Latest Plans on Finishing The Season

[striker]

2 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

Let’s be honest the only reason football will be resumed is because of money. That’s all that matters, not people’s safety. 

Of course it is I agree, I'm sure no club wants to put their employees in harms way. 

 

If Sky/BT come out and say their will be no financial penalty, the season would be cancelled immediately.

[Dick_Turpin]

2 minutes ago, striker said:

Of course it is I agree, I'm sure no club wants to put their employees in harms way. 

 

If Sky/BT come out and say their will be no financial penalty, the season would be cancelled immediately.

 

It may be about overseas broadcasting money too. 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/10/project-restart-the-four-stances-dividing-premier-league-clubs

 

But money does matter. I have no idea how much of a threat these delays are to clubs' existence. Some may go bang if there are no games played until there's a vaccine. If the Government says they are safe to play behind closed doors and the alternative is to cease to exist or face huge problems it's pretty obvious what most businesses of any sort would do. That's why the Bundesliga is trying to come back - even that model league we all aspire to be like is looking to the cash. Sadly, it's a position many of us are likely to face pretty soon as they try to kick start the economy and the various business support schemes end.  

[soldierboyblue]

11 minutes ago, striker said:

Of course it is I agree, I'm sure no club wants to put their employees in harms way. 

 

If Sky/BT come out and say their will be no financial penalty, the season would be cancelled immediately.

Sky already have said this weeks ago

[BIG D]

1 hour ago, sherlyegg said:

I think if no agreement can be made the prem will relegate the bottom 3 as they stand now.

It will be up to the efl who they send up.

 

Much more fun watching em squabble than the boring don't lose football some of em play.

 

 

Absolutely no chance of anyone being relegated without another ball being kicked.

[sherlyegg]

44 minutes ago, the third man said:

The bottom three will then sue, quite simple, no way will they put up with losing all that money without a fight.

Can't see them winning, especially if they were given the opportunity to play but refused.

Given the extra ordinary cirumstances involved.

 

Their fight will be with the players if some refuse to play and the club then refuses to pay them, as one unnamed chairman has said he will do.

[Tommy Crawshaw]

34 minutes ago, striker said:

If Sky/BT come out and say their will be no financial penalty, the season would be cancelled immediately.

 

24 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

It may be about overseas broadcasting money too. 

 

As just mentioned it was reported somewhere Sky have said they won't be asking for a refund for this season. I don't know about BT 

 

However the Sky and BT monies account for about 50% of the PL's income from TV. The other 50% comes from foreign broadcasters.

 

[oldishowl]

A good question is whether there is any feasible solution which will not lead to legal challenges.

 

As we have seen with our own situation legal proceedings take time and  the timeline will undoubtedly make it very difficult to put leagues and fixtures together for next season .

They will also leave some clubs in a position of not knowing which league they need to build a squad for.

 

There are enough challenges for next season without creating more.

[Guest Mcguigan]

3 hours ago, sherlyegg said:

Decide it on penalties, 5 players with one reserve in each team.

Only 7 people can travel per team. 6 players and the manager.

Teams can complete 2 fixtures per day if practical.

Not fair!

True, but nothings fair at the mo

 

Jordan Rhodes having nightmarish flashbacks now.

[Guest wilyfox]

I don't understand why they're stalling for time. They've had 2 months to mull over options. Things haven't changed - and nor will they in 1 month or 3. Either there's a resolve to play on behind closed doors accepting risk involved, or not. There's no scenario the players can be kept completely safe and resume. How they feel about that is most important. 

[shez owl]

I’m must be missing something, If there’s a 2m social distance rule in place in all workplaces on 1st June why is football different? In Employment law not sure how this will play out.

I can see why footballers see themselves as guinea pigs.

[Dick_Turpin]

8 minutes ago, shez owl said:

I’m must be missing something, If there’s a 2m social distance rule in place in all workplaces on 1st June why is football different? In Employment law not sure how this will play out.

I can see why footballers see themselves as guinea pigs.

 

The general guidance is more vague than that. According to the government guidance

 

Workplaces need to avoid crowding and minimise opportunities for the virus to spread by maintaining a distance of at least 2 metres (3 steps) between individuals wherever possible. 

 

• where it is not possible to remain 2 metres apart, staff should work side by side, or facing away from each other, rather than face to face if possible
• where face-to-face contact is essential, this should be kept to 15 minutes or less wherever possible

 

There's a lot of "possible" involved for the general rules. In my industry it's essentially the insurers that are a major block to going back to work not just the Government guidelines. 

 

Given the physical effort involved sport should be another matter though and the Premier League will have their own version of all this presumably.

Edited May 11, 2020 by rickygoo

[the third man]

52 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

Can't see them winning, especially if they were given the opportunity to play but refused.

Given the extra ordinary cirumstances involved.

 

Their fight will be with the players if some refuse to play and the club then refuses to pay them, as one unnamed chairman has said he will do.

