• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Official 2019/20 Premier League Thread

glasgowspur said:
The bgi issue for me is neutral venue, we played almost all the top teams away from home in the first 12 or so games.
Now we will have to play them without that advantage being returned.
That is patently unfair, makes a mockery of the whole thing IMHO.
Click to expand...

The Watford chairman makes the point about the unfairness of neutral venues in a statement today
https://www.watfordfc.com/news/club/premier-league-chairmans-statement

Football is coming back. The government has made that clear and the culture secretary Oliver Dowden enforced that view with his comments yesterday.

The debate is no longer whether football should return but whether the Premier League can deliver a model every club accepts as a fair and equitable solution before resumption.

At the start of this season there was no way Watford should beat Liverpool. Jürgen Klopp’s side are the world and European champions and play a style of football that is incredible to watch. They fully deserve to be crowned Premier League champions, however this season finishes.

But on February 29, we did beat Liverpool. It seems a long time ago now, but to even have a hope of overcoming one of the greatest sides this country has produced, we needed a level playing field. We needed to play at Vicarage Road, in front of our own fans with every single player mentally and physically in the best condition we could get them.

We needed to have been able to plan fully, to put together a game plan prepared weeks in advance by the manager Nigel Pearson and his coaching and analytics staff. We needed to control every element at our disposal. If all that comes together, then we have a chance of beating Liverpool or indeed any of the top teams. This happens more regularly in the Premier League than it does in, say, Germany, Italy or Spain. That’s why the Premier League is such a fantastic spectacle, loved throughout the world.

Now take a look at the compromises involved in Project Restart, which is aiming to resume the season on June 8 and play the remaining 92 Premier League games behind closed doors at neutral venues. I, of course, absolutely accept we cannot have supporters in the stadium. That goes without saying in the present situation.

However, we are now told we cannot play our remaining home games at Vicarage Road and the familiarity and advantage that brings. This against a backdrop of players who, having seen their lives turned upside down along with the rest of the world, are suddenly expected to perform as if nothing has happened, despite the rest of society probably still facing the kind of restrictions unenforceable on a football pitch.

We have club medical staff working under conditions that no doctor or physio has ever experienced with guidelines that, in no small part, are based at this stage on supposition rather than scientific fact. And with all these compromises and health risks we are asked to finish a competition that bears no resemblance to the one we started, which could end a small club like Watford’s time in the Premier League.

So is this fair? Does it have any semblance of sporting integrity? Of course not.

The Bundesliga will return on May 16 with home and away fixtures. They have found a way to implement all the proposals we have been talking about in our Premier League meetings without the need to resort to neutral venues.

Do the authorities seriously believe our clubs, in their own grounds, cannot deliver a safe environment for the 300 or so people involved in hosting a single Premier League match? Because, in the world of Covid-19, there is no such thing as an entirely safe environment wherever we play.

The police also talk about fans flouting restrictions when football restarts and that this is a concern for the authorities, but I believe we would have more control over supporters playing at our own grounds.

After all, Liverpool were emphatic their fans would be sensible and listen to club instructions when their own mayor came out against a return to football. If Liverpool wholeheartedly believe this when they are 25 points clear and on the brink of a first title for 30 years, I’m sure all other fans would follow suit.

Critics will say my position is founded on self-interest and they would be absolutely right. I have a duty to protect my club and the people employed by it, some of whom have worked for Watford Football Club for more than 20 years and dedicated their lives to it.

There is no altruism in the Premier League. There are 20 different vested interests, which sometimes align but more often than not work purely to protect each individual club.

That is why some clubs are happy to sign up to Project Restart because arguably there is only an upside in participating in this compromised format; it means Liverpool can win the title, other clubs can book their place in Europe next season or potentially fight their way up the table from a position of safety.

But when at least six clubs — and I suspect more — are concerned about the clear downside and the devastating effects of playing in this kind of distorted nine-game mini-league, then I believe the Premier League has a duty of care to address those concerns. If we start and finish a whole season under these conditions and at neutral venues when everybody knows the rules when we start, not created in a time of crisis, then that is clearly fair. To be asked to finish a quarter of the season under new rules and conditions is an entirely different proposition.

How can the long-term future of clubs be determined under these fundamentally changed conditions? How is there any semblance of fairness? To wave aside all the fears and concerns is too simplistic. Surely all 20 clubs must agree the fairest way forward to complete the season?

I hope we can now come together and find a solution to enable the season to end safely and fairly.
 
I totally disagree with him. And the bundesliga.
The primary concern should be reducing risk, which means reducing the number of people involved.
Home and away "advantage" is not a consistent factor, nor can it be directly influenced or controlled to gain a sporting advantage, so playing in neutral venues reduces the risk and makes the purely about the football being played.
If anything, it is more fair than home Vs away.
 
MKSpur said:
So there will be no gate receipts this will all be to help the clubs financially, so the league and tv money will continue to be distributed?
do Sky even want a product with so much changing with the format / the ethical debate about returning too soon?
Every scenario I can think of gives a disadvantage to someone. Even if you say that if all clubs can’t agree the league gets nulled, there will be some clubs that prefer that rather than risk being relegated.
I was thinking perhaps we distribute most of the cash based on current league standings and put put a % of it into a Summer cup competition, 4 groups of 5 seeded by current positions. Unfortunately it would still be resisted as a mechanism for European qualification* and relegation but maybe for fans, players and by association tv at least it would be more aligned to the reason we play and watch the game in the first place.

