as voiding will be everything to them.
People can’t underestimate the power and influence of money in the EPL
A third Brighton player has now gone down with the virus.
Over to you Project Restart. I suppose Brighton will be made to finish the season without whichever player it is who has the virus.
Cynics will find it highly convenient that a relegation threatened side who've actively been against most of the proposed plans so far unless there was no relegation, suddenly have a player (who they won't name) test positive.
Why won't they name him? Will they be fining him for breaking lockdown rules given he obviously hasn't caught it by isolating at home for 6 weeks?
I'm not going to say they're lying but this is potentially open to abuse. If we're going to even attempt a restart (and i'll be honest here i don't think we should be) then the league should carry out the tests, otherwise what is to stop relegation threatened clubs like Brighton saying 'oh shit, another of our players has tested positive, we can't play on'
Cancel the season now. South Korea and Germany, who have both eased their lockdown, have experienced an increase in infections. People's lives are more important.
Getting fed up with the amount of comments on twitter saying that the bottom six should be automatically relegated etc. because they're the sole teams speaking out
I wonder what it will take to end all this debate and void the season, the death of a premier league player? Feels like they won't stop trying until something like that happens.
No matter how much football fans are trying to deny it, the vast majority of views will be at least partially affected by the club they supports situation.
Take us - Null and Void is the most common preference. On a Leeds or Liverpool board it will be play to a finish.
If the roles were reversed and we were two games from promotion back to the prem and a totally different future for the club......
Do we honestly believe this forum would be screaming for null and void?
Next door are the biggest and most passionate Liverpool fans going. Very clearly do not want to restart the season and that means heartbreak for them. But not at the expense of any life. It is after all only a game.
I wonder what it will take to end all this debate and void the season, the death of a premier league player? Feels like they won't stop trying until something like that happens.
Will probably have to be the death of a Premier League player within the elite clubs the way they've all behaved so far
Season can’t be finished think they should give up on that.
whilst obviously I’m biased, relegating teams who are not relegated is fucking unfair. They should also be trying to give as many clubs as possible the chance to get through this financially.
I thinking ending it, promoting top 2s and no relegations is the best option offending the lease amount of clubs and giving as many as possible the best chance to crack on by preventing anyone having to adjust to the financial implications of a league drop.
No matter how much football fans are trying to deny it, the vast majority of views will be at least partially affected by the club they supports situation.
Take us - Null and Void is the most common preference. On a Leeds or Liverpool board it will be play to a finish.
If the roles were reversed and we were two games from promotion back to the prem and a totally different future for the club......
Do we honestly believe this forum would be screaming for null and void?
Next door are the biggest and most passionate Liverpool fans going. Very clearly do not want to restart the season and that means heartbreak for them. But not at the expense of any life. It is after all only a game.
Do they go much?
To be fair yes for weekend games but mostly I know when Liverpool have scored in a midweek game!
A third Brighton player has now gone down with the virus.
Over to you Project Restart. I suppose Brighton will be made to finish the season without whichever player it is who has the virus.
Is this the Brighton who are at risk of relegation and the financial ruin that can bring....
All I am saying is that it wouldn’t surprise me to have them testing every single person connected with the club as voiding will be everything to them.
People can’t underestimate the power and influence of money in the EPL
Really? And Liverpool won’t test annoying for the same reason
A third Brighton player has now gone down with the virus.
Over to you Project Restart. I suppose Brighton will be made to finish the season without whichever player it is who has the virus.
Cynics will find it highly convenient that a relegation threatened side who've actively been against most of the proposed plans so far unless there was no relegation, suddenly have a player (who they won't name) test positive.
Why won't they name him? Will they be fining him for breaking lockdown rules given he obviously hasn't caught it by isolating at home for 6 weeks?
I'm not going to say they're lying but this is potentially open to abuse. If we're going to even attempt a restart (and i'll be honest here i don't think we should be) then the league should carry out the tests, otherwise what is to stop relegation threatened clubs like Brighton saying 'oh shit, another of our players has tested positive, we can't play on'
Who says he has been breaking lockdown rules ?
Could have caught it when shopping for food and medicine.
Could have a partner who is a nurse and passed it on to him.
