Covid & Football

[SlowDownDerek]

Wasn't my suggestion. It is a suggestion that has been seriously put forward that if football can't restart till next March, it would be better to pick up from now rather than go back to the beginning. It's not something that we need to think about till then; all I would say is that as it is certainly a possibility that we can't restart till March, it's too early now to cancel everything; we might as well keep the option open and be prepared to adjust the rules accordingly.

Cant argue with that. Having said that they'd presumably need some certainty over income and expenditure during that time.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Correction: Arguments about sporting integrity are from clubs that wants the season to be finished in the way it was started because otherwise the end result is a corrupted one. Name me another season when the rules and conditions were dramatically changed partway through?

Obviously we would all like Coronavirus to have never happened and to be approaching the last match of the season this Sunday. Well, that's the perfect option, but it's also not an option. So there are two possibilities - either we make the best of it and carry on, or we give up; and we all agree there is a dividing line where it becomes impossible to get a fair outcome.

The difference is where we draw the line. The verdict of yourselves, Brighton, West Ham and Watford (not sure about Norwich) is that if the relegation threatened teams all have to play 38 games of football, 14 at home, 15 away, and 9 on neutral grounds, then that is so far away from the concept of league football as to be corrupted or farcical and it can't be taken seriously; and it's better to have no football at all than to have a game where you have to play on a different bit of grass from normal. (Brighton havce gone so far as to say that having the pitch a yard wider or narrower or having to change in a different dressing room makes a relevant difference.)

Other people reckon that the game is quite important, and let's face it the money is quite important too, and that the competitive advantage that all the bottom 6 are losing is not as important as you think it is.

What we're talking about is that all the bottom six have 4 away games left to play, and all but Villa have 5 home games left to play (they have 6). It's the same for you all. It's not even as if you're losing more home games than the others - all the bottom six (bar Villa, who are slightly worse off than the other five) are equally affected. Which is fair.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Cant argue with that. Having said that they'd presumably need some certainty over income and expenditure during that time.

They'd have to cut player wages.

In principle, it's pretty easy. Baseball players, for example, have agreed an across-the-board cut in wages in accordance with the percentage of the season that is lost. So have Australian rugby league players. All PL footballers have to do is agree that if say 30% of TV income goes by the board, then they will take a 30% cut in wages. Let the clubs carry the whole burden of the lost gate money, perhaps. In theory, that should be an easy negotiation.

But I'm sure that Gordon Taylor is fully supportive of the idea that it's better for clubs to go bust than for players to not get paid, so it won't be agreed.

 

[Sorry Roger]

“All PL footballers have to do is agree that if say 30% of TV income goes by the board, then they will take a 30% cut in wages. Let the clubs carry the whole burden of the lost gate money, perhaps.”

???

 

[SlowDownDerek]

They'd have to cut player wages.

In principle, it's pretty easy. Baseball players, for example, have agreed an across-the-board cut in wages in accordance with the percentage of the season that is lost. So have Australian rugby league players. All PL footballers have to do is agree that if say 30% of TV income goes by the board, then they will take a 30% cut in wages. Let the clubs carry the whole burden of the lost gate money, perhaps. In theory, that should be an easy negotiation.

But I'm sure that Gordon Taylor is fully supportive of the idea that it's better for clubs to go bust than for players to not get paid, so it won't be agreed.

There's no way I would agree to a pay cut unless a reciprocal pay cut was agreed by all other stakeholders. Owners, directors, football TV executives, presenters, every other high earner who makes their money from the game.

 

[Silent AFCB]

What we're talking about is that all the bottom six have 4 away games left to play, and all but Villa have 5 home games left to play (they have 6). It's the same for you all. It's not even as if you're losing more home games than the others - all the bottom six (bar Villa, who are slightly worse off than the other five) are equally affected. Which is fair.

I can assure you, you're as bias as us in that opinion. If roles were reversed, as would our attitudes properly, though I still think I'd be pro-cancel as it's utterly ridiculous to consider playing the season out in June.

 

[kirsikka]

The difference is where we draw the line. The verdict of yourselves, Brighton, West Ham and Watford (not sure about Norwich) is that if the relegation threatened teams all have to play 38 games of football, 14 at home, 15 away, and 9 on neutral grounds, then that is so far away from the concept of league football as to be corrupted or farcical and it can't be taken seriously; and it's better to have no football at all than to have a game where you have to play on a different bit of grass from normal. (Brighton havce gone so far as to say that having the pitch a yard wider or narrower or having to change in a different dressing room makes a relevant difference.)

