The English Football Thread

[Jase 43,479]

45 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Driven by money. They want to play it out or they owe billions to TV companies.

I find that the Premier League's lack of cohesive planning is the stupidest part in all of this. They are desperate to make sure the season is completed, fine but they don't have a freaking clue on how to go about it. They have had so many meetings with the clubs and gone nowhere, we hear stupid suggestions every few days to somehow force an early resumption and they don't even have a proper medical procedure on ensuring the safety of the players, staff etc involved for when the season resumes.

[MoroccanBlue 5,381]

2 hours ago, Laylabelle said:

If the season ends where it is and teams positions are taking into accounting the Villa would have a case on their hand if they want to still relegate.

They have a game in hand which with a win would take them out the bottom

Same with Sheffield. Win their game and they'd be in 5th place

Probably be so much easier to get void if anything. There has to be a cut off point to starting and its bound to be a disaster if all it takes is one player testing postive.. 

 

2 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

Null and void the damn season, enough already. What kind of state will the players be in, and you want neutral grounds too? Void that shit, no one wins atitle, no one gets relegated or demoted etc. Delete the season.

I genuinely can’t take you seriously if you think a PPG determinate has more legal ramifications than a null and void season. 

[Fulham Broadway 17,312]

5 hours ago, Jason said:

I find that the Premier League's lack of cohesive planning is the stupidest part in all of this. They are desperate to make sure the season is completed, fine but they don't have a freaking clue on how to go about it. They have had so many meetings with the clubs and gone nowhere, we hear stupid suggestions every few days to somehow force an early resumption and they don't even have a proper medical procedure on ensuring the safety of the players, staff etc involved for when the season resumes.

Bottom line the two organisations that matter cant do diddly squat without the government green light though. This is becoming less likely when up to 18 000 new infections were being  reported daily.  According to Eva Carneiro -yes her, 'Professional players have been shown to be regularly immunosuppressed' and there are real fears that black footballers face an increased risk of death if the season was resumed amid the coronavirus crisis. 

[Jase 43,479]

7 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Bottom line the two organisations that matter cant do diddly squat without the government green light though. This is becoming less likely when up to 18 000 new infections were being  reported daily.  According to Eva Carneiro -yes her, 'Professional players have been shown to be regularly immunosuppressed' and there are real fears that black footballers face an increased risk of death if the season was resumed amid the coronavirus crisis. 

Still doesn't excuse their haphazard planning. Say if the government allow football to resume this week behind closed doors, what plans/procedures/arrangements/agreements do they even have in place now to make sure that will go ahead?

[Fulham Broadway 17,312]

48 minutes ago, Jason said:

Still doesn't excuse their haphazard planning. Say if the government allow football to resume this week behind closed doors, what plans/procedures/arrangements/agreements do they even have in place now to make sure that will go ahead?

The clubs were all disagreeing with each other, and still are neutral grounds, etc PL cant force them into doing things that contracts explicitly say something but contradicts the status quo without lawyers rewriting it all, which takes time. Unprecedented times, especially when our government has a shambolic approach to the whole thing. 

[Atomiswave 6,117]

13 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

16 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

 

I genuinely can’t take you seriously if you think a PPG determinate has more legal ramifications than a null and void season.

I dont get your point. My point is delete the season and start fresh again after summer. Let all this settle down, plan well. To start playing now or very soon will only bring negatives with it.

[Atomiswave 6,117]

22 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Driven by money. They want to play it out or they owe billions to TV companies.

Which is horse shit....all around its a crap idea.

[Vesper 30,172]

Cox: Five subs mean more advantages for top sides – they must remain temporary

https://theathletic.com/1805019/2020/05/11/michael-cox-five-substitutes-premier-league/

When football resumes after its coronavirus-enforced break, some aspects of the game will almost inevitably be different.

Some of the changes could be as minor as scrapping pre-match handshakes, some may be as significant as completely changing football’s economic model. Some modifications will be temporary, some will be permanent.

More intriguingly, some will be intended to be temporary, but end up permanent.

Such changes tend to happen in times of national crisis. During the costly Napoleonic Wars, the concept of income tax was introduced throughout Britain as a temporary way to raise revenue. The country came to depend on these monies, and income tax became a fundamental part of Britain’s economy.

During the First World War, in order to save energy and help the war effort, the Summer Time Act declared that Britain would put its clocks forward for an hour between May and October. With some revisions to the precise timings, the practice of British Summer Time is still in operation today.

Anything involving football is unlikely to have a comparable impact. But history demonstrates that temporary measures in times of emergency are often never scrapped.

