test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Steve

The English Football Thread

Started by Steve,

40 minutes ago, Jason said:

How then do you determine, say, the European qualification for 2020/21? If this season is declared null and void, do you take the 2018/19 league table to determine the teams qualify for Europe? If so, then you would have the likes of Manchester United making complaints about it. If you take how the table currently stands to determine it, then the likes of Wolves, Spurs and especially Sheffield United who will complain about it - mind you, Sheffield United have played one game less than the teams around them for the Champions League spots. If they win the game in hand, they'll go above Man United in 5th and 5th will be a Champions League spot if Man City's ban sticks.

Imagine they take UEFA clubs ranking and we miss CL :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NikkiCFC said:

Imagine they take UEFA clubs ranking and we miss CL :lol:

Just had a look and fucking hell, didn't realize we're behind Arsenal and Spurs too! :doh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jason said:

Just had a look and fucking hell, didn't realize we're behind Arsenal and Spurs too! :doh: 

that's the 5 year coefficient

we got fucked because of no points in 2016/17

if we had the average year then we would be 8th in the world with 104 points, 1 behind PSG who have 105

look at this seasons rankings

1b79653197ea04d784674bb068947e3e.png

 

the previous set of 5 years before the current 5 we are 4th in the world

 

for the ten years we are 5th (AM passes us up)

 

e9622cd6104378a9d3fdcd8464e38f8a.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vesper said:

that's the 5 year coefficient

we got fucked because of no points in 2016/17

if we had the average year then we would be 8th in the world with 104 points, 1 behind PSG who have 105

look at this seasons rankings

1b79653197ea04d784674bb068947e3e.png

 

the previous set of 5 years before the current 5 we are 4th in the world

 

for the ten years we are 5th (AM passes us up)

 

e9622cd6104378a9d3fdcd8464e38f8a.png

 

True. We have been pretty much irrelevant in the Champions League since winning 2012. 1 semi-final run - and 2 Europa League wins but they don't give the same number of points - and that's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NikkiCFC said:

When are they planning to play?

 

they will never finish this season, and it is bollocks to combined it with next year

it needs to be voided

we make the CL (if there is one)

and no title for the victims

too fucking bad for them but that's the way the virus crumbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Tottenham actualy sent all their employees on stand by and cut their paycheck by 80% (they probably dont have big pay to begin with, so now income for many could mean struggle), while their star footballers are still getting 100Ks weekly. 

They realy are a yid club. Fucking pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

So Tottenham actualy sent all their employees on stand by and cut their paycheck by 80% (they probably dont have big pay to begin with, so now income for many could mean struggle), while their star footballers are still getting 100Ks weekly. 

They realy are a yid club. Fucking pathetic.

If there were 20 non-playing staff, earning average 30k a year. So approx 150k wages for 3 months. 120k will then have to be paid by the Government. That'sless than 1 week's pay for the average Sp*ds player. Shitcunt club.

Vesper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

If there were 20 non-playing staff, earning average 30k a year. So approx 150k wages for 3 months. 120k will then have to be paid by the Government. That'sless than 1 week's pay for the average Sp*ds player. Shitcunt club.

 

Vesper and Fulham Broadway like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Player contracts are biggest barrier to season finishing. It’s a legal minefield

https://theathletic.com/1716043/2020/04/02/coronavirus-premier-league-football-contracts-season-finish/

Callum-Hudson-Odoi-contract-Chelsea-scaled-e1585761502362-1024x654.jpg

Several leading sports lawyers have raised serious doubts about the implications of extending the season beyond June 30, with one lawyer saying it is simply “not realistic”, while another said the situation would be an “absolute nightmare”.

The crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic is, of course, bigger than football or any other sport, but that does not mean the professional game is not dealing with significant and unprecedented challenges.

One of the most complicated issues is how to finish the current season in Europe, where many players’ contracts expire on June 30, a hard deadline to end one season and start another that nobody expected would be forced to move.

But that is the predicament facing administrators, clubs, leagues and players as they try to work out how to preserve the integrity of their competitions, as well as satisfy their various broadcast and commercial contracts, assuming their respective governments let them do so.

If the season is to be extended beyond June 30, clubs are going to want to extend some of their expiring contracts, but they are unlikely to want to hand out new three-year deals, so they are very likely to be short-term deals,” says Nick De Marco QC, a barrister with Blackstone Chambers.

