12 minutes ago, forbzy said:

He has been very good. It probably says more about the overall mediocrity of the Premier League this season than anything. I would probably go with Maddison of Leicester or perhaps even give a nod to one of the Sheffield United players in that spot. 

Our form was pretty bad before we signed him. We had so many chances to close the gap with Chelsea but never managed to capitalize on them. Bruno came in and the whole dynamic changed. Does that make him a candidate for team of the season? Not for me, any more than it makes Ole a candidate for manager of the month for signing him.  The Premiership hasn't been great this season, as you say. There have been some bright spots but overall, it has been underwhelming.

 

 

6 hours ago, chi blue said:

Seen this morning that league 1 and 2 very unlikely to finish (surprise surprise), clubs will have a meeting to discuss promotion and relegation, talk of a points per game and more points for away win etc to decide promotion and relegation, and that some teams will feel hard done by. Now am I missing the point or just being thick or both?.. the season wasn't completed its void, the season is defunct, caput, surely that means there is no promotion and relegation, f**k me it's not rocket science! Why do these football people make everything so bloody complicated, season never finished all records will be scrapped and we start a fresh new season hopefully in coming months....now it's not that hard is it?

I'm becoming more and more confused with the stance of footballing authorities, clubs etc in this country. Seems one thing after another to prolong the season when it would be so much easier to scrap it. The latest suggestion is to increase the number of substitutes to cope with fixture congestion and possible abandoning VAR.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52592431

It's normally at this time of season when fans renew their season tickets. It will be interesting to see when renewals for ST go out and by when they have to be renewed by. It is possible that some of next season's games will be played behind closed doors so presumably ST will only be for part of the season. How next season pans out could affect people's decisions to renew or not. I'll no doubt renew but at the moment wouldn't feel comfortable going to a game where fans are allowed into games and there is no marked decrease in victims of the virus and a vaccine on the horizon. That is nothing against fellow match goers. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52598311

Watford have followed Brighton and Aston Villa in publicly opposing the use of neutral venues in the Premier League's proposed Project Restart plan.

They will most likely pressure those clubs that are against the neutral venues with warnings and fines and forced them to play, nobody cares about the poor clubs anyway it's the sad truth, the show must go on no matter what!

34 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

They will most likely pressure those clubs that are against the neutral venues with warnings and fines and forced them to play, nobody cares about the poor clubs anyway it's the sad truth, the show must go on no matter what!

I do have some sympathy with clubs who feel they're being bullied, pressured or whatever but I do wish they would cut the bull that 'integrity' is the main driver for them being so opposed to it.

They want to look after their own interests and save themselves from a potential relegation, which is absolutely fine but I wish they'd just come out and admit that.

7 minutes ago, Argo said:

I do have some sympathy with clubs who feel they're being bullied, pressured or whatever but I do wish they would cut the bull that 'integrity' is the main driver for them being so opposed to it.

They want to look after their own interests and save themselves from a potential relegation, which is absolutely fine but I wish they'd just come out and admit that.

Everybody has their own interests, but we all know which one will prevail. A part of me fears that we might lose our top 4 spot if the league continues in such strange circumstances but at least we aren't being bullied and our owner is among the best.

@InstantFootieUK: Germany’s plans to restart competitive football on May 16 suffered an early setback after the entire team of second tier Dynamo Dresden were placed in a two-week quarantine following two positive coronavirus tests

Here we go!

 

And that's what happens. 

3 hours ago, Argo said:

I do have some sympathy with clubs who feel they're being bullied, pressured or whatever but I do wish they would cut the bull that 'integrity' is the main driver for them being so opposed to it.

They want to look after their own interests and save themselves from a potential relegation, which is absolutely fine but I wish they'd just come out and admit that.

Of course each individual club is looking after their own interest, why wouldn't they? We all know money is the sole reason that there is an attempt to get the league up and running again, despite all the evidence showing that the decision is flawed. Any change to the rules now, part way through the season does harm the integrity of the league. This season will forever have an asterisk against it no matter the end result and teams who were relegated in those circumstances will always feel aggrieved. If we are to continue it has to be on the exact same terms that the season started. If any variation is required , be it finishing after June 30, neutral grounds , 5 subs , VAR removed etc, the season should be declared null and void.  

4 hours ago, dkw said:

@InstantFootieUK: Germany’s plans to restart competitive football on May 16 suffered an early setback after the entire team of second tier Dynamo Dresden were placed in a two-week quarantine following two positive coronavirus tests

Here we go!

 

And that's what happens. 

Exactly. It seems football has forgotten that it was only a few months ago that games were getting postponed when only one player, coach or staff tested positive for the virus. The virus is a sh*t ton worse than it was back then, so what makes them think it's going to be more managable?

No matter how cautious they are with this, the simple fact is that there is going to be thousands of people travelling every game week, so it's inevitable that people will catch it and force more games to be postponed.