This brings us to the decision of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) to change the laws regarding substitutions. When football returns — this coming weekend in the Bundesliga, possibly at some point in June for the Premier League — managers will no longer be restricted to making three substitutions. They will, for the first time, be allowed to make a fourth and fifth change within 90 minutes, too.

Furthermore, for the past couple of seasons, managers have been allowed to make an additional substitution in extra time — previously, that was a fourth change. Now, it will be a sixth.

And in a sport involving 11 starting players — one of whom is almost never substituted for reasons of strategy or fatigue — this feels like a fundamental change to the game. In Champions League matches, for example, 60 per cent of an outfield side might change between kick-off and the end of extra time. An entire midfield and attack can be replaced.

Until now, changes to the number of permitted substitutions have generally been incremental. The first substitute in the English league came as recently as 1965. A second substitute was allowed in 1987, a third in 1994 and a fourth (in extra time) from 2018. Expanding the number of permitted players by two is unprecedented, and a game-changer for managers who want to, well, change the game.

“It seems to me a positive change, and the right thing to do in a moment like this,” the president of the Italian coaches’ association, Renzo Ulivieri, said last week. “It gives coaches the chance to make the most of the whole squad. There could also be more physical problems during games in this scenario, so it’s a solution that certainly lends a helping hand.”

Managers won’t be allowed to use all five substitutions to break up play — they will still only be allowed three substitution “slots”, which might cause minor controversy if a player goes down injured after a manager has made three or four substitutions at three different times. We’re considerably more likely to witness the previously rarely sighted triple substitution — or perhaps even quadruple or quintuple changes.

These measures are, of course, designed to cope with the fact that footballers will be asked to play a huge number of games in a short period of time, without a traditional pre-season. It will, in theory, prevent injuries but also allow a manager to cope if injuries arise.

It will, however, inevitably benefit the bigger clubs. They have greater strength in depth compared to smaller clubs, so the ability to make more changes means their resources will become more evident than ever.

Leaving aside injuries and contractual situations for a minute, Pep Guardiola could, for example, start with a front five of Raheem Sterling, Kevin De Bruyne, Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Leroy Sane. He could then introduce Riyad Mahrez, Bernardo Silva, Gabriel Jesus, Ilkay Gundogan and Phil Foden in their places. Then in extra time, Rodri could replace Fernandinho. There’s a drop-off in quality, but it’s a smaller drop-off than the likes of Aston Villa or Bournemouth would face. Those teams might benefit from introducing fresh legs to help chase down City, but they would be doing so with players of a lower calibre.

It’s not unrealistic to think that this change could become permanent. It’s likely to be popular with managers, who would feel more capable of influencing the game with tactical changes, and with players, who would be more likely to get some form of run-out on a match day.

Intriguingly, some coronavirus-related changes in other sports are also being considered on a more permanent basis. In Australian rules football, the AFL decided to introduce shorter quarters (going from 20 minutes to 16) for the start of the 2020 season in March, hoping that shorter games would reduce fatigue and facilitate more frequent games until the inevitable suspension of the league.

In the end, only one round was possible — but various pundits have suggested the change is likely to be made permanent.

When the idea of shorter halves for Premier League matches was briefly floated by PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor last week — in something of a thinking-out-loud exercise about how to reduce player fatigue rather than as a particularly serious suggestion — he was widely ridiculed by supporters. Unlike the AFL, the Premier League is resuming its campaign, not starting a new one. It would be impossible to change the concept of a 90-minute match three-quarters of the way through a season.

But — and it’s a small but — shorter matches would mean less chance of the stronger team coming out on top. It would mean more shocks, more upsets, more unpredictability. It could slightly redress the balance in top-level sports, where the difference between top and bottom has become increasingly stretched in recent years.

Extra substitutions would also benefit bigger clubs in a wider sense. The stockpiling of players at Europe’s elite clubs has been (slightly) tempered because managers know they can only use 14 in any individual game. The more players are denied playing time, the more they’ll kick up a fuss and want to leave in search of more regular football.

Similarly, being omitted from an 18-man squad entirely is an obvious sign of disrespect, a sign that it’s time to move on. If other leagues follow Spain’s decision to expand match-day squads to 23 (something that had already happened in Italy, incidentally), then there’s more opportunity to keep top players relatively happy on the fringes of the squad.

However, football benefits from good players playing on a more regular basis. Spectators want to see the best players on the pitch, not on the bench, and that necessitates talent being spread throughout a club, not concentrated at half a dozen clubs.

