Football and the Coronavirus

woppy101 said:
You missed the prominent words out “if sufficient progress made to limit spread of coronavirus” which is very doubtful the way people around the country are acting
Click to expand...
I didn't miss any words :confused:

I intentionally linked that tweet as it clearly says it won't be before June 1st, rather than all the misleading tweets and articles saying that the government have given the go ahead for sport to return in June. I actually commented on this in my post earlier today too, which you even replied to :confused:
The plans around returning to training and games starting at certain points have been agreed with government already - the exact date at which they will be reached will be dependent on the health situation in the country and of course clubs agreeing to requirements placed on them.
Click to expand...
 
BaZ87 said:
**** knows what's going on anymore:


Judging by what the head of policing for football said the other week and what the Telegraph reported earlier, it appears a big ask for the government to approve this but it would be great if they did and of course it was safe to do so.
Click to expand...
i dont think it is safe to do so.

lets see the numbers again in 2 weeks time to see were we are at.
 
The restrictions on the numbers of stadiums being used isn't because of infection rates but the requirements on policing all stadiums, making sure fans don't turn up.

and:

This is also being reported in other outlets too. Unless the government block the return (and or something drastic happens in Germany) then it's looking very likely that the PL will return. The chances of rebel clubs blocking the restart now appear all but over.
 
Last edited:
If the season is restarted then what incentive are Man United going to have to extend Dean Henderson's loan at Sheffield United? in fact what incentive does any club have to extend a loan and put their investment at risk playing for another club for a month? even if they get agreement for a restart I think player contracts is going to be the next big obstacle, some teams are going to have to finish the season with a weakened team compared to what it would have been without the suspension so I'm not sure how they're protecting the integrity of the league. Add to that they're talking about allowing 5 subs a game and that's only really going to benefit the big clubs with big squads. I don't see the point in restarting at all when conditions are nothing like the same as they would have been without the suspension. PPG is actually looking more sensible by the day but even that is going to cause a lot of backlash. The Premier League have apparently ruled out null and void so they're between a rock and a hard place.
 
I would say United are 95% likely to extend Henderson's contract. It's what the player will likely want and we don't need him back. No sense burning bridges with the player or SU as there is a possibility he goes back again next year.
 
It's also in their interests to not put road blocks in the way of the season resuming too.

Just a little rethink on the neutral venue thing. I wonder whether the FA's stance on insisting the League is decided by sporting merit, including relegations, may not have helped the PL restart. If the PL's attempts at changing the governments mind re using all stadiums aren't successful then clubs will be left with a straight choice of finishing the season at neutral venues or ending early with, most likely, PPG deciding the final table. The bottom 3 will now vote for neutral stadiums but it would only harden Watford, West Ham and Brighton's position and what about Chelsea, Leicester and possibly even clubs like Sheffield Utd? Ending early will guarantee Chelsea and Leicester CL spots and Sheffield Utd a place in the Europa - Sheffield Utd could obviously still claim a CL spot if matches resume but would they risk not qualifying for Europe at all by restarting the season?

edit: If the PL use a weighted PPG that factors in the amount of home and away games remaining, which would leave West Ham in the relegation zone, then I'm all for ending the season early.
 
Apparently FA today reportedly told Prem clubs it will insist season is finished on sporting merit.

“News relating to my tweet of last Tuesday, on the FA's Special Share in the Premier League.

FA today reportedly told Prem clubs it will insist season is finished on sporting merit.

So Norwich, Villa & Bournemouth need season to continue to have chance of avoiding relegation”
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN
The Mail Online reports

The Premier League's bottom three clubs may be forced to back Project Restart after the FA stepped in to demand the season is decided by 'sporting merit'.

Norwich, Aston Villa and Bournemouth, who sit 20th, 19th and 18th in the table, were ready to oppose plans to complete the campaign at neutral venues over fears they would lose home advantage in the middle of a relegation battle.