I suspect the bookmakers cronies of fuelling the desire for the top flight to get back up and running in the middle of a pandemic. Thats why they are crying out to get football back, even behind closed doors and with rule changes mid season. The amount of money gambled weekly on football is astonishing. About £14.5bn was spent in the UK alone on gambling between October 2017 and September 2018. With the high streets closed, the bookies have no slots income either.

The UFC had a fighter test positive yesterday and they cancelled the fight but not the card. Which is sort of reasible if still irresponsible, however, with a football league, you can't do that... Teams with players who are infected are at a serious disadvantage, I'm really not sure how they go through with it. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52605961

A third Brighton player has tested positive for the virus. And still the footballing authorities are looking at restarting the season. They are meeting tomorrow to discuss Project Restart. A bloody stupid name. It will be interesting to see what the authorities decide. It would be nice if common sense prevailed but can't see that happening.

@coco you raise a great point about the bookies. I hadn't thought of that before.

15 hours ago, charierre said:

Of course each individual club is looking after their own interest, why wouldn't they? 

Yes but the statement by Watford especially claims otherwise when everyone knows full well their tune would be different had they been in Leicester or Sheffield's position.

2 minutes ago, Argo said:

Yes but the statement by Watford especially claims otherwise when everyone knows full well their tune would be different had they been in Leicester or Sheffield's position.

Is the conclusion not then each club looking after their own interests no matter where they are in the table as I stated? This is why there can be NO deviation from the original rules bar a slight extension of the season.

20 minutes ago, charierre said:

Is the conclusion not then each club looking after their own interests no matter where they are in the table as I stated? This is why there can be NO deviation from the original rules bar a slight extension of the season.

We're both saying the same thing just in completely different ways, i just wish these clubs were a bit more transparent.

the season should just be declared void; no champions, no relegation, next season's European places given to the teams that qualified for Europe from the 2018/19 season.  

Apparently 8 teams are now opposing neutral venues which is enough for the vote to fail.

In all honesty it's likely Leicester and us blocking it. We have nothing to gain from a season restart and everything to lose. Void, PPG, current position, all of those would give us Champions League.

2 hours ago, abigsmurf said:

Apparently 8 teams are now opposing neutral venues which is enough for the vote to fail.

In all honesty it's likely Leicester and us blocking it. We have nothing to gain from a season restart and everything to lose. Void, PPG, current position, all of those would give us Champions League.

While our league position might make us want to end the season early, I wouldnt be surprised if we stand to lose sponsorship money if it did. Doubt Chelsea are opposing it, brand recognition and sponsorship is huge for a global club like ours. We want to be seen.

On ?07?/?05?/?2020 at 16:25, coco said:

But playing the last 9 games behind closed doors wont retrieve any money, they could lose the TV money, but the bottom 6 clubs would wave that money if it meant cancelling the season and assuring their safety in the top flight for another season.

So its a possible relegation after having to play the last 9 games behind closed doors, in a neutral ground, KO next season in the Championship???.......no way the bottom six will have that.

 

I was raising questions about how difficult it will be for all of the clubs in the future and not suggesting how the season should end.

As far as ending the season goes, yes each and every club will have its own interests at heart so nothing will be agreed and the season will have to be written off. There is no other solution. It may not be fair to Liverpool etc but they will at least be the only team in history to finish top of the League without getting a trophy. Their gallant effort will not be forgotten.

The main thrust of what I'm trying to say is that I think there are bigger issues than how to finish the season. Without the prospect of a vaccine for at least another year I don't see how next season is going to start with the stadiums open. There are players contracts that run out in a matter of weeks and what is going to happen to those guys? Are they going to get new clubs if there is no prospect of next season starting with open doors? For how long can the TV companies continue to pay the clubs? At this point in time I'm not even sure they are. Like all businesses the TV companies are suffering. I heard on the radio last week that advertising revenues have plummeted and that TV companies are suffering. If they are losing revenue and the Premier League isn't playing then they would crazy to carry on paying the clubs. I suspect they have stopped already. This potentially means the clubs have lost their two main sources of income and won't be able to pay the players without taking on huge debt. I suspect there are clubs out there that don't want to or can't do this.

While a number of posters have rightly condemned the Premier Leagues money grabbing resumption plans it is imperative they have a back up plan if the season cannot restart. They need to be looking at how the clubs can continue to exist without income. They may have to introduce a compulsory furlough type system for players wages. Not all the premier league clubs will be able to afford top wage costs for a prolonged period so pay cuts should be standardised across the board. I hear no talk of this but I'm sure the clubs would welcome this.

The UK is in a much worse situation than Germany with this virus and they are still struggling to get crowds back into the stadiums. The game desperately needs TV revenue and if next season needs to start behind closed doors then so be it.

 

Edited May 11, 20206 yr by Andy North

No club seems to have come up with the obvious solution to the financial hit from the virus .....and that is to cut players salaries, stop dividend payments, and cease interest payments on loans from owners.