The past couple of decades have seen a lamentable increase in inequality throughout top-flight leagues. To prevent the big clubs becoming even more dominant, and football becoming more predictable, IFAB must ensure its policy of five substitutes and 23-man squads remains a brief measure brought in to help combat a specific, and hopefully short-term, health problem.

---

The other notable revelation from the IFAB statement was its decision to allow leagues to suspend the use of VAR midway through the campaign, should they consider this necessary. This is to prevent the spread of the virus in the VAR booths — and, more generally, to reduce the number of people required for matches to take place.

This is a hugely intriguing possibility for those who want VAR scrapped — full disclosure: I am very much one of those people — yet, in actual fact, this could be the perfect time for VAR to prosper.

An obvious flaw in VAR is that it’s essentially made for television — little effort has been made to communicate the nature of decisions to people in the stadium. The worst thing is the increasingly familiar muted goal celebrations in the stands. Supporters are no longer sure goals will be allowed to stand.

But, of course, absolutely none of this will matter for the remainder of this campaign, because matches will be played behind closed doors. Therefore, the major issue with VAR is no longer an issue, and the authorities who show such little consideration for match-going supporters no longer have to work out how to placate them.

What’s more, even those of us who abhor VAR are so utterly desperate for football that we would, right now, probably accept any kind of ludicrous amendment to the sport if it meant we could watch a live match.

After two months of no football, I would probably watch a game where the referee wasn’t allowed to whistle, or where goalkeepers couldn’t use their hands, or where left-backs were forced to play with their boots tied together.

Or — even more ludicrous than that — if matches were temporarily halted after every goal while a team of officials at a business park miles from the stadium rewound the tape, watched an incident several times without being able to obviously prove a particular offence, before then choosing to disallow the goal, with the on-pitch referee sometimes unable to even explain to the players why the decision has been changed.

In the current climate, football with VAR will no longer be compared to football without VAR. Instead, football will be compared to no football at all. And, for all its considerable problems, that’s a fight even VAR surely isn’t capable of losing.

[NikkiCFC 8,318]

Yes money is all that matters now. Pretty sure even from Chelsea POV we would rather finish this season without CL spot than null and void now and get CL for next season.

Because we are losing more money with not finishing this season than we would if we do not play CL next season.

[Special Juan 28,141]

Sounds like a few players are making noises that they fear for their life over project restart, and rightly so. It's only going to take a few players to take this stance and the PL can do nothing about it.

It makes no sense what so ever to even think about starting football back up, just scrap it. Lives over football.

[Laylabelle 9,534]

1 hour ago, Special Juan said:

Sounds like a few players are making noises that they fear for their life over project restart, and rightly so. It's only going to take a few players to take this stance and the PL can do nothing about it.

It makes no sense what so ever to even think about starting football back up, just scrap it. Lives over football.

Good!!! End of the day money is nothing. Lives arent replaceable. It's not themselves thinking about either its leaving behind families.

[MoroccanBlue 5,381]

Voiding the season will cause massive legal ramifications. PPG is the fairest option out of a list of imperfect options that only affects a small number of clubs. And again, we are 80% through the season. Clubs are where they are because of them. No one else. 

[Special Juan 28,141]

Legal issues, payments etc don't even come into it when you compare it with human life.

3 Brighton players have it now, if it starts up and someone gets it, it will close down as quickly as it started. It beggars belief that players are being chucked under the bus.

To even put players in this position is totally absurd, I cannot imagine how scared I would be. I wouldn't my young children burying me.

[Fulham Broadway 17,312]

...and the bonus is the micky mousers are not the league winners...

[communicate 2,703]

On 5/11/2020 at 6:06 PM, Atomiswave said:

I dont get your point. My point is delete the season and start fresh again after summer. Let all this settle down, plan well. To start playing now or very soon will only bring negatives with it.

Like I said a long time ago, league position or the footballing is the easiest to solve.

The hardest part is the financial ramification of stopping the league at this point. That include player salary, TV money, staff money and all kind of stuff. 

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,381]

1 hour ago, communicate said:

Like I said a long time ago, league position or the footballing is the easiest to solve.

The hardest part is the financial ramification of stopping the league at this point. That include player salary, TV money, staff money and all kind of stuff. 

 

Exactly. Voiding the season is a thrown out concept given the legal/financial ramifications. 
 

If the season must end, points per game is the fairest of a list of unfair options. 

[Jase 43,479]

 

[Vesper 30,172]

18 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Model C: Weighted points per game (WPPG) FTW

[Atomiswave 6,117]

3 hours ago, communicate said:

Like I said a long time ago, league position or the footballing is the easiest to solve.

