Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, the third man said:

i wont be getting tested every 2 days, my first test is this weekend, if they arrive, don't know when the next test will be but it wont be in two days, and wont be every two days after that

 

but then footballers earn more money and sport is far more important than key workers, obviously

What are you blubbering about now?

 

Read the context of the my post and the one I was replying to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Millions of people are going to work. Bus drivers, train drivers, people who work in garden centres, delivery drivers - the world is starting to get going again. And the rest of us will have to assess risks as other firms go back and schools start to return. 

 

I’m torn with all this because I don’t think English football is uniquely evil. Of course money matters to them. Everyone of you in a job works for organisations in which money matters. The Bundesliga is founded on more solid principles than virtually every other league in Europe. They start today. 

 

And for whatever reason the clubs generally seem to have decided that having played 3/4 of the season voiding isn’t fair. There is no perfect way.

 

Again it’s something I’m in two minds about - I can see the merit in voiding the season, I’m 51:49 for PPG, what swings it for me is some of the petty bitterness that crops up on here about hating other fans and other teams in the midst of noble sentiments about fairness and saving lives. 

 

 

Just out of curiosity. What's not fair about voiding? (I know you're saying it's the club's that think it's not fair, not you) but what's your opinion?

Edited by deaks1984
Poorly worded
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, deaks1984 said:

Just out of curiosity. What's not fair about voiding? (I know you're saying it's the club's that think it's not fair, not you) but what's your opinion?

 

I guess because they’ve played so many games - it’s not like WW2 where they’d only played 3. I can see merit in every version of sorting the season - playing to a conclusion probably less than any other to be honest.

 

I just think it’s a nightmare decision for everyone - not just football. It looks like my industry is about to start going back - a long protocol document was sent out yesterday from one of the firms I work for.

 

Most of the non-playing staff at football, given the pressures on the PL, will probably be safer than the rest of us when we go back to normal work. Whether it’s safe to actually play of course is another matter. 

 

I’m just not in the football is uniquely evil, I’m done with it camp. I’m actually looking forward to watching Dortmund later - partly out of curiosity. I dislike a lot about modern football but I can also see what a horrendous decision they have to make. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Talk of playing games but with no relegation is ridiculous.  There’d be quite a few games with nothing to play for between clubs like Villa and norwich. So we’d put 200 people at risk of catching the virus for no reason. Plus imagine if a player got injured in one of those games. 
Though the other issue is why would teams bother trying if they have nothing to play for? I can’t see Norwich putting up a fight against Chelsea by risking injury, especially with players who contracts are up soon. 

If they play matches then there simply has to be relegation. otherwise just promote the top two sides in each league or void the seasons completely.   

Edited by Owls-Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

I guess because they’ve played so many games - it’s not like WW2 where they’d only played 3. I can see merit in every version of sorting the season - playing to a conclusion probably less than any other to be honest.

 

I just think it’s a nightmare decision for everyone - not just football. It looks like my industry is about to start going back - a long protocol document was sent out yesterday from one of the firms I work for.

 

Most of the non-playing staff at football, given the pressures on the PL, will probably be safer than the rest of us when we go back to normal work. Whether it’s safe to actually play of course is another matter. 

 

I’m just not in the football is uniquely evil, I’m done with it camp. I’m actually looking forward to watching Dortmund later - partly out of curiosity. I dislike a lot about modern football but I can also see what a horrendous decision they have to make. 

Fair do's. But these clubs who think it's not fair. Would they still feel it wasn't fair if they played behind closed doors but one of their star assets contracted covid from another player and passed away from it. 

The family of the player would then surely file some kind of law suit against the club, which would probably in turn be filed against the league. 

Everyone loses out with legal bills and compensation, club also hit with asset loss and more importantly a life gets lost.

I mean this isn't out of the realms of possibility. Beckham, Scholes and Lampard all had asthma and would all probably command around £100m in today's money at their peaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, deaks1984 said:

Fair do's. But these clubs who think it's not fair. Would they still feel it wasn't fair if they played behind closed doors but one of their star assets contracted covid from another player and passed away from it. 

The family of the player would then surely file some kind of law suit against the club, which would probably in turn be filed against the league. 

Everyone loses out with legal bills and compensation, club also hit with asset loss and more importantly a life gets lost.

I mean this isn't out of the realms of possibility. Beckham, Scholes and Lampard all had asthma and would all probably command around £100m in today's money at their peaks.

I think I said playing on was the least good alternative. I suppose assessing  underlying conditions is part of the process of coming back.

 

I’d probably do what the French, League Two and, more than likely, the Belgians have done and just call it as it is now, but I don’t think it’s a straightforward decision. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

What are you blubbering about now?

 

Read the context of the my post and the one I was replying to.

Blubbering.....

 

The individual concerned is probably a key work doing a key service for the public. Most likely concerned about the welfare and safety of their family. Their point is why do footballers get tested twice a week and they dont? Why cant those resources be used for testing key workers instead of for satisfying some fat cats pocket. Thats my point and probably this persons as well. Are you providing key services for people at this time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

What are you blubbering about now?

 

Read the context of the my post and the one I was replying to.