Let's face it , what's a football player going to do it be is paid £1M  a year instead of £3M a year ?. He's hardly likely to walk away from football and become a health worker or a bus driver..

Rather that than putting the burden on us fans especially as most of us will be taking a financial hit as well.

Football will have to seriously rethink its financial model , perhaps look to how Germany manages to fill stadiums with low cost tickets all season and with atmosphere unknown in English football . .  I don't think their sponsorship income can be as high as ours either.  

At Chelsea we have made a great change by using our talented youngsters , apparently something that RA is immensely pleased with, let's hope it continues.

 

3 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

No club seems to have come up with the obvious solution to the financial hit from the virus .....and that is to cut players salaries, stop dividend payments, and cease interest payments on loans from owners.

Let's face it , what's a football player going to do it be is paid £1M  a year instead of £3M a year ?. He's hardly likely to walk away from football and become a health worker or a bus driver..

Rather that than putting the burden on us fans especially as most of us will be taking a financial hit as well.

Football will have to seriously rethink its financial model , perhaps look to how Germany manages to fill stadiums with low cost tickets all season and with atmosphere unknown in English football . .  I don't think their sponsorship income can be as high as ours either.  

At Chelsea we have made a great change by using our talented youngsters , apparently something that RA is immensely pleased with, let's hope it continues.

 

I think the worst thing you can do is take the money from players wages. Yes they may well be overpaid, but it's the billionaires that owna nd run football that cause those high wages. A footballer is an individual who has worked his hardest day in, day out to beat thousands of others to get the chance of being a professional footballer. Most footballers come from poorer backgrounds, with families to support, or come from poor countries and do a lot of work investing in their home country. Not to mention that a footballer, while highly paid, has a career of 20 years maximum, of which only about 8-10 of those years will be peak earnings.

It's easy to point at someone on 250k a week and say he should give up his money, but if he breaks his leg next year, then his career could be done, his earning days over. Billionaire owners, like ours, have no age limit, have a wide business portfolio, financial advisers etc all to protect them from the damage of this pandemic. If all the owners of premier league football clubs put in 5-10% of their net worth, there would be so much money flooding in. I'd rather put pressure on the owners to give up 10%, than footballers to give up 30%.

1 minute ago, Coxy15 said:

It's easy to point at someone on 250k a week and say he should give up his money, but if he breaks his leg next year, then his career could be done, his earning days over.

That bolded bit is just wrong. No premier league player ever needs to work again, but, if they did, they can always get another, different job, in the same way as you or I would have to if we got made redundant, or found we had a condition that meant we could not pursue our chosen career.

This pandemic might well trigger a vast rethinking of football salaries,and, ultimately, if the multi-millionaire players of the top leagues aren't willing to contribute to saving their club, you and I both know that there are hundreds of other players who would play for their favourite club for a fraction of those salaries.  And, if the quality of football should drop a bit because of that, well at least all the w**kers who spend match-day threads moaning about flicks, tricks, back-heels and step-overs will be a bit happier.

8 minutes ago, Coxy15 said:

Billionaire owners, like ours, have no age limit, have a wide business portfolio, financial advisers etc all to protect them from the damage of this pandemic. If all the owners of premier league football clubs put in 5-10% of their net worth, there would be so much money flooding in.

I'd rather a billionaire gave up 1% of his or her wealth to provide enough and effective protective equipment to ALL of our front-line carers, but that's just me putting people's health before football.

22 minutes ago, Coxy15 said:

I think the worst thing you can do is take the money from players wages. Yes they may well be overpaid, but it's the billionaires that owna nd run football that cause those high wages. A footballer is an individual who has worked his hardest day in, day out to beat thousands of others to get the chance of being a professional footballer. Most footballers come from poorer backgrounds, with families to support, or come from poor countries and do a lot of work investing in their home country. Not to mention that a footballer, while highly paid, has a career of 20 years maximum, of which only about 8-10 of those years will be peak earnings.

It's easy to point at someone on 250k a week and say he should give up his money, but if he breaks his leg next year, then his career could be done, his earning days over. Billionaire owners, like ours, have no age limit, have a wide business portfolio, financial advisers etc all to protect them from the damage of this pandemic. If all the owners of premier league football clubs put in 5-10% of their net worth, there would be so much money flooding in. I'd rather put pressure on the owners to give up 10%, than footballers to give up 30%.

I'm going to disagree with most of this. Most Chelsea players earn in one season double what most people earn in a lifetime. Players earn obscene amounts of money and can easily afford substantial pay cuts and talk of broken legs is nonsense. Our worst injury in recent years has been RLC who earns a fortune and will never have to play or work again whatever happens. Being a professional footballer is better than wining the lottery.

I'm pretty sure Mr Abramovich will be feeling the pinch, in his own way, as the price of oil and shares has plummeted but yes he could chip in to save the club. Everybody involved should chip in, including the players. The players make more out of football than the owners.

42 minutes ago, Coxy15 said:

Yes they may well be overpaid,

You should have ended the post after this sentence.