I suggest 19/20 season is played to a finish then worry about 20/21. Maybe 20/21 takes some other format but at least everyone is in the same boat. 20/21 could be no cups, play each team once or some other format but at least everyone knows before they start.
And what do you do about all the contracts that expire on June 30th. Answer that suitably enough so that.....
1) players like Lyle Taylor can leave on that date, be it that he has another club to go to or not.
2) players that want to stay with their existing club can continue & not be told that they are no pongervwanted.
3) players that are on loan can continue playing and not recalled by their parent club.
Get 100% agreement from all 3 groups, players, managers & clubs then happy to restart the season & play to a conclusion. Failure on any of those points & season is null & void as on July 1st we could be playing with around 10 senior players & 6 youth teamers.
Over the past month, as football sought to reconcile its financial survival with its public perception, we have grown used to hearing a familiar refrain. “We will only return,” the executives repeatedly say, “when it is safe to do so.”
Yet laying out his club’s position on Saturday morning, Watford’s chairman and chief executive Scott Duxbury outlined the reality. The Premier League guidelines for a return to training are, he explained, “in no small part based at this stage on supposition rather than scientific fact” and, he adds, “in the world of COVID-19, there is no such thing as an entirely safe environment.”
For all the disputes over neutral grounds and points-per-game promotions and relegations, the most compelling strain in sport right now centres on the tension between health and economics. It may also become the fiercest legal battleground in the coming days and, in the dreaded worst-case scenario, the years to come. It is not a straightforward position for executives.
The argument from many is that the net industry benefits of restarting outweigh the small probabilities of tragedy and there is a degree of logic. If the Premier League call off football’s return until a vaccine appears, the economic repercussions would be traumatic: the industry will implode, sides will go bust and thousands of jobs across clubs, media, marketing and hospitality could be lost. The weaker the economy, the worse the outcomes for everyone down the line. Indeed, as news broke on Friday that League One and League Two will not play to a conclusion, with doubts as to whether they will return this calendar year, at least one club started drawing up the paperwork for mass redundancies.
Yet, what of the flipside? This is riddled by perils of its own. The doomsday scenario is, Heaven forbid, the Premier League or Championship returns and a footballer dies. Or he contracts COVID-19 in the workplace, infects a household relative and then they pass away. Or, what if a more senior staff member, such as the chef or the kitman, loses his life? Any death would, first and foremost, be a tragedy for the individual and his family. Beyond this, however, football will be knee-deep into a public relations disaster and, most probably, a damaging legal case. Brighton’s chief executive Paul Barber said as much on Saturday night, warning bluntly that “it could ruin lives, it could cost lives. We cannot afford that.”
Over the past week, The Athletic has spoken to numerous executives and lawyers to ascertain the steps clubs could take to protect against future litigation and the consensus followed that the industry will simply be taking managed risk, both over the health of their employees and future lawsuits.
We should take care with hypotheticals and plenty have questioned the motivations of relegation-threatened Watford and Brighton but it would be negligent if English football is not asking itself some very uncomfortable questions ahead of its likely return. Footballers are, in general terms, in an age and fitness bracket that should shield the vast majority from severe consequences of COVID-19. Yet in France, the 23-year-old Montepellier player Junior Samba entered an induced coma before recovering.
It is for this reason that the German Bundesliga, Spanish La Liga and the Premier League are devising a regimented set of guidelines. In the absence of being able to declare the sport completely safe, these leagues can only hope to reduce risk. In Germany, doubts were cast over the return of football on Saturday night when two Dynamo Dresden players tested positive for Covid-19 and now the entire squad and coaching staff must quarantine for 14 days. This comes a week before their scheduled return to action in Bundesliga 2. The situation differs to the Premier League, as the response to health issues rests with local authorities in Germany, rather than a nationally guided Public Health England response in English football. It will, however, add momentum to those who believe football is taking a health risk by seeking to return. In Spain, the Athletic has been privy to a 23-page document produced by La Liga for its member clubs and, the league claim, the protocols in place will be even stricter than those laid out by the Spanish government.