However, with the FA demanding that 'sporting merit' - either playing the remaining games or using a formula like points-per-game - is used to settle the table, they must now vote to resume games next month to stand any chance of avoiding the drop.
 
The way I read this now is 17 Premier league clubs can now vote to end the season and not worry about the possibility of relegation. There is no way this season is kicking off again, why would Brighton, Southampton, Newcastle or Everton now take the risk of kicking off again hitting bad form and possibly getting relegated or dragged into a relegation battle.

woppy101 said:
Apparently FA today reportedly told Prem clubs it will insist season is finished on sporting merit.

“News relating to my tweet of last Tuesday, on the FA's Special Share in the Premier League.

FA today reportedly told Prem clubs it will insist season is finished on sporting merit.

So Norwich, Villa & Bournemouth need season to continue to have chance of avoiding relegation”
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN
The Mail Online reports

The Premier League's bottom three clubs may be forced to back Project Restart after the FA stepped in to demand the season is decided by 'sporting merit'.

Norwich, Aston Villa and Bournemouth, who sit 20th, 19th and 18th in the table, were ready to oppose plans to complete the campaign at neutral venues over fears they would lose home advantage in the middle of a relegation battle.

However, with the FA demanding that 'sporting merit' - either playing the remaining games or using a formula like points-per-game - is used to settle the table, they must now vote to resume games next month to stand any chance of avoiding the drop.
Click to expand...
 
woppy101 said:
The way I read this now is 17 Premier league clubs can now vote to end the season and not worry about the possibility of relegation, there is no way this season is kicking off again
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the top 12 or so clubs aren't worried about relegation at all. Also West Ham aren't 100% safe if the season ends either - a few reports are speculating that the PL could use a weighted PPG that takes into account home and away form, this would relegate West Ham instead of Bournemouth. That said, whichever PPG method is used will guarantee Chelsea and Leicester qualifying for the CL and Sheffield Utd a Europa place - these clubs may now prefer the certainty of ending the season rather than risking their positions.

I still think that if the PL can't change the governments mind on neutral venues then clubs would still ultimately vote to restart the season but we may just end up seeing roles reversed with some clubs at the top of the table voting against it and clubs at the bottom voting in favour.
 
BaZ87 said:
I'm pretty sure the top 12 or so clubs aren't worried about relegation at all. Also West Ham aren't 100% safe if the season ends either - a few reports are speculating that the PL could use a weighted PPG that takes into account home and away form, this would relegate West Ham instead of Bournemouth. That said, whichever PPG method is used will guarantee Chelsea and Leicester qualifying for the CL and Sheffield Utd a Europa place - these clubs may now prefer the certainty of ending the season rather than risking their positions.

I still think that if the PL can't change the governments mind on neutral venues then clubs would still ultimately vote to restart the season but we may just end up seeing rolls reversed with some clubs at the top of the table voting against it and clubs at the bottom voting in favour.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way, as you said it’s likely the top half clubs would now vote to end the season as is, with the exception of Manchester United, and everyone from Everton down to the bottom 3 would also do the same because you don’t know how those teams are going to start again and don’t want to get sucked into a relegation battle and it depends which PPG rule is used to which way West Ham and Bournemouth vote. As I said I don’t think the season will restart as teams will be looking after themselves
 