The hardest part is the financial ramification of stopping the league at this point. That include player salary, TV money, staff money and all kind of stuff. 

 

Of course Clubs will take a hit revenue wise, but starting the season again in this mess can only end badly. It will be boring, no crowd no atmosphere etc, and what if a few players or what not get the corona? Then they will be forced to close up shop once more, theres really not much to gain at this point imo. We might only be able to buy 3 players rather than 6, but its safer that way and we wil lstill have CL footy come next season. Overall its a cluster fuck thats for sure.

[Vesper 30,172]

Survey results: Support for 23-team Premier League, neutral venues and opt-outs

https://theathletic.com/1806660/2020/05/12/premier-league-restart-survey-23-teams-neutral-venues-and-opt-outs/

Since elite football was suspended in England in March, the game’s authorities have been discussing and debating how and when it can return. After the latest meeting of Premier League clubs yesterday, chief executive Richard Masters said they still hope to complete the season but that the prospect of “curtailment” had been discussed for the first time.

In more than a month of serious, sometimes furious, debate, stakeholders from the clubs to the leagues to the players’ union and everyone in between have floated ideas ranging from declaring the season null and void to completing it as a mini-tournament at St George’s Park.

At The Athletic, we wanted to know what supporters think and so, over the bank holiday weekend, we asked you for your views — and you responded in your thousands.

Among the findings was support for a 23-team Premier League next season if it avoided legal battles, belief that players who opted not to play until a vaccine is discovered should not have their wages reduced, majority support for relaxing the EFL’s financial fair play rules and a close call between settling the league by points per game or declaring it null and void if it cannot be completed.

Here are the full results. Thank you to everyone who took part. Please let us know what you make of the results in the comments.

It feels like a lifetime ago now but the Premier League season was suspended on March 13 after the first-team squads at Chelsea, Everton and Arsenal began self-isolating, with news that Arsenal head coach Mikel Arteta had tested positive for coronavirus seeming to force action.

Before that announcement it had seemed likely that elite football in England was going to carry on for at least another week, with Liverpool’s game against Atletico Madrid in the Champions League going ahead on the Wednesday of that week, the night before it was announced that Arteta had tested positive. Arsenal had been due to visit Brighton & Hove Albion on the Saturday.

The EFL joined the Premier League in initially suspending until April 3 but 50.2 per cent of those who responded to the survey believe that move came too late. Even so, there is a strong belief among respondents that football authorities are right to explore how the game can return — with 85.1 per cent in favour of the talks that the Premier League and EFL have been undertaking to try to plan for a return.

A number of clubs, particularly those in the EFL, believe they will face greater economic consequences if they fail to begin next season than if they fail to finish this one, plus there is an argument that it is better for integrity to begin a new season under conditions — we’ll come to neutral venues — than to complete one. However, much like the official line from the Premier League, respondents to the survey are clear that it is more important to them to complete this season (62.7 per cent) than begin a new one.

That raises the question: how long are you prepared to wait to do so? The Bundesliga is due to return this weekend but Germany’s management of the disease is further ahead than the UK’s. It is understood that the Premier League would like to resume by June 12, which would please most respondents, with almost half of those who answered prepared to wait only a maximum of three months, though almost 15 per cent of respondents say they would wait for more than a year.

What if waiting is not enough? The Athletic has already reported that Leagues One and Two are likely to be decided without the remaining games being played. With all the logistical and legal obstacles in their way, it is possible the same fate could yet meet the Championship and even the Premier League, despite the clear resolve to complete the season.

Of the thousands who responded to this survey, 39 per cent favour the season being decided on a points-per-game basis. In the case of the Premier League, the table would look like this…

This method was criticised in an article here by our analytics expert Tom Worville, who explained why an analytical model of the remaining games would produce a much fairer result, however that proposal garnered only 13 per cent of the vote here, as did freezing the table as it stands, with the second most popular option being to declare the season null and void, meaning no relegation — and no title for Liverpool.

If the Premier League season cannot be completed then, by an almost Brexit-like majority, respondents believe relegation should be enforced and that at least the top two should still be promoted from the Championship. At present, the bottom three in the Premier League are Bournemouth (27 points from 29 games played), Aston Villa (25 from 28) and Norwich City (21 from 29) — though it may not be as simple as that.

The top three in the Championship are Leeds United (71 points), West Bromwich Albion (70) and Fulham (64) — all have played 37 games and Fulham are four points clear of Brentford.