The Spanish league will return in four stages: initial testing stage one, solitary training stage two, groups of eight stage three and full contact team training stage four. Gloves and masks must be worn at the training complex — players may remove them to train but coaches must keep them on. Physiotherapy treatment is discouraged during the individual and small group training, which is worrying some players, as they argue physio work is key to their overall condition.
At training grounds, at least three dressing rooms must be used for every session and no more than three players should be in a dressing room together at one time. In between each set of three, a cleaning team will enter to prepare for the next three. Breakfasts will be individually prepared — by one permitted chef allowed on the premises — and left for players in paper bags to collect. During the small group training stage, players will only be allowed to eat in dining rooms with their designated training partners. Teams are encouraged to reside in quarantined training grounds or hotels, where they would be encouraged to stay in their own rooms and not socialise with team-mates outside of training.
Several players are understood to be concerned about the impact on their mental health. In addition, players will also be tested on a daily basis, which is a more rigorous approach than the proposed twice-a-week system in the Premier League.
This is just one of the issues highlighted privately by medics in the top flight of English football. On Monday night, many of these concerns became public knowledge. The Athleticrevealed details of an email sent by a collective of Premier League doctors and medics, in which many prevailing health concerns were outlined. It is important to note that their opinions were encouraged by the Premier League and the feedback was passed onto the Premier League medical advisor Mark Gillett and director of football Richard Garlick.
Yet the scope of the concerns were extensive. Medics appear concerned not only over health of participants but also the future legal impact on their own careers and the consequences for the clubs they serve. The email included the following comment: “Lots of pressure on individual medical teams to reassure players and staff on something we are very uncertain about… is it fair to expect players and staff to agree with an operational policy related to an unknown virus? Do all the staff have to sign that they are happy with the COVID-19 protocol? Is this a disclaimer if anything happens to a player? Who is liable: the doctor or the Premier League? As doctors, how can we ‘approve’ guidelines that still carry risk of death?”
This is the brutal truth. Nobody, in any walk of life, can yet declare any workplace as safe from the threat posed by coronavirus at this stage. Until scientists develop, test and bring a vaccine to the mass market, people across the world will continue to lose loved ones and sport cannot hope to be immune from this peril.
Little wonder, therefore, that Watford CEO Duxbury wrote on Saturday of how “club medical staff are working under conditions that no doctor or physio has ever experienced”.
Given the existence of the warning email from the medics, the question of future liability is one currently stalking the minds of legal teams and executives in the Premier League and the Championship. Since the pandemic began, many in sport have been predicted a tornado of legal cases to resolve all manner of issues. These are starting to play out: over European qualification in Holland, relegation in France, while it is also the case that lower Premier League clubs are seeking legal advice in challenging the plan to finish season at neutral venues.
Now, as the final call is made, the greatest risk to the Premier League return is not the squabbling over neutral venues but, rather, whether the sport may conclude the risk posed to the health of participants may be too high. It is not hard to imagine the case that would be set out by a prosecuting barrister, brandishing the email sent in by medics outlining 100 concerns, repeating Duxbury’s line that guidelines were set on “supposition” rather than “medical fact”, highlighting Barber’s claim this “could cost lives” and concluding a club or the Premier League pressed on anyway. Many workplaces across the country will be taking similar calculated risks as the economy reopens but as one player points out, most employees will retain elements of social distancing in their work and are not asked to man-mark at corners or stand in a tight wall when defending a set-piece.
One of the issues that remains to be resolved is who, exactly, would be held liable in the worst-case scenario. Would it be the club, who employ the player and have an implied duty of care within the playing contract? Would it be the league, which has precipitated the return of play and set out training guidelines? Could it even be the government, whose messaging has been that football should return to boost “public morale”? Some club executives are confident that because the Premier League’s Project Restart is endorsed by the government, they will be protected down the line. They were encouraged to see German Chancellor Angela Merkel this week put her own voice to the Bundesliga restart plans and there is private hope British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be bold enough to do the same.
Yet, over several days this week, nobody within football was able to offer a clear answer. One Championship chairman simply said: “The complexities are huge. We are working on it.” The Premier League could not say. The government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport, holding the regular safety discussions, declined to provide formal comment when asked whether the state would assume any legal responsibility.