woppy101 said:
Look at it this way, as you said it’s likely the top half clubs would now vote to end the season as is, with the exception of Manchester United, and everyone from Everton down to the bottom 3 would also do the same because you don’t know how those teams are going to start again and don’t want to get sucked into a relegation battle and it depends which PPG rule is used to which way West Ham and Bournemouth vote. As I said I don’t think the season will restart as teams will be looking after themselves
Click to expand...
I've only speculated that 2 or 3 clubs in the top half would vote against. I think it's far too simplistic to say that looking after themselves is ending the season early too.
  • Liverpool and City are certainties for the CL spots and have no risk of relegation - both imo would want to restart.
  • Leicester and Chelsea are the two top half clubs that are most likely to vote against the restart. The risk of missing out on the CL is greater than losing TV money from this season.
  • Utd & Wolves will be two of the most in favour of restarting with a CL spot up for grabs and I doubt either place much value on possibly missing out on the Europa.
  • Sheffield Utd is more finely balanced - the money from the Europa League isn't massive and alone may not be enough to sway them, especially when they could qualify for the CL.
  • Arsenal and Spurs will be massively in favour of restarting. Their hopes of making the CL are small but as things stand they're not even going to qualify for the Europa (1 might if City's ban isn't delayed) and both face fairly bleak financial positions next season with no CL and little to no matchday revenue. They can't afford to give back millions to Sky and other broadcasters.
  • Palace's position is already clear, they'll vote for a restart.
  • Burnley, Everton, Newcastle & Southampton are finely balanced - the risk of being relegated is still there but fairly minimal. Palace's position has already been made clear by Parish, the other 4 are unknown. Is a 10% chance of being relegated and losing £200m a big enough risk to guarantee they lose £50m this season?
  • Brighton & Watford will vote against neutral venues as they're 100% safe if the season is ended and in a very real relegation battle if it resumes.
  • Norwich & Villa will vote for a restart as they'd 100% be relegated.
  • West Ham & Bournemouth - one will vote for, one will vote against depending on what PPG method is used. The PL could delay the decision on PPG until after the restart vote to force both to vote in favour though.
I think there's 11 clubs that will definitely vote for a restart if they're faced with the choice of neutral venues or nothing, 2 definitely against and 7 wavering clubs. I think those wanting the season to go ahead will get the 3 more votes needed if push comes to shove.
 
BaZ87 said:
I've only speculated that 2 or 3 clubs in the top half would vote against. I think it's far too simplistic to say that looking after themselves is ending the season early too.
  • Liverpool and City are certainties for the CL spots and have no risk of relegation - both imo would want to restart.
  • Leicester and Chelsea are the two top half clubs that mare mos likely to vote against the restart. The risk of missing out on the CL is greater than losing TV money from this season.
  • Utd & Wolves will be two of the most in favour of restarting with a CL spot up for grabs and I doubt either placing much value on possibly missing out on the Europa.
  • Sheffield Utd is more finely balanced - the money from the Europa League isn't massive and alone may not be enough to sway them, especially when they could qualify for the CL.
  • Arsenal and Spurs will be massively in favour of restarting. Their hopes of making the CL are small but as things stand they're not even going to qualify for the Europa (1 might if City's ban isn't delayed) and both face fairly bleak financial positions next season with no CL and little to no matchday revenue. They can't afford to give back millions to Sky and other broadcasters.
  • Palace's position is already clear, they'll vote for a restart.
  • Burnley, Everton, Newcastle & Southampton are finely balanced - the risk of being relegated is still there but fairly minimal. Palace's position has already been made clear by Parish, the other 4 are unknown. Is a 10% chance of being relegated and losing £200m a big enough risk to guarantee they lose £50m this season?
  • Brighton & Watford will vote against neutral venues as they're 100% safe if the season is ended and in a very real relegation battle if it resumes.
  • Norwich & Villa will vote for a restart as they'd 100% be relegated.
  • West Ham & Bournemouth - one will vote for, one will vote against depending on what PPG method is used. The PL could delay the decision on PPG until after the restart vote to force both to vote in favour though.
I think there's 11 clubs that will definitely vote for a restart if they're faced with the choice of neutral venues or nothing, 2 definitely against and 7 wavering clubs. I think those wanting the season to go ahead will get the 3 more votes needed if push comes to shove.
Click to expand...


