What's new

Premier League officially postponed until 17th of June

Colonel Dax

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2008
2,946
12,289
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.

Agreed. 7 weeks on from 1st symptoms I still have an occasional cough and am slightly out of breath after exerting myself. I was previously fit and healthy and was in the gym 4 days a week. My GP actually said I might have lung damage (whether temporary or permanent - who knows).

This virus is awful and the long term repercussions are still unknown. IMO it's seriously unwise to rush football back under these circumstances.
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
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.
If it isn't safe to play 90 minutes, it isn't safe to play at all....it's as simple as that!
 

tototoner

Staying Alert
Mar 21, 2004
29,387
34,059
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.

 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Mad notion. Can’t do that without changing all results from earlier in the season where there were goals, booking, etc after whatever the deemed cut off time is, and that in itself would be brainless.
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,351
38,294
Arsenal LEGEND Park Chu-young (now with FC Seoul). Jokers. He played one game for them.
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.
 

Mate

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2006
1,570
3,859
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.

This would be Ben Foster's dream come true
 

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
19,153
30,013
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...
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
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.

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
 

thekneaf

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2011
1,933
3,878
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
Regardless, it's a stupid suggestion for someone to make.
 

NickHSpurs

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2004
13,626
11,875
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.
 

Colonel Dax

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2008
2,946
12,289
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...

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 a 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. The entire model is unsustainable.
 
Last edited:

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
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.

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.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
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, and invariably rent.

Compare it to some other "service and entertainment" industries where physical reselling of goods is not prominent.
 

Colonel Dax

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2008
2,946
12,289
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.
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
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.
 

Colonel Dax

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2008
2,946
12,289
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.

An interesting read, thanks. Notable that both ourselves and Arsenal top the league for "Matchday income as % of total revenue" which means we might be adversely affected by no spectators at matches?

Also:

"The fans of Arsenal and Tottenham, both with 60,000-plus capacity stadia and significant corporate and football tourist matchday income, contribute over 40p in every £1 of wages."

On the other hand we were top of the profit league for last season, which could mitigate losses this and next season (although I don't know how much of that profit we spent on transfers since?).
 

Beni

Well-Known Member
Mar 3, 2004
5,431
6,131
There is no way you can complete this season that will suit everyone, and is only appropriate to null and void.

- Teams fighting for survival/promotion/European spots, will have played against competing teams around them away from home and now have a disadvantage of playing the reverse fixtures without their fans
- Again, teams that are yet to play at home against competing teams, may not even have the ability to play these games at their home ground and rather neutral ground with no fans.
- Injuries to players for remaining games have now increase risks due to players isolating and with symptoms, which was not the case for the 29 previous games.

The only way for every team to be on a level playing field with same conditions as eachother, is to start a new season early at neutral grounds behind closed doors. When restrictions are eased and lifted, then the allocations of fans able to attend the games should be shared equally to remain having a season that is neutral for each team from start to finish, and no advantages.

Clubs will know the conditions from start to end of the season, and have no grounds of claiming unfair advantages/disadvantages. Finishing this season is impossible to do, as if I was a club fighting promotion/relegation and remaining games were against teams that have already been played at away from home, and now home advantage has been taken away, it would certainly be a strong case legally.
 

NickHSpurs

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2004
13,626
11,875
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.

I think we all hope that every single game behind closed doors in the PL is broadcast and that the money they make from selling them new TV packages is filtered down the leagues.
 
Top