One leading sports lawyer advising several players and clubs explains: “Clubs feel that the Premier League has yet to provide detail as to who would be liable for all these things. Normally, a club would be liable for a player exposed through the course of his employment to a dangerous working environment. The government will set out principles but not the specific guidelines for a safe working environment for football. That detail must be done by the Premier League.
“Say, for example, you were British Airways and the government says you can come back to work, then somebody gets sick because a health measure is not in place. That employee could sue British Airways. British Airways could then rely on medical advice to show it was acting properly but it cannot just say, ‘Oh, the government said it is fine’. It has its own responsibility. Yet in football, we can now say that medical advice has highlighted many concerns.
“Normally, clubs would be responsible. Yet if the Premier League is telling clubs what to do and taking responsibility for organising the events, should liability shift to them? Clubs may feel or require from the Premier League its indemnity that it will carry the risk. That begs the question though because the Premier League is an association of its 20 member clubs. If the Premier League took on some kind of collective liability, therefore, it would be the clubs together picking up the tab if sued for £100 million. Each club must satisfy itself on expert medical advice. We can’t just say, ‘Oh, we will go along with what someone tells us’. It would not be adequate defence if proceedings were brought against a club. It is obviously one of the considerations before agreeing to resume the season.”
Curiously, it emerged this week that Premier League players and staff will be presented with a form, outlining the protocols for this period, that will help protect them against coronavirus. Yet several players fear the form may amount to a waiver or legal disclaimer that clubs could use to avoid future liability. The Premier League insist signing the form removes no rights while a sports lawyer pointed out that personal injury and death cannot be exempted in any case. Yet more than one lawyer contacted by The Athleticsaid they would advise players not to put pen to paper, as it may be perceived as tacit approval of the working conditions in any future tribunal.
As such, we should expect tension between players and clubs in the coming weeks. Clubs are coming to accept that players with underlying conditions such as asthma, or who have vulnerable household relatives, may simply be unavailable for the final weeks of the season. Aston Villa boss Dean Smith admitted as much about two unnamed players in his squad in an interview with Sky Sports earlier this week.
Yet there are still fears players will be made to feel uncomfortable. One lawyer working in tandem with a football agency said: “Clubs must not take any chances or put any pressure on players who have an underlying condition. If you have an asthmatic player and the club don’t remove him, it would be a breach of duty. They have employment contracts and there is implied duty of health and safety. That’s where there will be issues. Some of these players will play on and some will not. I am speaking to players who are just saying, ‘I don’t want to get this thing’ and they will refuse to come back.
“Clubs are unlikely to force players to play as that is awful from a PR point of view but there is a clear argument they should not be paid full salaries if they decline to play. Then we worry that players who should not play for health reasons may do so because they are in and out of team and feel they have to prove something. These are usual dressing room issues amplified. If a manager calls a player and says, ‘OK son, you are one of five and six that I may keep or let go. If I don’t see something from you in the next few weeks, you’re probably out’. Those people will feel they have to play. Players and clubs do not get on as hunky-dory as people think.
“In the worst-case scenario, everybody would find that out once and for all.”
I never knew it was so possible to love the sport like I do, but absolutely hate it, both at the very same time.
I love our club, I love the technical, tactical, psychological, and physical side of the game, I love the analysis, I love the social aspect, I love the feeling and emotional rollercoaster that it provides, I love the pre-match build up, I even love that it either makes or breaks my weekend, I love the home and the away days, the entertainment. All of that stuff and more.
But I absolute hate the money, the self centred, self obsessed, entitled people, views, and clubs in the game. I hate the constant 24/7 soap opera and regurgitation of the same information over and over again. I hate that people in power in the game seem to think it’s absolutely fine to put money and getting football restarted before someone else’s health or their life. Footballers are human beings, but they’re treated as if they’re some kind of robot who must do as the powers that be say or else. I hate the media spin and the blackmailing that happens all the time. I hate that they can’t see what this project restart or the suggestions of PPG to finish the season does to the vast majority.
I honestly don’t believe there is an appetite for a return right now. People don’t want it, players don’t want it, a lot of clubs don’t want it. Of course, clubs need to survive, but rather than trying so hard to sort out a return, why can’t the people in power in our game put all their efforts into ensuring the safety and survival of football clubs and their players and staff. For once, show humility and do the decent thing. Make the beautiful game beautiful again, because everything about it right now is ugly.
