[Football] Premier League / Football League attempts to finish the season

[Bold Seagull]

Excellent post.

I’ve said throughout that null and voiding 2019/20, with a neat and tidy PL 2020/21 starting in August or September to packed stadia, is a pipe dream.

I agree with what you have said here, but as said above, you can establish the rules of a competition at the start, so anything put in place for 20/21, the integrity of the competition is maintained, if starting the competition you all know the parameters. If that means neutral venues, empty stadia etc. that is fine as long as the competition is fair and set out as such. That isn't a pipe dream, that will just be putting the right regulations in place.

The point about integrity of the competition is, you cannot just rip up 3/4 of this season played under one set of regulations and say the final 1/4 is effectively a completely different competition, and that is how you determined crucial factors like relegation, not to mention a break between games longer than any close season period.

So despite all the talk, I think null and voiding 19/20 is likely to be the only option.

Starting 20/21 will require a set of rules and regulations accordingly and that will have to be that and we get on with it. You can't just tag those onto this season though IMHO.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Excellent post.

I’ve said throughout that null and voiding 2019/20, with a neat and tidy PL 2020/21 starting in August or September to packed stadia, is a pipe dream.

We won’t see up to 74,000 allowed into PL grounds for some considerable time. That would be the perfect breeding ground for Corona Virus.

We will see empty stadia football matches, whether it be tagged 2019/20, 2020/21 or 2021/22, or at most limited crowds.

It that angers people as “the sporting integrity is compromised”, that’s hard luck. Some football will keep clubs and related businesses from going under, there is no perfect solution.

I know where you’re coming from but I don’t think ‘hard luck’ is a strong enough counter point to the integrity of the competition being completely ridden.

Playing matches is not going to keep any clubs below PL level afloat as their income is predominantly from gate receipts which they won’t be getting.

As noted above, Sky have already said they will honour payments provided next season they are given more games so playing the remaining PL fixtures isn’t going to keep clubs afloat.

 

[WilburySeagull]

To my mind all the potential solutions put up by the PL are made in a vacuum assuming football can make its own mind up with no thought to the effects on the country as a whole. Yes it would be very nice for PL clubs if the season could be finished off in some way and revenues protected but frankly that aint the game now. The game as we know it is not going to be with us until there is a vaccine or other treatment for the virus. As some have said already any attempt to finish this season will involve entirely artificial options.

From a personal perspective as one of the 70+ group I doubt I will be able to attend any match for many months to come even if I thought I wanted to which is doubtful anyway.

 

[crodonilson]

I agree with what you have said here, but as said above, you can establish the rules of a competition at the start, so anything put in place for 20/21, the integrity of the competition is maintained, if starting the competition you all know the parameters. If that means neutral venues, empty stadia etc. that is fine as long as the competition is fair and set out as such. That isn't a pipe dream, that will just be putting the right regulations in place.

The point about integrity of the competition is, you cannot just rip up 3/4 of this season played under one set of regulations and say the final 1/4 is effectively a completely different competition, and that is how you determined crucial factors like relegation, not to mention a break between games longer than any close season period.

So despite all the talk, I think null and voiding 19/20 is likely to be the only option.

Starting 20/21 will require a set of rules and regulations accordingly and that will have to be that and we get on with it. You can't just tag those onto this season though IMHO.

What if though, halfway through next season you are then seeing progress against covid-19 and the government relaxes rules to allow spectators? Are you then going to continue that season behind closed doors to protect the integrity or allow spectators because that's the football we know and love and will also help financially boost clubs? Also what if then lockdowns are more localized, some clubs lose their home advantage or have to play at neutral stadia? I take the point about losing home advantage but then when you play the remaining 'away' games the home team will equally lose their advantage, there is no perfect solution but having played three quarters of this season I think when is practically possible we should pick this season up again.

Null and voiding this season may clear up this season but only leads to the same issues for next season, a full season that we do not know if or when it can be started and even then if there are 2nd or 3rd waves of infections potentially you have to suspend that season. I'd much rather we finish off this season as and when we practically can which looks increasingly likely to be over the summer behind closed doors and then we have a complete season and we can look at how to practically stage the 20/21 season.

 

[sparkie]

i reckon the Premier League will try to agree to something with unanimity, and the best way to gain support of the bottom clubs is no relegation. the season is over bar the paper work and who will take positions 2-5. if they can agree a fair way to do that, they could have this wrapped up this afternoon and focus on what to do for start of next season.

Sky are apparently happy with a 22 team PL with more matches, that they get for the same price as a 20 team PL, as compensation for not completing this year.