Yet reports are at least eight teams are against the neutral venues concept. The PR blitz from the PL authorities trying to paint the bottom six as the bad guys who are stopping it all happening is a pretty transparent attempt to try and put pressure on them to cave in. If it was only the bottom six objecting then the vote would get through with the other 14. No problem. Clearly that isn't the case.

Aside from that, a league is about all the teams playing each other home and away. That's the most basic rule of the whole concept. If you can't complete that then how can you call it a league campaign?

You've also conveniently missed out the bit about extra subs being allowed. About no fans at the games. About clubs potentially being allowed to add to their 25 man squads. These are huge changes to the competition partway through.

Other people reckon that the game is quite important, and let's face it the money is quite important too, and that the competitive advantage that all the bottom 6 are losing is not as important as you think it is.

Your 'other people' there is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. As is clear to everyone, only fourteen clubs are needed to get any changes through so if it's only the bottom six complaining you have nothing to worry about. Obviously that isn't the case but you've fallen into the media/PL created trap of trying to create an easy to blame group of bad guys. Don't be so naive. Unless, of course, you're being deliberately disingenuous.

What we're talking about is that all the bottom six have 4 away games left to play, and all but Villa have 5 home games left to play (they have 6). It's the same for you all. It's not even as if you're losing more home games than the others - all the bottom six (bar Villa, who are slightly worse off than the other five) are equally affected. Which is fair.

Again, you've tried to make it about the bottom six when it patently isn't and so that completely invalidates the rest of what you say. However, addressing the point anyway, saying that something is equally unfair to a whole group doesn't then make it fair or valid.

Any thoughts on extra subs? Do we get to replay that last 10 minutes against Brighton from earlier in the season when we had to finish with 10 men because our three subs had been used and we picked up another injury? Otherwise how is that even remotely fair?

Where do you stand on adding to the 25 man squads? The squads for the rest of the season were final in January, something that hit us hard when we picked up CB after CB injury. To the point where, when playing Liverpool and leading, we had to bring on our sixth choice CB. A player who then gave away a goal shortly afterwards. If we'd been allowed to sign someone to cover those injuries that could all have played out differently. However, Man Utd look set to lose Odion Ighalo back to China so there's a good chance the rules will be changed to accommodate them bringing someone else in. How is that even remotely fair?

No fans at the games? Sure, the players skill level is off the chart in comparison but the real difference between a Sunday league game and a pro is the fans and the atmosphere they bring. Never more so than when something is on the line. You can feel the energy crackling in the air as you walk up to the stadium. Never mind how it bounces around when you actually get inside and the game kicks off. That transfers to the players and makes the end of the season so unpredictable in terms of results. That's what makes professional football what it is. Otherwise it's like a preseason friendly.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Yet reports are at least eight teams are against the neutral venues concept. The PR blitz from the PL authorities trying to paint the bottom six as the bad guys who are stopping it all happening is a pretty transparent attempt to try and put pressure on them to cave in. If it was only the bottom six objecting then the vote would get through with the other 14. No problem. Clearly that isn't the case.

Aside from that, a league is about all the teams playing each other home and away. That's the most basic rule of the whole concept. If you can't complete that then how can you call it a league campaign?

You've also conveniently missed out the bit about extra subs being allowed. About no fans at the games. About clubs potentially being allowed to add to their 25 man squads. These are huge changes to the competition partway through.



Your 'other people' there is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. As is clear to everyone, only fourteen clubs are needed to get any changes through so if it's only the bottom six complaining you have nothing to worry about. Obviously that isn't the case but you've fallen into the media/PL created trap of trying to create an easy to blame group of bad guys. Don't be so naive. Unless, of course, you're being deliberately disingenuous.



Again, you've tried to make it about the bottom six when it patently isn't and so that completely invalidates the rest of what you say. However, addressing the point anyway, saying that something is equally unfair to a whole group doesn't then make it fair or valid.

Any thoughts on extra subs? Do we get to replay that last 10 minutes against Brighton from earlier in the season when we had to finish with 10 men because our three subs had been used and we picked up another injury? Otherwise how is that even remotely fair?