You know what @sage I think you're wasted on Bromley Addicks chair shifting, important though that is.
The other thing is, Sky and BT aren’t going to claw back money, they will happily go for restructured deals, as they don’t want their prime asset being weakened.
the problem is international broadcasters, who will go and get their money back
I suggest 19/20 season is played to a finish then worry about 20/21. Maybe 20/21 takes some other format but at least everyone is in the same boat. 20/21 could be no cups, play each team once or some other format but at least everyone knows before they start.
And what do you do about all the contracts that expire on June 30th. Answer that suitably enough so that.....
1) players like Lyle Taylor can leave on that date, be it that he has another club to go to or not.
2) players that want to stay with their existing club can continue & not be told that they are no pongervwanted.
3) players that are on loan can continue playing and not recalled by their parent club.
Get 100% agreement from all 3 groups, players, managers & clubs then happy to restart the season & play to a conclusion. Failure on any of those points & season is null & void as on July 1st we could be playing with around 10 senior players & 6 youth teamers.
I cried the last time I was told I was no pongervwanted...
I never knew it was so possible to love the sport like I do, but absolutely hate it, both at the very same time.
I love our club, I love the technical, tactical, psychological, and physical side of the game, I love the analysis, I love the social aspect, I love the feeling and emotional rollercoaster that it provides, I love the pre-match build up, I even love that it either makes or breaks my weekend, I love the home and the away days, the entertainment. All of that stuff and more.
But I absolute hate the money, the self centred, self obsessed, entitled people, views, and clubs in the game. I hate the constant 24/7 soap opera and regurgitation of the same information over and over again. I hate that people in power in the game seem to think it’s absolutely fine to put money and getting football restarted before someone else’s health or their life. Footballers are human beings, but they’re treated as if they’re some kind of robot who must do as the powers that be say or else. I hate the media spin and the blackmailing that happens all the time. I hate that they can’t see what this project restart or the suggestions of PPG to finish the season does to the vast majority.
I honestly don’t believe there is an appetite for a return right now. People don’t want it, players don’t want it, a lot of clubs don’t want it. Of course, clubs need to survive, but rather than trying so hard to sort out a return, why can’t the people in power in our game put all their efforts into ensuring the safety and survival of football clubs and their players and staff. For once, show humility and do the decent thing. Make the beautiful game beautiful again, because everything about it right now is ugly.
Everything at the beginning of your post resonates perfectly with me, and when it gets to the point of talking about the entitlement, greed, soap opera etc part it just made me think "that's where the Premier League spoils everything about our sport".
The Premier League has ruined the essence of what the English game should be all about.
Comments
Joking obviously.
Point being, we are in exceptional circumstances and that all normality has gone out of the window.
What is needed is a solution that will be acceptable to not only the clubs, but millions of supporters of those clubs.
It's a case of damage control and finding a solution acceptable to the vast majority.
Voiding the season, simple, easy solution yes, but the legal ramifications would be massive, and likely continue for years to come.
The 20/21 season will not start on time.
Very clearly do not want to restart the season and that means heartbreak for them. But not at the expense of any life.
It is after all only a game.
Over to you Project Restart. I suppose Brighton will be made to finish the season without whichever player it is who has the virus.
I love our club, I love the technical, tactical, psychological, and physical side of the game, I love the analysis, I love the social aspect, I love the feeling and emotional rollercoaster that it provides, I love the pre-match build up, I even love that it either makes or breaks my weekend, I love the home and the away days, the entertainment. All of that stuff and more.
But I absolute hate the money, the self centred, self obsessed, entitled people, views, and clubs in the game. I hate the constant 24/7 soap opera and regurgitation of the same information over and over again. I hate that people in power in the game seem to think it’s absolutely fine to put money and getting football restarted before someone else’s health or their life. Footballers are human beings, but they’re treated as if they’re some kind of robot who must do as the powers that be say or else. I hate the media spin and the blackmailing that happens all the time. I hate that they can’t see what this project restart or the suggestions of PPG to finish the season does to the vast majority.