“But this presents a perennial problem for players: if you get injured while playing on a short-term contract, you could find yourself without a job. Now, it makes sense for all parties to negotiate and find a way through this, but it is not required for players to agree to these short-term extensions under English law.”

Dan Lowen, a sports contract specialist at London-based law firm Level, agrees with De Marco.

“Some with expiring contracts may be delighted to be paid by their clubs for a few more weeks or months, but others will refuse to accept any extension as they won’t want to jeopardise a long-term or better contract with a new club,” says Lowen.

A working group set up by world football’s governing body FIFA to look at the regulatory issues posed by the pandemic has recently sent a report to the game’s stakeholders.

In this report, which The Athletic has seen, FIFA says the “three core matters” that must be addressed are expiring contracts, the “appropriate timing” for the next transfer window (currently scheduled to open on July 1) and “frustrated” agreements that can no longer be fulfilled because of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The concept of frustration exists in common law systems, like England’s, and civil law systems, such as Switzerland’s, where FIFA is based. In simple terms, it says contracts can be set aside if an unforeseen event makes it impossible for the contract to be fulfilled.

This is particularly significant now that clubs are unable to provide their coaches, players and non-playing staff with work, and may be struggling to pay them. As a result, clubs have been persuading their employees to take pay cuts or defer wages until life returns to normal, with players at Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Juventus among those who have accepted cuts.

So far, only a handful of teams in England and Scotland have agree to do likewise, although Newcastle United, Norwich City, Bournemouth and Tottenham Hotspur have become the first Premier League clubs to take advantage of a government-backed scheme to furlough their non-playing staff. This means these employees will be paid 80 per cent of their usual salaries, up to a maximum of £2,500 a month, out of the public purse — a controversial move for companies who employ millionaires.

FIFA can only provide general guidance on these matters and its proposal is that “clubs and employees (players and coaches) be encouraged to work together to agree on deferral and/or reduction of salary by a reasonable amount for any period of the stoppage”.

The English Football League, Premier League and Professional Footballers’ Association met on Wednesday in attempt to reach a united position and it is expected that English-based players will agree to defer a proportion of their wages.

That is certainly the hope of global players’ union FIFPro, whose secretary general Jonas Baer-Hoffmann told reporters on Tuesday he hoped the various contractual issues could be resolved “collectively, with the right will on both sides”.

But, presumably as an example of the wrong will, he also highlighted the example of seven-time Slovakian champions MSK Zilina, who became the first European club to start liquidation proceedings after the start of the coronavirus crisis on Monday when 17 of their first-team players refused to accept an 80 per cent pay cut.

This is clearly an extreme example, but it highlights how difficult it can be to find common ground or a way through the crisis.

As Lowen points out, the situation in the England, particularly at several of the Premier League’s top clubs, is further complicated by the fact many player contracts are now “heavily skewed towards incentives” or bonuses.

“In normal times, these contingent payments are seen as a win-win because the clubs recognise that they gain if a player meets these targets,” he says.

“If the season is cancelled, players will not receive these bonuses, some of which they could have reasonably expected to have received. In those circumstances, should they also agree to cut or defer their basic salaries?

“There is often a difficult tension between the regulatory and legal spheres in global sports and this crisis is shining a bright light on that. FIFA is in a tough spot because it has 211 member associations: each one of those may have a slightly different approach to the regulations around contracts and will have different legal frameworks in which those contracts exist.”

A good example of this is how an English court might interpret a contract expiring on June 30 versus a court elsewhere in Europe, and it is based on the concept of “contractual intention”.

“In England, it is based on what an objective bystander would reasonably consider the intention of the contract to be,” explains De Marco.

“In this case, the fact the contracts say June 30, it would be reasonable to assume that is what was intended. But under civil law, you look more at the subjective interpretation of intention. So, for example, if you had evidence to suggest the parties to the contract actually meant ‘until the end of the season’, you could more easily extend it.”

Some experts have suggested football needs to look again at its player contracts, as they do not contain “force majeure” clauses that guard against unforeseen circumstances.

“They are common in other sports contracts,” says Dan Chapman, head of the sports and employment teams at Leathes Prior, a law firm in East Anglia.

“For example, the last race of the season in Formula One is scheduled for Abu Dhabi but the sport has had to cancel and reschedule races before. This is reflected in the drivers’ contracts, which have more flexibility.