I disagree that there are that many in favour of a restart and Don’t really agree with your maths TBH but anyway, city would have a better chance of winning the CL without the PL games to play, wolves and Manchester United(possibility) you would think would be the same with the Europa and it’s passage into the CL(especially with UEFA wanting to finish both Cups in august) ,Arsenal and Spurs really don’t have a chance for CL and most likely won’t want europa and the PITA it can be especially with the likelihood of smaller squads next season. Burnley, Everton, Newcastle, Southampton, Brighton & Watford are likely not to want to risk relegation in my view and one of West Ham & Bournemouth are also going to vote against. That’s the way I see it anyway I’m sure we will find out in the coming weeks.
 
On the point of no League football helping sides in European compeitions - Lyon have been very vocal in disagreeing with you. City going into games against sides that have just played 2 months of competitive football will be disadvantaged.

And I don't think you're appreciating the financial side of things regarding Arsenal, Spurs and most mid table sides too. The Arsenal Supporters Trust done some forecasts on Arsenal's finances based on this season being completed and next season being played behind closed doors - Arsenal's cash reserves will be wiped out and would leave them needing to borrow over £50m to get through the next 14 months. These forecasts were based on them qualifying for the Europa which is looking unlikely so you can add another £20-30m to that cash shortfall. If this season doesn't finish then that's another £50m+ onto that too.
 
Will all this affect FFP? Should there be an amnesty for a while to allow owners to inject as much cash as needed to keep their clubs afloat and competitive?
 
BaZ87 said:
On the point of no League football helping sides in European compeitions - Lyon have been very vocal in disagreeing with you. City going into games against sides that have just played 2 months of competitive football will be disadvantaged.

And I don't think you're appreciating the financial side of things regarding Arsenal, Spurs and most mid table sides too. The Arsenal Supporters Trust done some forecasts on Arsenal's finances based on this season being completed and next season being played behind closed doors - Arsenal's cash reserves will be wiped out and would leave them needing to borrow over £50m to get through the next 14 months. These forecasts were based on them qualifying for the Europa which is looking unlikely so you can add another £20-30m to that cash shortfall. If this season doesn't finish then that's another £50m+ onto that too.
Click to expand...
Your figures are off you only get about £15m for the europa league and that’s if you win it, and using arsenal and spurs who have very rich owners (about £5bn) each is flawed as they don’t need to borrow money. The majority of the premier league actually have very very wealthy owners so cash shortfalls don’t really and shouldn’t really come into the subject
https://www.goal.com/en/news/richest-premier-league-owners-2020/m3uglaxa20go1wyqwo72ecmhz
 
woppy101 said:
Your figures are off you only get about £15m for the europa league and that’s if you win it, and using arsenal and spurs who have very rich owners (about £5bn) each is flawed as they don’t need to borrow money. The majority of the premier league actually have very very wealthy owners so cash shortfalls don’t really and shouldn’t really come into the subject
https://www.goal.com/en/news/richest-premier-league-owners-2020/m3uglaxa20go1wyqwo72ecmhz
Click to expand...
The owners are rich, but that doesn’t mean they like dipping into their pockets.

Kroenke has said he will inject millions to help us, but as he’s sole owner, he avoids a lot of financial scrutiny, so it’s difficult to know just how much he puts in.
 
robfosters said:
Will all this affect FFP? Should there be an amnesty for a while to allow owners to inject as much cash as needed to keep their clubs afloat and competitive?
Click to expand...
UEFA have announced that they will be relaxing elements of FFP but FFP as a whole will still remain. I guess that means they'll take a common sense approach, possibly with any lost revenue from matches being played behind closed doors and or lost tv revenue being added back onto a clubs accounts to for FFP calculations.
woppy101 said:
Your figures are off you only get about £15m for the europa league and that’s if you win it, and using arsenal and spurs who have very rich owners about £5bn each is flawed as they don’t need to borrow money. The majority of the premier league actually have very very wealthy owners so cash shortfalls don’t really and shouldn’t really come into the subject
https://www.goal.com/en/news/richest-premier-league-owners-2020/m3uglaxa20go1wyqwo72ecmhz
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're completely wrong about Europa revenue. How much a side will earn will depends on a huge number of factors but if it's won by a PL side then worst case they'll get around €40m. You can find a thread from SwissRamble here explaining the exact process for calculating Europa League revenue but a very brief explanation - you get fixed payments (same for every side entered) depending on how far you progress then you get a cut of your nations tv deal which will depend on how many sides from your nation enter, how far you progress relative to other sides from your nation and your league position in your domestic league the previous season. Because of this complicated process, Arsenal actually earned less from reaching the final last season (€36m) than they made from reaching the semi final the season before (€38m). Chelsea made €40m for winning it and that's the least you'd expect as another PL side reached the final - had Arsenal been knocked out earlier they'd have made up to £15m more. I used the £20-30m range as you cannot assume a side would get as far as the final. A quarter final with other PL sides also progressing to that stage would earn around that mark.