 

[Badger Boy]

How many football matches were held when Covid-19 was supposedly already in the country? How many people were exposed, and how many have actually contracted the illness? Surely, that in itself is an indicator for the level of risk of allowing matches to resume. There wasn't a problem until Mikel Arteta contracted the illness, then the whole thing shut down. The problem didn't start then, that's just the point at which it was decided the season should be paused. The threat existed beforehand but wasn't the breeding ground people on here seem to think it automatically would be, if football resumed.

 

[Bozza]

How many football matches were held when Covid-19 was supposedly already in the country? How many people were exposed, and how many have actually contracted the illness? Surely, that in itself is an indicator for the level of risk of allowing matches to resume. There wasn't a problem until Mikel Arteta contracted the illness, then the whole thing shut down. The problem didn't start then, that's just the point at which it was decided the season should be paused. The threat existed beforehand but wasn't the breeding ground people on here seem to think it automatically would be, if football resumed.

Back in those distant days these pages were this sort of thing "there's only 78 people with it in the UK - what's the fuss all about" and "this virus spread isn't growing exponentially".

Those sort of views didn't age particularly well.

 

[beorhthelm]

Sky are apparently happy with a 22 team PL with more matches, that they get for the same price as a 20 team PL, as compensation for not completing this year.

thats nice for them. are the clubs happy for 10% less revenue?

 

[sparkie]

thats nice for them. are the clubs happy for 10% less revenue?

It is a trade off for not paying back Sky for cancelled games this season.

The deal is there to be done.

 

[darkwolf666]

How many football matches were held when Covid-19 was supposedly already in the country? How many people were exposed, and how many have actually contracted the illness? Surely, that in itself is an indicator for the level of risk of allowing matches to resume. There wasn't a problem until Mikel Arteta contracted the illness, then the whole thing shut down. The problem didn't start then, that's just the point at which it was decided the season should be paused. The threat existed beforehand but wasn't the breeding ground people on here seem to think it automatically would be, if football resumed.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you the queues at Falmer station, let's watch the infection rates grow there!

 

[Badger Boy]

Back in those distant days these pages were this sort of thing "there's only 78 people with it in the UK - what's the fuss all about" and "this virus spread isn't growing exponentially".

Those sort of views didn't age particularly well.

That isn't what my post was saying. We were aware of cases in Brighton and Hove in February. How many home games and how many people attended those games after that date? Why haven't we had a high number of confirmed cases just on this forum? A lot of our users, myself included, attended matches after the outbreak had begun. To the best of my knowledge, only Spence became ill and that was some time after the matches had been played.

I'm not being argumentative or questioning the science, I'm asking why the spread wasn't sped up by those matches we did play if that's the fear stopping matches being open for fans when football resumes?

 

[GT49er]

So despite all the talk, I think null and voiding 19/20 is likely to be the only option.

Starting 20/21 will require a set of rules and regulations accordingly and that will have to be that and we get on with it. You can't just tag those onto this season though IMHO.

Absolutely this. The longer this goes on, the more all the various ideas - crackpot or otherwise - for finishing this season become pie in the sky. And the pies are ascending at a rate of knots!
Void the season is the best option - or just finish it with positions as they stand (or average points per game) but with no promotion or relegation.

 

[atomised]

That isn't what my post was saying. We were aware of cases in Brighton and Hove in February. How many home games and how many people attended those games after that date? Why haven't we had a high number of confirmed cases just on this forum? A lot of our users, myself included, attended matches after the outbreak had begun. To the best of my knowledge, only Spence became ill and that was some time after the matches had been played.

I'm not being argumentative or questioning the science, I'm asking why the spread wasn't sped up by those matches we did play if that's the fear stopping matches being open for fans when football resumes?

Zaha even spat at one of our players after the early stages of the outbreak

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

How many football matches were held when Covid-19 was supposedly already in the country? How many people were exposed, and how many have actually contracted the illness? Surely, that in itself is an indicator for the level of risk of allowing matches to resume. There wasn't a problem until Mikel Arteta contracted the illness, then the whole thing shut down. The problem didn't start then, that's just the point at which it was decided the season should be paused. The threat existed beforehand but wasn't the breeding ground people on here seem to think it automatically would be, if football resumed.

I reckon I caught mild symptomed Covid at the Palace game.

I absolutely tanked my immune system with alcohol at that game, and then had a hangover which included some of the Covid symptoms ( which I've never had with flu ) and lasted for a full 3-4 weeks afterwards.

 

[Bozza]

That isn't what my post was saying. We were aware of cases in Brighton and Hove in February. How many home games and how many people attended those games after that date? Why haven't we had a high number of confirmed cases just on this forum? A lot of our users, myself included, attended matches after the outbreak had begun. To the best of my knowledge, only Spence became ill and that was some time after the matches had been played.

I'm not being argumentative or questioning the science, I'm asking why the spread wasn't sped up by those matches we did play if that's the fear stopping matches being open for fans when football resumes?

