What's new

Premier League officially postponed until 17th of June

freeeki

Arsehole.
Aug 5, 2008
11,836
69,426
Just popped in to say I’m not dead, and I’m pleased to see you’re all still having the same conversation you were having 8 sodding weeks ago
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
You test the players daily for 2 weeks before the first game. It's not easy to implement and requires a lot of organisation. But with the amount of money at stake here i think it's do-able.
There's a piece in the Athletic about a testing trial that has begun at Wolves with the intention on rolling it out to all clubs later this week. The idea is a drive-through station is setup in the club car park and a medic in full PPE does swabs for everybody. They say it's about a 5 min process per person so a bit of a ball ache but I'm sure they can stagger arrival times and split days for players and back room staff to make things a bit easier.

The trial is just with back room staff at the moment so I guess they will see how it goes and try to work out the wrinkles as best as possible in time for any restart. It sounds like test results come back within 24 hours but that's with them all being shipped to one lab in London so I imagine that return time will vary somewhat.

It's a Hong-Kong based biotech company running the whole thing so I don't know if that's taking away tests from key workers or just something that this company were willing to sell to the PL. Either way, I think it shows that it's possible to get a good testing scheme running for the PL without too much faff. It's not a silver bullet but certainly greases the wheels.

The article mentions that the biggest stumbling block will be the players themselves and whether or not they want to go ahead with playing/training at all. There's a lot of second guessing going on about if a football game is safer than going to B&Q or whatever, but at the end of the day if the players take a combined stand to not play (ie. go on strike) I doubt there will be anything anyone can do.

What seems crazy is that the millionaire footballers in the PL potentially have the entire fate of the sport in this country in their hands. If they decide they don't want to play then surely the knock-on effect will be hundreds of lower tier clubs going out of business as the money machine grinds to a halt. I know they get paid a lot but that's still a horrible responsibility.
 

McFlash

In the corner, eating crayons.
Oct 19, 2005
12,740
45,363
Does anyone know how many people would be involved in staging just one football match?
I'm talking essential stadium staff, players, coaches, medical staff. Even ball boys!
It would be interesting to know what numbers are required to stage a game.
 

dudu

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
5,314
11,048
I agree it's not at all basic, it is complex. But with £350m at stake here and the already existing facilities and resources in place in the sport i think it's feasible.

You test the players daily for 2 weeks before the first game. It's not easy to implement and requires a lot of organisation. But with the amount of money at stake here i think it's do-able.

This is getting into the weeds of it all, and i doubt anyone on this forum is the right person to come up with the best process here. But i think it's totally feasible that a process can be implemented if the desire is there.


Sorry mate, not to nitpick, but you did say the steps you proposed were "basic steps that could be fairly easily implemented"

Can it be done - sure, anything is possible and I'm sure some new guidelines can be documented that sport can follow.

Should it be done is a whole other question and apart from the money side of it, I can't think of a good reason why entertainment like this needs to be rushed back when I think it would be easier logistically to implement a monetary solution, void the season and focus on getting things 100% right to start a new season whenever that might be.
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,559
Does anyone know how many people would be involved in staging just one football match?
I'm talking essential stadium staff, players, coaches, medical staff. Even ball boys!
It would be interesting to know what numbers are required to stage a game.
Somewhere in the 250-300 region is what I've heard, even for a game behind closed doors. This includes cameramen and other media of course, not just club staff.
 

Dashy

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
145
754
They will be tested before games, if they have it they dont play. Thats pretty safe

It should be the same for anyone where them not attending work will cost their companies/employers revenue, they should have rights where their jobs are safe but they should not be paid. or paid SSP.

The tests the nhs currently use for their staff can only give an accurate reading between day 3 and day 7 of symptoms. You could be contagious on day 2 but the test may not pick it up.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Somewhere in the 250-300 region is what I've heard, even for a game behind closed doors. This includes cameramen and other media of course, not just club staff.

Indeed and they can divided between 3 sets, like they are in Germany, that should never have need to meet, so apart from the first set, don't need to be as stringently tested

Players, officials and team management
Media and Broadcasters
Backroom staff.

In Germany they have basically divided stadium into 2 areas, and unless you have been subject to stringent repeated negative tests, you are not allowed in the area of the stadium where anyone in the players group above are allowed to go,
 
Last edited:

neilp

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2007
3,350
14,710
The biggest risk to players in my view is where you have people sprinting about at extremely close proximity to each other, the rate at which you’re expelling air from your lungs must be at a far greater force than simply standing near someone and the risk associated with the potentially dense infected bacteria must be exponentially greater.

In the same way that the choirs belting out a tune were more at risk etc.
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
12,669
16,715
The biggest risk to players in my view is where you have people sprinting about at extremely close proximity to each other, the rate at which you’re expelling air from your lungs must be at a far greater force than simply standing near someone and the risk associated with the potentially dense infected bacteria must be exponentially greater.

In the same way that the choirs belting out a tune were more at risk etc.

Yes, although to be clear the process would be in place to ensure no players with the virus are playing and thus doing the above.