Where do you stand on adding to the 25 man squads? The squads for the rest of the season were final in January, something that hit us hard when we picked up CB after CB injury. To the point where, when playing Liverpool and leading, we had to bring on our sixth choice CB. A player who then gave away a goal shortly afterwards. If we'd been allowed to sign someone to cover those injuries that could all have played out differently. However, Man Utd look set to lose Odion Ighalo back to China so there's a good chance the rules will be changed to accommodate them bringing someone else in. How is that even remotely fair?

No fans at the games? Sure, the players skill level is off the chart in comparison but the real difference between a Sunday league game and a pro is the fans and the atmosphere they bring. Never more so than when something is on the line. You can feel the energy crackling in the air as you walk up to the stadium. Never mind how it bounces around when you actually get inside and the game kicks off. That transfers to the players and makes the end of the season so unpredictable in terms of results. That's what makes professional football what it is. Otherwise it's like a preseason friendly.

The other two are rumoured to be Arsenal and Spurs, both of whom apparently think that cancelling the season will make their European place worth having. I have my doubts.

Fans not allowed in games being a reason for cancelling? You're getting extreme now. We can't have fans in games, full stop. Nothing to do about it except carry on. If you can explain how you missing five home games and Brighton missing five home gives gives either of you a competitive advantage, then go ahead. Otherwise, it's the same for both sides.

Subs? Stupid idea IMO. But if you can explain how you having to play 29 games with 3 subs and 9 with 5 subs while Brighton play 29 with 3 subs and 9 with 5 subs, then go ahead. Otherwise, it;s the same for both sides.

There's a connection. It's the same for both sides. You might as well argue that a game in December was played in snow while a game in June is played in sunshine. It's the same for both sides. The league is to be played, as far as possible, under conditions which are the same for both sides. If you were arguing that other teams had 5 subs all season long and Bournemouth didn't, then you would have a good point. But not when it's the same for both sides.

Coronavirus has happened. The world is not the same. We have to adapt.

 

[Ken Baileys Ghost]

Coronavirus has happened. The world is not the same. We have to adapt.

Agreed.

The best way would be for every single person with an interest, financial or otherwise, in football to adapt to the fact that football will not be happening this side of Christmas.

Ir that fact was faced everybody could get on with their lives.

 

[Hillviewred]

Doesn't playing at a neutral venue suit the team with a better away than home record, more,than a team with a better home than away record.

 

[kirsikka]

The other two are rumoured to be Arsenal and Spurs, both of whom apparently think that cancelling the season will make their European place worth having. I have my doubts.

So it isn't just about the bottom six then, as you previously painted. This whole media campaign against those clubs, trying to paint them as the 'Obstructing Six' or whatever the name they came up with was, is just the usual pressure the weakest until we get what we want methodology.

The other two clubs clearly have issues with it. Even if they can be talked around, it's a clear indication that this isn't just about teams wanting to avoid relegation. There is a genuine issue there. Otherwise it would sail through 14-6.
[/QUOTE]

Fans not allowed in games being a reason for cancelling? You're getting extreme now. We can't have fans in games, full stop. Nothing to do about it except carry on.

Not extreme at all. If we can't have the fans in the stadium then we can't finish the season on the same terms the rest of the season was played.

If you can explain how you missing five home games and Brighton missing five home gives gives either of you a competitive advantage, then go ahead. Otherwise, it's the same for both sides.

Why have home and away at all then? If there's never any advantage then have a season of 19 games at neutral venues. You could fit two seasons in per year and crown two PL champions per year. Sky would love it.

Playing at home is a clear competitive advantage. Some clubs will use it better than others but you have to have the opportunity to do so. Taking it away for a subset of fixtures is denying the opportunity of having that advantage for those games. As I previously said, making something equally unfair for everyone doesn't then make it fair.

Subs? Stupid idea IMO. But if you can explain how you having to play 29 games with 3 subs and 9 with 5 subs while Brighton play 29 with 3 subs and 9 with 5 subs, then go ahead. Otherwise, it's the same for both sides.

Easy. We have a previously referenced game where we needed five subs but didn't have them. If one of our opponents uses five subs in one of the remaining games then the change in the rules is a demonstrable disadvantage against us from the change. Saying it's the same for all in the remaining games isn't the same as saying it's the same for all across the season because by changing it partway through it isn't.

