What's new

Premier League officially postponed until 17th of June

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,337
Economic pressure is one thing but football doesn't really boost the economy, people can get by without watching football, it's not that important.

Sorry people just aren't seeing this shit for what it is and there's a lot of wishful thinking going on, football is fucked the the foreseeable, until we're over this pandemic we're potentially not going to see any form of football for a long time.

It's amazing how some are so deluded on this.
 

Tiberius Gracchus

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2004
746
1,822
Clearly it's too soon to restart football but one thing to be mindful of is that for the medical scientists to ever be 100% sure COVID-19 is beaten, we'll need to stay in lockdown forever. That's the only way of being completely certain.

In the meantime, the clamour for release will grow ever larger, so what it comes down to is what is an acceptable level of risk and what is the public appetite for ending lockdown and restarting football? I'd argue that after another month of this, the public appetite for release will become great enough to trump pressure from the medical professionals. My prediction is a return to football in August, to see out the remaining games of this season.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just what I think will happen.

The public health imperative is ultimately subject to political will and the public's appetite to heed their advice
 

Stavrogin

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2004
2,361
1,475
Economic and social pressure will be secondary to the health of the general public.

If it can be done where that's not compromised then reopening stadia will be viable.

But until the medical advise recommends its ok to do so, it just won't be happening.

Economic pressure is one thing but football doesn't really boost the economy, people can get by without watching football, it's not that important.

Sorry people just aren't seeing this shit for what it is and there's a lot of wishful thinking going on, football is fucked the the foreseeable, until we're over this pandemic we're potentially not going to see any form of football for a long time.

I'm not saying that large events aren't 'fucked'. I'm saying that, conceptually, the idea that there is some kind of scientific approach to this or that governments (especially conservative) will make decisions based on the health of the general public is not actually how this has played out.

It's unequivocal that the strategy has been a result of public opinion (or the perception thereof) not some objective scientific approach.

I agree that sporting events aren't that important and governments will probably feel confident enough to keep them behind closed doors for a long time, even if we get these fox-style protests. But there will come a point where they actually take a risk and it might be a larger risk than we could imagine now.

It's a fuzzy boundary. The vaccine will likely take too long to arrive and we will struggle to produce and distribute enough, meaning that easing the lock down will probably depend on controlling the rate of transmission whilst feeling confident that you have an effective enough track and trace system plus a sufficient health service to respond to outbreaks and that the vulnerable are protected (locked away).

There's no real scientific guideline in this case: it's a political decision, and economic and social factors will be important - as they have been all the way through, despite how the government tried to spin it. Already politicians are having the debate about whether R should just be under 1 or close to zero. I just don't see how you could ever trust them to take the more responsible approach.
 

Tiberius Gracchus

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2004
746
1,822
I'm not saying that large events aren't 'fucked'. I'm saying that, conceptually, the idea that there is some kind of scientific approach to this or that governments (especially conservative) will make decisions based on the health of the general public is not actually how this has played out.

It's unequivocal that the strategy has been a result of public opinion (or the perception thereof) not some objective scientific approach.

I agree that sporting events aren't that important and governments will probably feel confident enough to keep them behind closed doors for a long time, even if we get these fox-style protests. But there will come a point where they actually take a risk and it might be a larger risk than we could imagine now.

It's a fuzzy boundary. The vaccine will likely take too long to arrive and we will struggle to produce and distribute enough, meaning that easing the lock down will probably depend on controlling the rate of transmission whilst feeling confident that you have an effective enough track and trace system plus a sufficient health service to respond to outbreaks and that the vulnerable are protected (locked away).

There's no real scientific guideline in this case: it's a political decision, and economic and social factors will be important - as they have been all the way through, despite how the government tried to spin it. Already politicians are having the debate about whether R should just be under 1 or close to zero. I just don't see how you could ever trust them to take the more responsible approach.

I agree with you, it has always been a political decision and always will be. Medical advice (in varying degrees of stringency) will play a part but aren't definitive. It's all about the public's appetite for risk, and the way the Government responds to that
 

homer hotspur

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2014
2,868
4,637
It would have been nice to see the players take a voluntary pay cut by now to at least show some kind of commitment to the club that they represent. There doesn't seem to be much goodwill there at all.
 

Colonel Dax

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2008
2,946
12,289
Clearly it's too soon to restart football but one thing to be mindful of is that for the medical scientists to ever be 100% sure COVID-19 is beaten, we'll need to stay in lockdown forever. That's the only way of being completely certain.

In the meantime, the clamour for release will grow ever larger, so what it comes down to is what is an acceptable level of risk and what is the public appetite for ending lockdown and restarting football? I'd argue that after another month of this, the public appetite for release will become great enough to trump pressure from the medical professionals. My prediction is a return to football in August, to see out the remaining games of this season.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just what I think will happen.

The public health imperative is ultimately subject to political will and the public's appetite to heed their advice

The main objective behind the social distancing measures and soft lockdown, at least here in the UK, was to prevent NHS capacity being overwhelmed. When these measures are lifted, infections and hospital admissions will eventually rise again (particularly during the expected autumn/winter wave) and so another lockdown will be required to again stop health and social care services breaking. So although you're right that public opinion might change over time, the UK government will not allow large scale gatherings like sporting events to go ahead whilst the risk of the virus becoming out of control remains.
 
Last edited:

NickHSpurs

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2004
13,626
11,875
This conversation will just keep going around in circles.

The people saying football will return behind closed doors soon because money talks are being called naive.

Equally the people calling them naive could have the same said back to them for not believing money talks.
 

Mornstar

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2005
4,897
1,589
It's amazing how some are so deluded on this.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic myself. All you have to do is inject the players/fans with a bit of bleech and uv light and football is ready to resume I reckon

my info is based on the extensive research done by Dr. Trump
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,957
It would have been nice to see the players take a voluntary pay cut by now to at least show some kind of commitment to the club that they represent. There doesn't seem to be much goodwill there at all.

What happens if they take a pay cut then we buy someone and they come in at a bigger wage than those players taking a cut? That won’t do much for team moral. It’s a hard one.
 

homer hotspur

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2014
2,868
4,637
What happens if they take a pay cut then we buy someone and they come in at a bigger wage than those players taking a cut? That won’t do much for team moral. It’s a hard one.
1- I think such cuts are temporary
2- I am sure the club would not allow such a thing to occur
3- we probably won't be buying anyone
 

riggi

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2008
48,487
104,720
Dutch have voided whole season. No champions relegation or promotion.

19E88ECD-6B22-453F-AAAE-5492B47E0AEE.gif
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Dutch have still awarded next versions European places based on table as at when season was suspended
 

Thewobbler

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2016
3,814
5,701
Dutch have still awarded next versions European places based on table as at when season was suspended

I wonder if other leagues clubs will allow this, if there FA's decided this action. Its going to be a shit show when this season gets null and voided.
 

George94

George
Feb 1, 2015
3,661
19,454
Dutch have still awarded next versions European places based on table as at when season was suspended

It probably is the only fair way of deciding if the Premier League decide to void the season.

We don't deserve to be in the Champions League next season - I don't want our place just handed back to us.

Will make us no different to that lot down the road.
 
Top