I honestly don’t believe there is an appetite for a return right now. People don’t want it, players don’t want it, a lot of clubs don’t want it. Of course, clubs need to survive, but rather than trying so hard to sort out a return, why can’t the people in power in our game put all their efforts into ensuring the safety and survival of football clubs and their players and staff. For once, show humility and do the decent thing. Make the beautiful game beautiful again, because everything about it right now is ugly.
All I am saying is that it wouldn’t surprise me to have them testing every single person connected with the club as voiding will be everything to them.
People can’t underestimate the power and influence of money in the EPL
Why won't they name him? Will they be fining him for breaking lockdown rules given he obviously hasn't caught it by isolating at home for 6 weeks?
I'm not going to say they're lying but this is potentially open to abuse. If we're going to even attempt a restart (and i'll be honest here i don't think we should be) then the league should carry out the tests, otherwise what is to stop relegation threatened clubs like Brighton saying 'oh shit, another of our players has tested positive, we can't play on'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52606061
Getting fed up with the amount of comments on twitter saying that the bottom six should be automatically relegated etc. because they're the sole teams speaking out
Do they go much?
whilst obviously I’m biased, relegating teams who are not relegated is fucking unfair. They should also be trying to give as many clubs as possible the chance to get through this financially.
https://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/uncategorized/boreham-wood-fc-update-by-chairman-danny-hunter-3/
1) players like Lyle Taylor can leave on that date, be it that he has another club to go to or not.
2) players that want to stay with their existing club can continue & not be told that they are no pongervwanted.
3) players that are on loan can continue playing and not recalled by their parent club.
Get 100% agreement from all 3 groups, players, managers & clubs then happy to restart the season & play to a conclusion. Failure on any of those points & season is null & void as on July 1st we could be playing with around 10 senior players & 6 youth teamers.
From the Athletic
Over the past month, as football sought to reconcile its financial survival with its public perception, we have grown used to hearing a familiar refrain. “We will only return,” the executives repeatedly say, “when it is safe to do so.”
Yet laying out his club’s position on Saturday morning, Watford’s chairman and chief executive Scott Duxbury outlined the reality. The Premier League guidelines for a return to training are, he explained, “in no small part based at this stage on supposition rather than scientific fact” and, he adds, “in the world of COVID-19, there is no such thing as an entirely safe environment.”
For all the disputes over neutral grounds and points-per-game promotions and relegations, the most compelling strain in sport right now centres on the tension between health and economics. It may also become the fiercest legal battleground in the coming days and, in the dreaded worst-case scenario, the years to come. It is not a straightforward position for executives.
The argument from many is that the net industry benefits of restarting outweigh the small probabilities of tragedy and there is a degree of logic. If the Premier League call off football’s return until a vaccine appears, the economic repercussions would be traumatic: the industry will implode, sides will go bust and thousands of jobs across clubs, media, marketing and hospitality could be lost. The weaker the economy, the worse the outcomes for everyone down the line. Indeed, as news broke on Friday that League One and League Two will not play to a conclusion, with doubts as to whether they will return this calendar year, at least one club started drawing up the paperwork for mass redundancies.
Yet, what of the flipside? This is riddled by perils of its own. The doomsday scenario is, Heaven forbid, the Premier League or Championship returns and a footballer dies. Or he contracts COVID-19 in the workplace, infects a household relative and then they pass away. Or, what if a more senior staff member, such as the chef or the kitman, loses his life? Any death would, first and foremost, be a tragedy for the individual and his family. Beyond this, however, football will be knee-deep into a public relations disaster and, most probably, a damaging legal case. Brighton’s chief executive Paul Barber said as much on Saturday night, warning bluntly that “it could ruin lives, it could cost lives. We cannot afford that.”
Over the past week, The Athletic has spoken to numerous executives and lawyers to ascertain the steps clubs could take to protect against future litigation and the consensus followed that the industry will simply be taking managed risk, both over the health of their employees and future lawsuits.
We should take care with hypotheticals and plenty have questioned the motivations of relegation-threatened Watford and Brighton but it would be negligent if English football is not asking itself some very uncomfortable questions ahead of its likely return. Footballers are, in general terms, in an age and fitness bracket that should shield the vast majority from severe consequences of COVID-19. Yet in France, the 23-year-old Montepellier player Junior Samba entered an induced coma before recovering.