“Football contracts, on the other hand, really aren’t very sophisticated and I wonder if this is something we should look at after the crisis. If you’re (Birmingham City’s) Jude Bellingham, just to pick one example, are you really going to want to play a few more games in the Championship this summer if you already have a move to Borussia Dortmund or Manchester United lined up?

“I don’t think extending the season for months is realistic or possible from a legal point of view. I can’t see players agreeing to short-term extensions if they know they’re going to be cramming games in before facing a quick turnaround for another long season. The risk of injury will only be increased.”

De Marco, however, is not so convinced that football contracts can or will be changed as a result of the crisis.

“Football contracts are not like most employment contracts for good reason,” he says. “First, they are the product of years of collective bargaining between the clubs, players’ unions and the governing bodies, so they cannot be altered without consultation.

“Second, they are fixed-term contracts, so players cannot just be made redundant or dismissed on notice because there is no work for them. And there are no force majeure clauses in them because of the highly specific nature of the industry.

“A Liverpool player cannot just hand in his notice and join Arsenal in the same way most of us can move to new companies. This is because of the integrity and team stability issues this would pose for football competitions, but it is a fundamental restraint of trade. Therefore it is only fair that players get something in return.

“Force majeure clauses might seem reasonable to some but most players only get two or three good contracts in their lifetime: is it fair that those contracts could be ripped up for something that is completely beyond their control?”

Lowen believes one possible way out of the legal minefield is to relax FIFA’s ban on pre-contract agreements between clubs in the same country. Under the current rules, players can sign pre-contracts with clubs abroad, as Aaron Ramsey did when he left Arsenal for Juve.

“One way of potentially allaying players’ concerns would be for national associations to allow players to do this now for moves within national borders,” says Lowen.

“This could, however, lead to potential issues with the integrity of the competition, as players could face their future employers in the final matches of the season. But signing a pre-contract would in theory give players a degree of protection against the risks and impact of a bad injury.”

Daniel Geey, a sports lawyer at Sheridans, raises another potential headache for clubs and players. “What happens if a player is out of contract on July 1 but cannot be employed or registered by another club until the new season starts because the transfer window has moved? That’s a restraint of trade,” says Geey.

“And then there will be other players who will only sign extended contracts if they are rewarded for the added risk of injury. That is why I can imagine some clubs would simply decide to play on with a smaller squad.

“My gut feeling is the clubs will have enough players to finish the season without dishing out lots of short-term deals, although this will clearly lead to some questions about the integrity of the competition. Watford are a good potential example as Heurelho Gomes and Ben Foster are out of contract. That is a good prisoner’s dilemma for them as they wonder if they should re-sign or not.”

Another lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous, said all these issues amounted to the “absolute nightmare” mentioned above and it is why he believes the game will reach a “tipping point” in the coming weeks and realise the season cannot be completed.

He said he thought the leaders in each league would be awarded the respective titles, the current Premier League table would decide the European places, the top two in the Championship, League One and League Two would be promoted and there would be no relegation. The divisions would then be readjusted over the coming seasons.

“Somebody will try to sue the leagues but I think it will be a case of the path of least resistance and I’m sure a settlement can be reached with the broadcasters,” he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Raheem Sterling will not return to Liverpool, even if he does leave Man City

https://theathletic.com/1711380/2020/04/01/james-pearce-liverpool-raheem-sterling-manchester-city/

Sterling-Man-City-scaled-e1585748051785-1024x683.jpg

It started with Raheem Sterling’s live Instagram Q&A with supporters last week.

Asked if he would ever go back to Liverpool, the Manchester City winger said: “To be honest with you, I love Liverpool. Don’t get it twisted, they are always in my heart. It’s a team that done a lot for me growing up so…”

French newspaper “L’Equipe” then ran a story on the prospect of Jurgen Klopp making a move to sign the England international, fuelled by comments attributed to one of Sterling’s representatives.

“Even if Raheem is attached to Manchester City, he hasn’t forgotten Liverpool because that’s where he became who he is, as a man and as a player. There was controversy surrounding his exit, of course, but time has run its course and everything is possible.”

Eyebrows have been raised on Merseyside. The reality is that there’s more chance of Lord Lucan riding into Anfield on Shergar than Sterling returning to Liverpool any time soon. It’s a non-starter on every possible level.