*top 2 qualify for Europe, semi finalist for CL?? Then bottom 4 go into a play off where only the winner survives relegation?? 3rd and 4th have a plate competition for a bit of extra cash / more gate receipts?
Click to expand...

This lockdown is getting to you, Sky don't give a fudge about the fairness or ethics of the product, they want all that money from "football fans" who are desperate to be told what to think and be reassured that by "following whoever" makes them believe they are superior to others.
 
monkeybarry said:
I totally disagree with him. And the bundesliga.
The primary concern should be reducing risk, which means reducing the number of people involved.
Home and away "advantage" is not a consistent factor, nor can it be directly influenced or controlled to gain a sporting advantage, so playing in neutral venues reduces the risk and makes the purely about the football being played.
If anything, it is more fair than home Vs away.
Click to expand...

Yes, if it was done for an entire season.
 
Players contracting the virus in the build up to the return is not a good sign at all. This can’t seriously be converted to return
 
I’d be interested to know what rules they have in the event a player contracts the virus. You just know it’s gonna happen. (See UFC that came back this weekend and a fighter tested positive in the build up).

If a player tests positive is the whole squad going to be quarantined for 2 weeks? And what about the last game they played? Will they have to be quarantined too? Will fixtures have to be rescheduled or are you forced to play the kids. Would make a mockery of fairness
 
RunTMC said:
I’d be interested to know what rules they have in the event a player contracts the virus. You just know it’s gonna happen. (See UFC that came back this weekend and a fighter tested positive in the build up).

If a player tests positive is the whole squad going to be quarantined for 2 weeks? And what about the last game they played? Will they have to be quarantined too? Will fixtures have to be rescheduled or are you forced to play the kids. Would make a mockery of fairness
Click to expand...

All good questions.
The rules on self-isolation can't be different for footballers compared to the rest of society. If the rule is that if you come into contact with someone who has the virus you have to self-isolate, then that would have to apply to the whole team, manager, coaches, support staff etc.
And if a team has to go into quarantine for a fortnight, then either their games have to be re-arranged (probably impossible with the tight schedule) or the competition has to stop.
I really can't see the PL season resuming.
 
Why are the bottom three opposed to the neutral venues? They need to play the games to avoid relegation. Blocking a restart wanted by the other clubs doesn't seem likely to gain any support for having no relegation.

It makes a lot of sense for the clubs just above the relegation zone to block a restart as that is the only way they get relegated. It's either the bottom three going down or no one.
 
jts1882 said:
Why are the bottom three opposed to the neutral venues? They need to play the games to avoid relegation. Blocking a restart wanted by the other clubs doesn't seem likely to gain any support for having no relegation.

It makes a lot of sense for the clubs just above the relegation zone to block a restart as that is the only way they get relegated. It's either the bottom three going down or no one.
Click to expand...

If the season gets scrapped, there will be no relegation. Leeds and West Brom will come up and it’ll be a 22 team league. There’s no way the bottom three would accept relegation and there’s no way the Premier League wants the inevitable law suits which will follow if they try to impose it.

Personally, I just can’t see the league resuming anytime soon.
 
Meeting this Thurs between the PL, gov't and police according to the Mirror. THen a vote of PL clubs on Mon 18th

I'm still expecting the PL to be back playing by second week of June. 9 fixtures for each team left - you can get it finished in a month playing two games per week
 
DeanoAustin said:
If the season gets scrapped, there will be no relegation. Leeds and West Brom will come up and it’ll be a 22 team league. There’s no way the bottom three would accept relegation and there’s no way the Premier League wants the inevitable law suits which will follow if they try to impose it.

Personally, I just can’t see the league resuming anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Could there be law suits though? Genuine question, as the PL has a 'constitution' where decisions are taken on an agreed majority vote. I don't think (but may be wrong) that the PL itself can actually impose anything? So if the required majority of the clubs vote for a particular resolution to the season, can other clubs take legal action against that?
 
parklane1 said:
The only sensible thing to do is just scrap it, the chances are that playing these games will lead to even more infections.
Click to expand...

Please avoid any mention of sensible in postings or you may be banned, it's more important that all the sky subscribers get to watch football than people dying or getting severely ill as most of them buy into the bogus "Shankly Doctrine"
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Could there be law suits though? Genuine question, as the PL has a 'constitution' where decisions are taken on an agreed majority vote. I don't think (but may be wrong) that the PL itself can actually impose anything? So if the required majority of the clubs vote for a particular resolution to the season, can other clubs take legal action against that?
Click to expand...
I think they can
Especially as the decision will be biased by a certain few and it’s mid season
 
DeanoAustin said:
If the season gets scrapped, there will be no relegation. Leeds and West Brom will come up and it’ll be a 22 team league. There’s no way the bottom three would accept relegation and there’s no way the Premier League wants the inevitable law suits which will follow if they try to impose it.

Personally, I just can’t see the league resuming anytime soon.
Click to expand...
What about the teams who could have been up via a play off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back