It is worth noting here that this question could have been broken down further and the method of selecting a third team to be promoted explored further but it would appear safe to conclude that the majority believe at least two clubs should be promoted even if the season is not concluded. But the opinion on whether or not relegation should be enforced from the Premier League if the season is not completed is deeply divided.

This is perhaps one of the most surprising results. It speaks to the desire to recognise the efforts of the leading Championship clubs, but also the divide over whether or not it is now fair to relegate those at the bottom of the Premier League.

A majority of those who responded — 52 per cent — said a 23-team Premier League would be a good idea if it avoided legal battles over promotion and relegation.

The Premier League was reduced to 20 teams in 1995 and has remained that way since, with calls coming from the players’ union in recent years to reduce the number of games its members play. An additional six games — in what is already likely to be a cramped season potentially ending in a European Championship for many Premier League players — would likely prove controversial. However, as respondents to the survey indicate, it may be a price worth paying to avoid a court battle involving relegated clubs or those denied promotion.

Staging all remaining games at neutral venues may be the most practical way to complete the season after the most senior police officer in English football told The Athletic that letting teams play this season’s remaining fixtures at home is an “unrealistic demand” that would put “an impracticable burden” on councils and the emergency services.

The Premier League resolved to ask the government on Monday if that guidance could be reconsidered after a significant number of clubs raised concerns. It is felt that losing home advantage for critical games would ruin the integrity of the competition. Last week, the prospect was raised of removing the threat of relegation if the season was completed at neutral venues.

The thousands who responded to The Athletic’s survey delivered a clear verdict on the two issues, with 74.8 per cent in favour of matches being played at neutral venues if it meant completing the Premier League season and 72.6 per cent saying relegation should still be enforced in that eventuality.

Whether or not games are played at neutral venues, it now appears certain that any return would come behind closed doors. One of the great concerns for Premier League clubs is that if they fail to complete the season they could be liable to repay £762 million to broadcasters.

The other significant loss would be if clubs had to pay back season-ticket monies for the remaining games of this season and, possibly, much of the next one. To allay this, it has been proposed that supporters could instead stream matches on a service such as the EFL’s iFollow.

There is tension, however. Can the broadcasters and clubs find a deal that suits them both? The government is also keen for elite sport to return to raise public spirits. That would obviously have more impact if the games were free for all to watch, though that is likely to be given short shrift by the TV companies who have already paid significant sums for exclusive broadcasting rights.

Unsurprisingly, those who responded to the survey were in favour of making the games free to watch (who doesn’t like free stuff?), though a significant number (29.1 per cent) said that they should be shown by those broadcasters who have paid the money.

There is also a clear appetite for the game’s return, with just 14.9 per cent of respondents saying they would watch only their team in any televised behind-closed-doors games.

As The Athletic explored last month, a number of players are scared and even angry at the prospect of being pushed back into action in a contact sport during a pandemic. There is no vaccine for coronavirus at present and yet the elite game in England hopes to restart.

In Spain, Cadiz defender Fali has refused to train due to fears over player safety during the pandemic and there was significant support among respondents to the survey for players who do not want to play before a vaccine is found.

Footballers are often criticised for their high wages, and at one stage were involved in a dispute with the government about wage cuts and deferrals, but 77.2 per cent of respondents said that clubs should accept the position of any player who does not wish to return before a vaccine is found, with 20.8 per cent saying those players should have their pay reduced and only 2 per cent believing they should be sacked.

A significant number of EFL clubs are in a perilous position, with one football finance expert telling The Athletic that it could be “decimated”, and a League One chairman predicting “carnage” in July if there is no further clarity.

It appears increasingly likely the season will be decided without games being completed in the EFL but a slim majority of respondents to this survey (54 per cent) said that promotion and relegation should still be enforced.

There are growing calls for a salary cap to be introduced to help EFL clubs operate on reduced budgets. EFL chairman Rick Parry is in favour, though it is far from unanimous. In our survey, 59.5 per cent of respondents backed a cap, while 72 per cent said financial fair play rules should be relaxed to help clubs who are bracing themselves for significant shortfalls.

Even more extreme ideas have been floated: clubs who are unable to survive a season without crowds could opt out of the league for, say, a season, then return when match-day income returns. It has not yet been put forward as an official proposal but 59 per cent of respondents asked about the idea in The Athletic’s survey were in favour, with 44 per cent saying those clubs should then be allowed to return in the same division.

Please let us know in the comments what you think of the results and whether or not it has changed your mind about how football in England should return. Thank you again to everyone who took part.