So more air being expelled but, in theory, no infected air.

The risk with this approach is that the player catches C-19 between the point of their last negative test and the match. So this is the part of the whole scheme that would be the trickiest to implement.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,956
He


He, like many others now will do anything he can to try and make the Torys look bad in all this. Its one big political games in this country as usual.

I don't think he has the power to stop it if the government give it the go ahead.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,956
So if the TV companies want the money back regardless if games are played or not and it really is meant to be all about the money then surely they might as well just cancel the season on health and safety grounds.


The conversation about money was what Masters referred to as “an update” on the broadcasting situation. This was just as thorny as curtailment because he told the clubs that Sky Sports and co are asking for the best part of £340 million back, whether the clubs play out the rest of the season or not.

This will not have gone down at all well, as most clubs believed the deal they were being offered at the start of this crisis was: play the remaining games, by any means necessary, and the broadcasters will not demand a pro rata rebate of £762 million on the games they have shelled out for this season.

Apparently, that deal is no longer on the table.

Why? Aren’t the broadcasters desperate for content to serve a hungry audience?

Yes, but every subscription-based sports broadcaster has seen a decline in customers and advertising revenue. Some are rumoured to be losing millions of pounds every day.

They can also argue that the games they might get are not what they paid for, as they will be played in empty stadiums, potentially between teams that are distracted, tired and weakened. And there is also the possibility some fans will not watch, as they disagree with the principle of playing through a pandemic.

Could the clubs simply refuse to pay back this money?

Yes, but that brings us back to our learned friends in the legal profession and arguments about force majeure, frustration and reasonable efforts.

This is not the type of drama upon which the Premier League has built its brand or the basis for friendly relationships when almost everyone believes we are still in the foothills of this crisis and nowhere near the peak of its impact on the game’s financial well-being.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
So if the TV companies want the money back regardless if games are played or not and it really is meant to be all about the money then surely they might as well just cancel the season on health and safety grounds.


Is is not just about finish season and maybe have to repay £340m, or don't play and give back £ 762m (delta of not small sum of £422m) but also playing the games will also help fulfil clubs sponsorship agreements.

In total the PL clubs are expected to lose roughly £1.1b if the season does not finish, so even if they do have to give all the broadcasters some monies back for not delivering the product purchased and on time, they will still benefit to the tune of some three quarters of a billion pounds, that is the motivation for the clubs, and they may be able to negate some of that broadcasting rebate by allowing all games to be put on TV with staggered kick-off times (if the broadcasters want that)
 
Last edited:

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,351
38,294
So if the TV companies want the money back regardless if games are played or not and it really is meant to be all about the money then surely they might as well just cancel the season on health and safety grounds.


The conversation about money was what Masters referred to as “an update” on the broadcasting situation. This was just as thorny as curtailment because he told the clubs that Sky Sports and co are asking for the best part of £340 million back, whether the clubs play out the rest of the season or not.

This will not have gone down at all well, as most clubs believed the deal they were being offered at the start of this crisis was: play the remaining games, by any means necessary, and the broadcasters will not demand a pro rata rebate of £762 million on the games they have shelled out for this season.

Apparently, that deal is no longer on the table.

Why? Aren’t the broadcasters desperate for content to serve a hungry audience?

Yes, but every subscription-based sports broadcaster has seen a decline in customers and advertising revenue. Some are rumoured to be losing millions of pounds every day.

They can also argue that the games they might get are not what they paid for, as they will be played in empty stadiums, potentially between teams that are distracted, tired and weakened. And there is also the possibility some fans will not watch, as they disagree with the principle of playing through a pandemic.

Could the clubs simply refuse to pay back this money?

Yes, but that brings us back to our learned friends in the legal profession and arguments about force majeure, frustration and reasonable efforts.

This is not the type of drama upon which the Premier League has built its brand or the basis for friendly relationships when almost everyone believes we are still in the foothills of this crisis and nowhere near the peak of its impact on the game’s financial well-being.
I know that this is an aside but I guess still relevant, Sky must be feeling the pinch at the moment what with people not wanting to pay for sports subscription during the current situation but also because the trend must be moving away from taking out these big subscription packages and instead opting for Freeview and piggybacking with alternatives such as Netflix, Amazon prime and now Disney.
 

RosieFTL

Active Member
Feb 2, 2020
82
171
Is is not just about finish season and maybe have to repay £340m, or don't play and give back £ 762m (delta of not small sum of £422m) but also playing the games will also help fulfil clubs sponsorship agreements.

In total the PL clubs are expected to lose roughly £1.1b if the season does not finish, so even if they do have to give all the broadcasters some monies back for not delivering the product purchased and on time, they will still benefit to the tune of some three quarters of a billion pounds, that is the motivation for the clubs, and they may be able to negate some of that broadcasting rebate by allowing all games to be put on TV with staggered kick-off times (if the broadcasters want that)

Hopefully they lose the money and the whole thing crumbles. Bring back football pre 1992.
 
Top