Forget the bad blood for a minute — the 25-year-old still has three years to run on a contract worth up to £300,000 per week. He’s a £150 million asset and it’s highly unlikely that City would contemplate selling him to their biggest domestic rival.

And even if City’s Champions League ban is upheld and that puts pressure on them to consider offers, Liverpool simply wouldn’t be interested at those kind of figures. You don’t break your transfer record or your wage structure to secure the services of a player who wouldn’t get into your first-choice XI.

Reports have suggested that Liverpool “fear” losing Sadio Mane to Real Madrid this summer and Sterling would be the ideal replacement on the left of Klopp’s front three. However, that’s news to the Anfield hierarchy, who are convinced that the Senegal international is happy and still sees his long-term future at the club.

Sterling does have the qualities that Klopp looks for in an attacker and would certainly fit the style, but he isn’t a more complete player than Mane, who has contributed 14 goals and nine assists in the Premier League this season compared to Sterling’s tally of 11 goals and two assists.

Even if there was a void to be filled and even if the finances made sense, selling the return of Sterling to Liverpool supporters would be a major challenge.

He has felt the wrath of Anfield on each visit since his acrimonious £49 million transfer to the Etihad in the summer of 2015. Every touch has been booed by the Kop and he’s been subjected to chants of “only one greedy bastard”.

The manner in which he repeatedly agitated for the move to City left a sour taste. He always maintained that it was a desire to play Champions League football and win trophies rather than the pursuit of greater riches that was his motivation.

But there’s no doubt that the saga was handled badly and he received some poor advice after rejecting Liverpool’s offer of a new contract.

An interview with his agent Aidy Ward was published saying “he didn’t care” about the club’s image and that Sterling wouldn’t sign an extension “even if he was offered £900,000 per week”. Ward claimed he thought the conversation with an Evening Standard journalist was off the record.

The result of Ward’s rant was more negativity in Sterling’s direction as he was booed at Liverpool’s end of season awards in 2015. It was all so unnecessary: after having two bids turned down, City ended up paying the £49 million fee which was Liverpool’s asking price from the start.

Since then Sterling has grown both as a player and as a man. He has won two league titles, the FA Cup and three League Cups at the Etihad, and has become one of the most influential sports people in Britain.

Yet the jeers from the stands at Anfield clearly still affect him. Last November tempers boiled over towards the end of Liverpool’s 3-1 win as Joe Gomez and Sterling squared up to each other.

Sterling, Gomez

Calm was restored but 24 hours later when the duo reported for England duty, Sterling lost his rag when Gomez went to shake his hand at St George’s Park and tried to put him in a headlock. The scar under the right eye of the Liverpool defender remains visible.

Sterling was fortunate that Gomez, a quiet and unassuming model professional, decided not to take the matter further. Instead he quickly accepted his apology and helped convince Gareth Southgate not to banish him from the squad. The incident upset Gomez and his Liverpool team-mates were angered by the treatment that followed, with the centre-back booed by a section of England fans.

The question is: what’s the motivation behind the comments of Sterling and those close to him?

Maybe Sterling regrets the way he handled his exit and is just trying to build bridges and show his appreciation for the club who launched his professional career. He has previously talked about how his young daughter Melody remains a Liverpool fan and sings Mohamed Salah’s “Egyptian king” chant around the house.

Maybe he’s been casting admiring glances towards Anfield, with his old club on the brink of taking the title off City’s hands. Speaking back in 2015, Ward suggested that Sterling would have stayed put if Klopp had replaced Brendan Rodgers earlier.

“The new Liverpool manager probably would have been a great fit for Raheem — passionate, disciplined in the right way, new ideas, not afraid of trying new things. Would Raheem under Klopp have been a good scenario? Yes, 100 per cent, definitely, mainly because of the person Klopp is — the passion, the drive, the emotion, wanting to achieve,” Ward said.

“Working with Klopp — that could have been great. He’s going to get the best out of those players. It could have been a dream come true.”