They don't have to win, the threat of legal action and the possible consequences would be enough, as this season cant be resolved until the court case

 

the players have the HSW act on their side. Employers have to provide a "Safe and Healthy Work Place" not sure if any employer could prove that at the moment

 

[Dick_Turpin]

11 minutes ago, the third man said:

They don't have to win, the threat of legal action and the possible consequences would be enough, as this season cant be resolved until the court case

 

the players have the HSW act on their side. Employers have to provide a "Safe and Healthy Work Place" not sure if any employer could prove that at the moment

 

Have there been any rumblings from the German players? The Bundesliga experiment is key to all this. There may be enough players who agree to play. 

[Hookowl]

15 minutes ago, the third man said:

They don't have to win, the threat of legal action and the possible consequences would be enough, as this season cant be resolved until the court case

 

the players have the HSW act on their side. Employers have to provide a "Safe and Healthy Work Place" not sure if any employer could prove that at the moment

 

This is from HSE guidance for amateur sports clubs, would presume it is similar for professional clubs.

 

Employers/self-employed/volunteer organisations with employees running sports clubs

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (‘the Act’) and the regulations made under it, apply to club organisers who are both employers and self employed. The law requires them to do what is reasonably practicable¹ to ensure peoples health and safety.

The Act sets out the general duties that employers have towards their employees whilst at work. The Act also requires employers and the self-employed to protect people other than those at work eg volunteer staff like coaches, club members, visiting teams and spectators. These people should be protected from risks to their health and safety arising out of, or in connection with, their club’s work activities.

[the third man]

2 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

This is from HSE guidance for amateur sports clubs, would presume it is similar for professional clubs.

 

Employers/self-employed/volunteer organisations with employees running sports clubs

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (‘the Act’) and the regulations made under it, apply to club organisers who are both employers and self employed. The law requires them to do what is reasonably practicable¹ to ensure peoples health and safety.

The Act sets out the general duties that employers have towards their employees whilst at work. The Act also requires employers and the self-employed to protect people other than those at work eg volunteer staff like coaches, club members, visiting teams and spectators. These people should be protected from risks to their health and safety arising out of, or in connection with, their club’s work activities.

Yes they have a duty of care to anyone on the premises, that  included everyone whether they are employed or not.

 

the club would be responsible for the TV crews as well, which could just be getting a copy of the Risk Assessment completed by Sky etc

[the third man]

9 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Have there been any rumblings from the German players? The Bundesliga experiment is key to all this. There may be enough players who agree to play. 

Not looked at that to be honest, but they haven't started yet, maybe this weekend will tell us, if they do actually play

[Hookowl]

1 minute ago, the third man said:

Yes they have a duty of care to anyone on the premises, that  included everyone whether they are employed or not.

 

the club would be responsible for the TV crews as well, which could just be getting a copy of the Risk Assessment completed by Sky etc

 

Can't wait to see a copy of the clubs RA's for the players, or would they put this onto the EPL/EFL to do.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, rickygoo said:

I reckon there's 5 categories

 

Teams in automatic promotion - Play on or PPG

Teams in play off or challenging - play on

Teams in relegation - void or play on

Teams just above relegation - void or PPG

Teams in middle - not bothered

 

Reports last week suggested clubs were anti a straight void because so much of the season and been played that it was unfair. They wanted another solution based on some sort of PPG - potentially weighted depending on balance of home and away games left - or even based on league position at halfway stage. It's all a movable feast though. 

 

Good summary that I reckon.

 

Points per game at this stage is unfair for a number of reasons for me. As you say, this may have to be weighted based on home and away games left but that is a potential minefield and even then so many other factors come into play.

 

At Christmas I though Man Utd would do well to secure top 8 but in the last couple of months of games they have looked like they could make top 4. We don't look like we could buy another win, many teams will have made moves in late January to improve their form and position which influences how they could look to improve their points per game with still 20-25% of matches to be played.Some teams will feel they have got more of their tougher fixtures out of the way which means their points per game may be lower than others who have potentially harder games left.  

 

Good luck trying to get everyone to agree on anything other than playing the remaining games - but then other factors come into play - contracts if the games go beyond July 1st, the impact of home advantage loss if games are played behind closed doors and even more so at neutral venues. 

The idea of having 5 subs allowed seems heavily weighted towards the bigger teams and having shorter games is not reflective of the competition that has been played to date.

[sherlyegg]

33 minutes ago, the third man said:

Employers have to provide a "Safe and Healthy Work Place" not sure if any employer could prove that at the moment

My understanding was they have to take reasonable precautions, it does not have to proven. Grey area I agree

[the third man]

5 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

My understanding was they have to take reasonable precautions, it does not have to proven. Grey area I agree

The problem is the government say you have to keep to 2m apart wherever possible, obviously it isn't possible

 

so the players can either volunteer to put themselves at risk, as most the key workers have been doing, or just refuse  to play