There's a connection. It's the same for both sides. You might as well argue that a game in December was played in snow while a game in June is played in sunshine. It's the same for both sides. The league is to be played, as far as possible, under conditions which are the same for both sides.

Only it isn't because some teams would have played those sides away from home in front of fans and will now be playing them at a neutral venue without fans and under different match rules. So it isn't the same.

You can't control the weather - I haven't seen any objections to the warmer weather of June - but you can control the other aspects. If they have to change then you can't call it the same competition.

If you were arguing that other teams had 5 subs all season long and Bournemouth didn't, then you would have a good point. But not when it's the same for both sides.

Not at all. If we're forced to finish a game with ten men in December due to injuries and only three subs but, in the same league campaign, another team can bring on a fourth sub that's an unfair advantage due to a change of rules within the same campaign.

Name me another campaign when the rules were changed partway through the season. They don't do that, even when they've made a stinker of a rule change, so the the results within that discreet campaign are fair.

Coronavirus has happened. The world is not the same. We have to adapt.

We do, which is why we should be working out a whole set of rules and ways to make changes that everyone can agree and sign up to before next season starts instead of trying to create a Frankenstein's monster of a finish to this campaign which was never agreed to when the competition started.

 

[Brian Hutchings]

Christ.. there is more sh*t being talked on here than by the bods at the daily Coro briefings !
The geezer from Burnley is a Minty Tribute Act....or its Him!

The Season is Over ! Kaput!

 

[tedisking]

More sh*t being talked on here.......priceless

 

[Silent AFCB]

If you can explain how you missing five home games and Brighton missing five home gives gives either of you a competitive advantage, then go ahead. Otherwise, it's the same for both sides.

Brighton have averaged 1.29 points per home game.
Norwich have averaged 1.07 per home game.

Why would Brighton want to give that up over a competitor?

Burnley have averaged 1.53 home points and 1.14 away points. Why would anyone left still to play you at home want to give up the massive advantage of playing you in their own ground?

 

[Silent AFCB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1259816744916520962

Mings piping up a lot today

 

[Brian Hutchings]

The amount of Money Being Lost..is the most exciting thing to happen in my 59 years of following football.

Bournemouth and Saints... Dorset or Hampshire League next. Derby!

Burnley, Manu ,Liverpool.....Lancs Combination.

Brighton ...Sussex League.

Yahoo.. bring the f√cker On !

 

[leaprobe]

The amount of Money Being Lost..is the most exciting thing to happen in my 59 years of following football.

Bournemouth and Saints... Dorset or Hampshire League next. Derby!

Burnley, Manu ,Liverpool.....Lancs Combination.

Brighton ...Sussex League.

Yahoo.. bring the f√cker On !

Brian,
I think that a bit of wishful thinking but I like your sentiment.

 

[Brian Hutchings]

More sh*t being talked on here.......priceless

Priceless Fun !

 

[dsr-burnley]

Brighton have averaged 1.29 points per home game.
Norwich have averaged 1.07 per home game.

Why would Brighton want to give that up over a competitor?

Burnley have averaged 1.53 home points and 1.14 away points. Why would anyone left still to play you at home want to give up the massive advantage of playing you in their own ground?

Yes, I know that losing home advantage is a disadvantage to the home team. But have you considered where that advantage goes to? It's the away team. If Brighton lose out by 5 home games and gain by 4 non-away games, then I can't see why they are so very different from Bournemouth losing out by 5 home games and gaining by 4 non-away games. It seems to me to be the very definition of same for both sides.

I don't get your Brighton-Norwich example, incidentally. Brighton have got more points than Norwich at home and they have more points than Norwich away and they have got more points than Norwich in total. I think that's because they're a better side, not because they play at the Amex and Norwich play at Carrow Road.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You can't control the weather - I haven't seen any objections to the warmer weather of June - but you can control the other aspects. If they have to change then you can't call it the same competition.

Name me another campaign when the rules were changed partway through the season. They don't do that, even when they've made a stinker of a rule change, so the the results within that discreet campaign are fair.

Don't you think that cornavirus has proved that we can't control home and away scheduling?

As for rules changing part way through, December 2013 was when Hawkeye was introduced. Neither Burnley nor Bournemouth were Premier League at the time, but no doubt you can point me at other reports of screams of protests and demands that the league should be considered unfair?