- Jul 25, 2005
- 26,626
- 34,700
That seems fair allow teams to gain points based on shorter matches, neutral venues, etc.
Stop fucking about and void it already. May be unprecedented but so is a pandemic of this size in the modern era
There really are so many issues it’s a minefield. Apart from the massive liability clubs may face if a player were to die. There’s still so much they don’t know about this disease, how a player may react if incubating the disease and then asked to physically push his body to the limits. The susceptibility of BAME players that nobody yet understands. As far as I’m aware the antigen swap tests aren’t instant they take a couple of days. You could test fine 2 days before a game and pick it up in next 48 hours. As said it’s an absolute minefield. Maybe because this was likened for flu from the early days and only the old susceptible I think people still are underplaying this disease. If it had a name like “Ebola” from the get go I think people would be much more scared of it. If it had been called Covid19 from the start and a respiratory disease with no mention of flu or old people I think there would be much more fear.
If it isn't safe to play 90 minutes, it isn't safe to play at all....it's as simple as that!So BBC are reporting that reducing the minutes in a game is an option. This is the first actual suggestion that challenges the integrity of the game. Football is 90 minutes and more importantly this season has been played for 90 minutes per game so far.
So BBC are reporting that reducing the minutes in a game is an option. This is the first actual suggestion that challenges the integrity of the game. Football is 90 minutes and more importantly this season has been played for 90 minutes per game so far.
Big Sam has often been introduced as ex England manager when he has guested on talksport. Technically true but that's got to be even funnier.Arsenal LEGEND Park Chu-young (now with FC Seoul). Jokers. He played one game for them.
So BBC are reporting that reducing the minutes in a game is an option. This is the first actual suggestion that challenges the integrity of the game. Football is 90 minutes and more importantly this season has been played for 90 minutes per game so far.
So BBC are reporting that reducing the minutes in a game is an option. This is the first actual suggestion that challenges the integrity of the game. Football is 90 minutes and more importantly this season has been played for 90 minutes per game so far.
Regardless, it's a stupid suggestion for someone to make.Nothing like reporting distortedly, and then people losing their shit over it.
All that has happened is Gordon Taylor said that it is an option that he would like to be considered, to which the Premier League responded saying, that option is not on the table
Ive been thinking about this and listening to a lot of what is out there. I see both sides and not really missing football at all.
The same conditions that we are experiencing now will also be experienced if a new season were to start, so are we saying that we also abolish next season if things are the way they are now? or because it all starts at a level playing field next season eg behind closed doors, neutral venues etc then we are happy with it to go ahead next season?
Football at some point has to return otherwise youll have football clubs not surviving this. Football just needs to adapt... it is no different than people being on a packed tube carriage going to work...
Steve Parish is right about people looking at this too short term, behind closed doors is not going to just be considered for closing out this season, chances are it will be half of next season as well.
So yes, it's shit. Yes, clubs who played some fixtures in their home ground rather than behind closed doors have a slight advantage. But like Parish said... It's not about choosing the best option, it's about choosing the least worse one.
I agree with you that football needs to adapt and it's sad for those football clubs - many in the lower leagues - that won't survive this. However I don't have much sympathy for some premiership clubs who have been living beyond their means for many years. There aren't many other industries where the wage to turnover ratio is so extreme.
Retail: 10 to 20 % of gross sales revenue goes to staff salaries.
Hospitality: 30 %
Restaurants: 30 %
Whereas some premiership football clubs pay 60% to 78% of their revenue to the players. It's completely unsustainable. This virus crisis is going to be massive shock to the football ecosystem and I genuinely have sympathy for the small clubs and employees that will suffer (in the same way I have sympathy for people in other recreational and hospitality sectors) but the football bubble was going to burst eventually.
Football will return but it needs to be both safe and sustainable.
You are comparing apples with oranges though.
In all the industries you have quoted, they are buying and selling a product, of course the wages will be a lower % of turnover, as they have the cost of the goods, food or drink in their cost base.
Compare it to some other "service and entertainment" industries.
Yes I agree those other industries will naturally be lower but my point was that the football ratio is too extreme. Everton spending 78% of their revenue on player wages for example is irresponsible IMO.
Not sure if you have seen this on the BBC website about the breakdown of income/wages
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52529679
Not had a proper look yet so not sure how good it is yet.
FA are going to need to hand a lot of cash out to lower leagues to keep them going. They don't have the advantage of the big TV money the PL gets and to a lesser extent championship.
Can still see a lot of club's folding but can't think of any other way for them to survive just now.