You said tests are available for key workers so we can test footballers every two days

 

until care staff can have the same treatment then footballers shouldn't get it either

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

I think I said playing on was the least good alternative. I suppose assessing  underlying conditions is part of the process of coming back.

 

I’d probably do what the French, League Two and, more than likely, the Belgians have done and just call it as it is now, but I don’t think it’s a straightforward decision. 

 

I get you. I'm sure everyone has their own opinions on it. And most will think any of the options could be unfair.

It's just in my honest opinion that the season can't be resolved safely Infront of spectators, so behind closed doors isn't "fair". Imagine if this was last season and we'd played United away Infront of a packed Bramall Lane, but had to play the reverse behind closed doors?

 

PPG not fair again. What if an upcoming run of fixtures were the best chance of points for a relegation fight or promotion battle? Eg All top teams have been played against home and away and the remaining fixtures had been identified as the easy points. Think it was Bowyer who was saying they'd only dropped in to bottom 3 for first the this season in their last match and they really fancied their chance of getting back out in the next match.

 

I really can't see anything being classed as fair other than to completely void and write off the season. Yes clubs like Leeds might feel aggrieved but this way all teams are treated exactly the same.

 

But that's just my opinion, counts for nowt :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dronfield_SWFC said:

We need to complete the season in case we get a 10 point deduction

 

As it stands with points per game if we got a 10 point deduction we would be relegated

 


If we complete the season & our poor run of form continued a 6 point deduction would see us relegated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, deaks1984 said:

I really can't see anything being classed as fair other than to completely void and write off the season. Yes clubs like Leeds might feel aggrieved but this way all teams are treated exactly the same.

 

But they aren't really are they? The teams at the bottom get away with 3/4 of the season when they were rubbish and the teams at the top don't get the benefit of having played well. I take your point to some extent but it's wrong to say you aren't penalising some teams and giving direct benefit to others.  It's a huge nod in the direction of the rubbish teams. Which is the fairest way to go is a judgement call but it's not black and white. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

But they aren't really are they? The teams at the bottom get away with 3/4 of the season when they were rubbish and the teams at the top don't get the benefit of having played well. I take your point to some extent but it's wrong to say you aren't penalising some teams and giving direct benefit to others.  It's a huge nod in the direction of the rubbish teams. Which is the fairest way to go is a judgement call but it's not black and white. 

Problem is they might have been rubbish for 3/4 of a season but who's to say they wouldn't have hit a good run of form? All the bottom 3 could still mathematically stay up.

And who's to say that Leeds wouldn't have lost every remaining fixture?

No one knows, that's the whole point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We really need the season to finish. We are screwed IF it finishes on PPG and we get anything over 10 points deduction from EFL! 

Edited by SouthStand75
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, deaks1984 said:

Problem is they might have been rubbish for 3/4 of a season but who's to say they wouldn't have hit a good run of form? All the bottom 3 could still mathematically stay up.

And who's to say that Leeds wouldn't have lost every remaining fixture?

No one knows, that's the whole point.

But that doesn't mean it's treating teams all the same by voiding the season. It plainly isn't. If voiding it means we treat all teams the same then in a sense playing on treats them all the same - because they all have to play on.  You are definitely penalising some teams by writing the season off. I think it's fine to argue it's the best thing to do - I can see the merits in it - but it isn't indisputably "fair". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we restart the season in the Championship or the Prem then it will be 100% with promotion and relegation as normal. If a team knows they cant get promoted or into Europe as they are say 20 points away, but now relegation is off the table aswell then what is the point in them risking there families lives and playing. They will just all refuse to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@rickygoo

 

By definition it is treating all teams the same.

You've all played games. They all count for nothing. Start again.

It's just hard feelings for the teams that had done well or lucky feeling for those who were in a dog fight.

 

Leeds cannot categorically say they would get promoted. Just as teams at the bottom would argue they might not have been relegated.

 

Couple of examples

 

In February of 1998 some bookmakers were paying out on all bets for United to win the title, with Sir Alex Ferguson’s men 11 points clear of Arsenal at the top of the table.

By March that gap had extended to 12 points, though the Gunners did have three games in hand and also had to visit Old Trafford.

Arsenal put together a run of 10 consecutive victories, including a 1-0 win at Old Trafford, to snatch the title from the grasps of the Red Devils by a solitary point.

 

 

In 95/96 With 15 matches remaining, Kevin Keegan’s entertainers led Manchester United by 17 points as their cavalier approach appeared set to be rewarded with the championship.

Between February 21 and April 8, Newcastle lost five of their eight Premier League fixtures, including a 1-0 defeat to a United side inspired by the return of Eric Cantona.This would be the season which cemented Fergie’s status as a master of mind games.

 

 

 

So had this happened in 1998 Manchester United would have been crowned champions, when actually they fell at the final hurdle and Arsenal were crowned.

 

Or in 1996 Newcastle would have been gifted a title yet had the season finished the reality would have been Manchester United won the league.

 

 

Edited by deaks1984
forgot to quote
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LittleG
17 minutes ago, SouthStand75 said:

We really need the season to finish. We are screwed IF it finishes on PPG and we get anything over 10 points deduction from EFL! 

The way our form has been since Christmas, we are more screwed if we have to finish the season!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...