The virus spread WAS sped up by all of us going to all of those games across the UK but, at that time, very few people had the illness and most of those who did would have been in the incubation period, so would not have known due to having no symptoms. See also: Cheltenham, those Stereophonics gigs etc.

Maybe us, as a community of Brighton fans, struck lucky in that we didn't catch it then. Maybe some of us did, but remained asymptomatic, so had no idea.

Fundamentally it comes down to very few people in the UK having the virus then as we were at the very beginning of the exponential curve.

 

[Badger Boy]

I reckon I caught mild symptomed Covid at the Palace game.

I absolutely tanked my immune system with alcohol at that game, and then had a hangover which included some of the Covid symptoms ( which I've never had with flu ) and lasted for a full 3-4 weeks afterwards.

I'm sorry to hear it - I hope you're fit and well now!

The virus spread WAS sped up by all of us going to all of those games across the UK but, at that time, very few people had the illness and most of those who did would have been in the incubation period, so would not have known due to having no symptoms. See also: Cheltenham, those Stereophonics gigs etc.

Maybe us, as a community of Brighton fans, struck lucky in that we didn't catch it then. Maybe some of us did, but remained asymptomatic, so had no idea.

Fundamentally it comes down to very few people in the UK having the virus then as we were at the very beginning of the exponential curve.

You speak with certainty which I don't really think is backed up by scientific fact, or quantifiable proof. Maybe you're right in full, maybe in part but maybe not at all.

 

[GT49er]

What if though, halfway through next season you are then seeing progress against covid-19 and the government relaxes rules to allow spectators? Are you then going to continue that season behind closed doors to protect the integrity or allow spectators because that's the football we know and love and will also help financially boost clubs? Also what if then lockdowns are more localized, some clubs lose their home advantage or have to play at neutral stadia? I take the point about losing home advantage but then when you play the remaining 'away' games the home team will equally lose their advantage, there is no perfect solution but having played three quarters of this season I think when is practically possible we should pick this season up again.

Null and voiding this season may clear up this season but only leads to the same issues for next season, a full season that we do not know if or when it can be started and even then if there are 2nd or 3rd waves of infections potentially you have to suspend that season. I'd much rather we finish off this season as and when we practically can which looks increasingly likely to be over the summer behind closed doors and then we have a complete season and we can look at how to practically stage the 20/21 season.

Start the 20-21 season (whenever that might become possible) but with the rules at the start to include all those possible eventualities - some matches behind closed doors, restricted attendance, grounds closed, whatever. If the rules at the start reflect the possible conditions that might occur, the season needn't be compromised.
No such provisions were made for this season, so it is compromised.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I'm sorry to hear it - I hope you're fit and well now!

Yes, I'm fine - just the odd headache still.

No proof it was Covid, so one day when I get an antibody test it might show it was some other lurgy.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What if though, halfway through next season you are then seeing progress against covid-19 and the government relaxes rules to allow spectators? Are you then going to continue that season behind closed doors to protect the integrity or allow spectators because that's the football we know and love and will also help financially boost clubs? Also what if then lockdowns are more localized, some clubs lose their home advantage or have to play at neutral stadia? I take the point about losing home advantage but then when you play the remaining 'away' games the home team will equally lose their advantage, there is no perfect solution but having played three quarters of this season I think when is practically possible we should pick this season up again.

Null and voiding this season may clear up this season but only leads to the same issues for next season, a full season that we do not know if or when it can be started and even then if there are 2nd or 3rd waves of infections potentially you have to suspend that season. I'd much rather we finish off this season as and when we practically can which looks increasingly likely to be over the summer behind closed doors and then we have a complete season and we can look at how to practically stage the 20/21 season.

Well, exactly that, you start next season that rules and regulations will evolve during the season, that rules about attendance may change as the season progresses, or suddenly stricter measures come into play. You then have contingency rules in place for neutral venues, breaks in the season, awarding of points in the event the season cannot be finished. I'm not saying it won't be problematic, but it will be set out and we will all know next season may well be unfair and all over the shop (like VAR this season!!??) but at least it will be set out for the season.

 

[crodonilson]

Start the 20-21 season (whenever that might become possible) but with the rules at the start to include all those possible eventualities - some matches behind closed doors, restricted attendance, grounds closed, whatever. If the rules at the start reflect the possible conditions that might occur, the season needn't be compromised.
No such provisions were made for this season, so it is compromised.

No they weren't but if we knew in August the last quarter of games of this season would have to be played behind closed doors the table would still look the same as it is now, no-one would have played differently, it could well be that a new season more games are played behind closed doors, maybe half and at different times of the season and if things are localised some teams have to play more games behind closed doors than others, penalizing them. I'd say that season would be more compromised than this season where we all know for the final quarter of this season all teams will have to play all their games behind closed doors or at a neutral venue.