Both Liverpool and Sterling have flourished since then. They will remain on separate paths. If Sterling and those close to him are plotting a move, his next stop won’t be Anfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Lineker blasts Matt Hancock demand for Premier League footballers to rush into coronavirus pay cuts as Gary Neville says Health Secretary has 'a f***ing cheek'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8183453/Gary-Lineker-blasts-Matt-Hancock-demand-footballers-rush-coronavirus-pay-cuts.html

Hancock is right here. Players need to take HUGE pay cut. 80%-85% if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Premier League agrees to... - effectively suspend indefinitely ie 'until safe & appropriate to return' - ask players for 30% conditional pay cut/deferral - bring forward £125m of solidarity, parachute & academy payments to EFL & NL - donate £20m(!) to NHS, communities, families..

Fernando likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NikkiCFC said:

Gary Lineker blasts Matt Hancock demand for Premier League footballers to rush into coronavirus pay cuts as Gary Neville says Health Secretary has 'a f***ing cheek'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8183453/Gary-Lineker-blasts-Matt-Hancock-demand-footballers-rush-coronavirus-pay-cuts.html

Hancock is right here. Players need to take HUGE pay cut. 80%-85% if you ask me.

Would you take an 80-85% pay cut?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Would you take an 80-85% pay cut?

 

 

For normal job with normal salary I wouldn't. But footballers are not in this bracket. One fucking Drinkwater earns per month more than 300 nurses in UK in the same period. How sad is that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NikkiCFC said:

For normal job with normal salary I wouldn't. But footballers are not in this bracket. One fucking Drinkwater earns per month more than 300 nurses in UK in the same period. How sad is that? 

Danny Drinkwater has a high skill job that places him in the top echelon of a high paying field. Any person with enough money, and high enough test scores, could become a nurse.

 

Important job, certainly, but Footballers earn their pay by being the best at a job sought after by hundreds of millions. They shouldnt be expected, nor required, to take a pay cut after working hard to reach the level they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Telegraph

Friday April 3 2020

Football Nerd

The Premier League season's most 'unfair' results

By Daniel Zeqiri

Tottenham vs Manchester City

Many results are produced by variance and good fortune CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES

Throughout football's coronavirus hiatus, we remain committed to providing a weekly newsletter of football facts, analysis and retrospectives. If there is a topic you are keen for us to cover please email sportnewsletters@telegraph.co.uk.

Above all, stay safe.

The thought of voiding the Premier League season repels football's authorities and most supporters for a variety of reasons. One is that football matches are a series of never-to-be-repeated discrete events, and their outcomes owe much to fortune and who enjoys the rub of the green on the day.

Football's low-scoring nature means teams can dominate a significant portion of the 90 minutes but find themselves on the wrong side of the result. The tension and jeopardy created by this dynamic is what keeps us all interested.

In the past decade, metrics such as 'expected goals' have gone mainstream and allowed even the casual fan to quantitatively value which team created the better chances. Despite its clunky name, expected goals is just a numerical expression of concepts that have been discussed in pubs and cafes for decades.

How many times have you heard someone say "eight or nine times out of ten we win that"? Or recall Ron Atkinson's riposte to Sky Sports' Richard Keys, when the defeated Coventry City manager pointed out that Southampton goalkeeper Dave Beasant had won the man of the match award. Familiar sentiments all football fans understand - expected goals just puts flesh on the bone.

Below are the 10 most 'unfair' results of this Premier League season, based on the discrepancy between the actual scoreline and the xG tally. They can be divided up into two categories: ever so slightly flattering thrashings, or an unlikely reverse of the outcome the balance of the game should have produced.

 
age mistmatches graph

CREDIT: OPTA

It is not surprising to see Leicester's 9-0 and 5-0 routs against Southampton and Newcastle or Manchester City's 6-1 win at Aston Villa feature on the list. Scoring five goals or more in 90 minutes is practically impossible without some xG over-performance - Bayern Munich scoring seven at Tottenham from an xG total of 1.45 the perfect example.

This does not mean the result of these games was unjust however, as the xG indicates the victors were certainly the better side. More influential for league table are those games where the outcome of the game flips.

Tottenham's 2-0 win over Manchester City was the best example of floodlight robbery, achieved with an xG match-up of 0.31 to 2.86. Burnley have also kept up their reputation for squeezing out wins against the odds, with home wins against Southampton and Crystal Palace achieved while creating fewer than 1.0 xG per game.

This is not to suggest some teams have been lucky, but rather demonstrate the number of results determined by variance. That is why studying a bigger sample of matches offers a better idea of each team's level.

Fulham Broadway likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.