It is for this reason that the German Bundesliga, Spanish La Liga and the Premier League are devising a regimented set of guidelines. In the absence of being able to declare the sport completely safe, these leagues can only hope to reduce risk. In Germany, doubts were cast over the return of football on Saturday night when two Dynamo Dresden players tested positive for Covid-19 and now the entire squad and coaching staff must quarantine for 14 days. This comes a week before their scheduled return to action in Bundesliga 2. The situation differs to the Premier League, as the response to health issues rests with local authorities in Germany, rather than a nationally guided Public Health England response in English football. It will, however, add momentum to those who believe football is taking a health risk by seeking to return. In Spain, the Athletic has been privy to a 23-page document produced by La Liga for its member clubs and, the league claim, the protocols in place will be even stricter than those laid out by the Spanish government.
The Spanish league will return in four stages: initial testing stage one, solitary training stage two, groups of eight stage three and full contact team training stage four. Gloves and masks must be worn at the training complex — players may remove them to train but coaches must keep them on. Physiotherapy treatment is discouraged during the individual and small group training, which is worrying some players, as they argue physio work is key to their overall condition.
At training grounds, at least three dressing rooms must be used for every session and no more than three players should be in a dressing room together at one time. In between each set of three, a cleaning team will enter to prepare for the next three. Breakfasts will be individually prepared — by one permitted chef allowed on the premises — and left for players in paper bags to collect. During the small group training stage, players will only be allowed to eat in dining rooms with their designated training partners. Teams are encouraged to reside in quarantined training grounds or hotels, where they would be encouraged to stay in their own rooms and not socialise with team-mates outside of training.
Several players are understood to be concerned about the impact on their mental health. In addition, players will also be tested on a daily basis, which is a more rigorous approach than the proposed twice-a-week system in the Premier League.
This is just one of the issues highlighted privately by medics in the top flight of English football. On Monday night, many of these concerns became public knowledge. The Athletic revealed details of an email sent by a collective of Premier League doctors and medics, in which many prevailing health concerns were outlined. It is important to note that their opinions were encouraged by the Premier League and the feedback was passed onto the Premier League medical advisor Mark Gillett and director of football Richard Garlick.
Yet the scope of the concerns were extensive. Medics appear concerned not only over health of participants but also the future legal impact on their own careers and the consequences for the clubs they serve. The email included the following comment: “Lots of pressure on individual medical teams to reassure players and staff on something we are very uncertain about… is it fair to expect players and staff to agree with an operational policy related to an unknown virus? Do all the staff have to sign that they are happy with the COVID-19 protocol? Is this a disclaimer if anything happens to a player? Who is liable: the doctor or the Premier League? As doctors, how can we ‘approve’ guidelines that still carry risk of death?”
This is the brutal truth. Nobody, in any walk of life, can yet declare any workplace as safe from the threat posed by coronavirus at this stage. Until scientists develop, test and bring a vaccine to the mass market, people across the world will continue to lose loved ones and sport cannot hope to be immune from this peril.
Little wonder, therefore, that Watford CEO Duxbury wrote on Saturday of how “club medical staff are working under conditions that no doctor or physio has ever experienced”.
Given the existence of the warning email from the medics, the question of future liability is one currently stalking the minds of legal teams and executives in the Premier League and the Championship. Since the pandemic began, many in sport have been predicted a tornado of legal cases to resolve all manner of issues. These are starting to play out: over European qualification in Holland, relegation in France, while it is also the case that lower Premier League clubs are seeking legal advice in challenging the plan to finish season at neutral venues.
Now, as the final call is made, the greatest risk to the Premier League return is not the squabbling over neutral venues but, rather, whether the sport may conclude the risk posed to the health of participants may be too high. It is not hard to imagine the case that would be set out by a prosecuting barrister, brandishing the email sent in by medics outlining 100 concerns, repeating Duxbury’s line that guidelines were set on “supposition” rather than “medical fact”, highlighting Barber’s claim this “could cost lives” and concluding a club or the Premier League pressed on anyway. Many workplaces across the country will be taking similar calculated risks as the economy reopens but as one player points out, most employees will retain elements of social distancing in their work and are not asked to man-mark at corners or stand in a tight wall when defending a set-piece.
One of the issues that remains to be resolved is who, exactly, would be held liable in the worst-case scenario. Would it be the club, who employ the player and have an implied duty of care within the playing contract? Would it be the league, which has precipitated the return of play and set out training guidelines? Could it even be the government, whose messaging has been that football should return to boost “public morale”? Some club executives are confident that because the Premier League’s Project Restart is endorsed by the government, they will be protected down the line. They were encouraged to see German Chancellor Angela Merkel this week put her own voice to the Bundesliga restart plans and there is private hope British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be bold enough to do the same.
Yet, over several days this week, nobody within football was able to offer a clear answer. One Championship chairman simply said: “The complexities are huge. We are working on it.” The Premier League could not say. The government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport, holding the regular safety discussions, declined to provide formal comment when asked whether the state would assume any legal responsibility.
One leading sports lawyer advising several players and clubs explains: “Clubs feel that the Premier League has yet to provide detail as to who would be liable for all these things. Normally, a club would be liable for a player exposed through the course of his employment to a dangerous working environment. The government will set out principles but not the specific guidelines for a safe working environment for football. That detail must be done by the Premier League.
“Say, for example, you were British Airways and the government says you can come back to work, then somebody gets sick because a health measure is not in place. That employee could sue British Airways. British Airways could then rely on medical advice to show it was acting properly but it cannot just say, ‘Oh, the government said it is fine’. It has its own responsibility. Yet in football, we can now say that medical advice has highlighted many concerns.
“Normally, clubs would be responsible. Yet if the Premier League is telling clubs what to do and taking responsibility for organising the events, should liability shift to them? Clubs may feel or require from the Premier League its indemnity that it will carry the risk. That begs the question though because the Premier League is an association of its 20 member clubs. If the Premier League took on some kind of collective liability, therefore, it would be the clubs together picking up the tab if sued for £100 million. Each club must satisfy itself on expert medical advice. We can’t just say, ‘Oh, we will go along with what someone tells us’. It would not be adequate defence if proceedings were brought against a club. It is obviously one of the considerations before agreeing to resume the season.”
Curiously, it emerged this week that Premier League players and staff will be presented with a form, outlining the protocols for this period, that will help protect them against coronavirus. Yet several players fear the form may amount to a waiver or legal disclaimer that clubs could use to avoid future liability. The Premier League insist signing the form removes no rights while a sports lawyer pointed out that personal injury and death cannot be exempted in any case. Yet more than one lawyer contacted by The Athleticsaid they would advise players not to put pen to paper, as it may be perceived as tacit approval of the working conditions in any future tribunal.
As such, we should expect tension between players and clubs in the coming weeks. Clubs are coming to accept that players with underlying conditions such as asthma, or who have vulnerable household relatives, may simply be unavailable for the final weeks of the season. Aston Villa boss Dean Smith admitted as much about two unnamed players in his squad in an interview with Sky Sports earlier this week.
Yet there are still fears players will be made to feel uncomfortable. One lawyer working in tandem with a football agency said: “Clubs must not take any chances or put any pressure on players who have an underlying condition. If you have an asthmatic player and the club don’t remove him, it would be a breach of duty. They have employment contracts and there is implied duty of health and safety. That’s where there will be issues. Some of these players will play on and some will not. I am speaking to players who are just saying, ‘I don’t want to get this thing’ and they will refuse to come back.
“Clubs are unlikely to force players to play as that is awful from a PR point of view but there is a clear argument they should not be paid full salaries if they decline to play. Then we worry that players who should not play for health reasons may do so because they are in and out of team and feel they have to prove something. These are usual dressing room issues amplified. If a manager calls a player and says, ‘OK son, you are one of five and six that I may keep or let go. If I don’t see something from you in the next few weeks, you’re probably out’. Those people will feel they have to play. Players and clubs do not get on as hunky-dory as people think.
“In the worst-case scenario, everybody would find that out once and for all.”
Brilliant statement.
the problem is international broadcasters, who will go and get their money back
The Premier League has ruined the essence of what the English game should be all about.