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.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.
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.
There will be some shock free transfers if that happens. Liverpool sign Akinfenwa, City sign Grant HoltWhy can't they all just play matches in those hamster bubble things?
There will be some shock free transfers if that happens. Liverpool sign Akinfenwa, City sign Grant Holt
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.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.
Why can't they all just play matches in those hamster bubble things?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Explained: Weighted Premier League table, a £340m rebate and neutral venues
Matt Slater explains what happened in the latest Premier League meeting, what it means… and what happens nexttheathletic.co.uk
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.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.
Explained: Weighted Premier League table, a £340m rebate and neutral venues
Matt Slater explains what happened in the latest Premier League meeting, what it means… and what happens nexttheathletic.co.uk
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.
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)
Yeah that'll be great when we cant afford to pay our stadium off, and all our players piss off to other leagues.Hopefully they lose the money and the whole thing crumbles. Bring back football pre 1992.