And just because a club has a rich owner that doesn't mean they're going put money into the club. Neither Kroenke or Joe Lewis have form for doing so, in fact I've seen it reported many times that Arsenal haven't been able to spend it's own money as Arsenal's balance sheet will effect loans that Kroenke has taken out in the US.
 
BaZ87 said:
UEFA have announced that they will be relaxing elements of FFP but FFP as a whole will still remain. I guess that means they'll take a common sense approach, possibly with any lost revenue from matches being played behind closed doors and or lost tv revenue being added back onto a clubs accounts to for FFP calculations.

Sorry, you're completely wrong about Europa revenue. How much a side will earn will depends on a huge number of factors but if it's won by a PL side then worst case they'll get around €40m. You can find a thread from SwissRamble here explaining the exact process for calculating Europa League revenue but a very brief explanation - you get fixed payments (same for every side entered) depending on how far you progress then you get a cut of your nations tv deal which will depend on how many sides from your nation enter, how far you progress relative to other sides from your nation and your league position in your domestic league the previous season. Because of this complicated process, Arsenal actually earned less from reaching the final last season (€36m) than they made from reaching the semi final the season before (€38m). Chelsea made €40m for winning it and that's the least you'd expect as another PL side reached the final - had Arsenal been knocked out earlier they'd have made up to £15m more. I used the £20-30m range as you cannot assume a side would get as far as the final. A quarter final with other PL sides also progressing to that stage would earn around that mark.

And just because a club has a rich owner that doesn't mean they're going put money into the club. Neither Kroenke or Joe Lewis have form for doing so, in fact I've seen it reported many times that Arsenal haven't been able to spend it's own money as Arsenal's balance sheet will effect loans that Kroenke has taken out in the US.
Click to expand...
It’s not what this says here max prize money €21.3m or £18m and that’s if you win every game you take part in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Europa_League#Prize_money
Prize money[edit]
Similar to the UEFA Champions League, the prize money received by the clubs is divided into fixed payments based on participation and results, and variable amounts that depend of the value of their TV market.[22]

For the 2019–20 season, group stage participation in the Europa League awarded a base fee of €2,920,000. A victory in the group pays €570,000 and a draw €190,000. Also, each group winner earns €1,000,000 and each runner-up €500,000. Reaching the knock-out stage triggers additional bonuses: €500,000 for the round of 32, €1,100,000 for the round of 16, €1,500,000 for the quarter-finals and €2,400,000 for the semi-finals. The losing finalists receive €4,500,000 and the champions receive €8,500,000.[23]

  • Preliminary round: €220,000
  • First qualifying round: €240,000
  • Second qualifying round: €260,000
  • Third qualifying round: €280,000
  • Play-off round elimination: €300,000
  • Base fee for group stage: €2,920,000
  • Group match victory: €570,000
  • Group match draw: €190,000
  • Group winners: €1,000,000
  • Group runners-up: €500,000
  • Round of 32: €500,000
  • Round of 16: €1,100,000
  • Quarter-finals: €1,500,000
  • Semi-finals: €2,400,000
  • Losing finalist: €4,500,000
  • Winners: €8,500,000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom