Club Statement: Coronavirus

[Toast]

Don't forget that the betting industry will also be putting huge pressure on to stop a voiding of the rest of the season. Not only will they lose out on revenues from the remaining 90-odd matches (lots) but also all the ante-post bets will be voided. That's a bigger market than you'd expect.

Money again the core reason that there is zero chance of a void season.

The high street bookies are done after this.
All the people hooked on them machines will have gone cold turkey and the racing left this year is gash.
The 4 classics already cancelled.

The match revenue you talk about, as I know you are well aware of, is staggering even if you just look at the exchanges and that's all gone overnight.
You now have teams with no form line and teams who just won't be arsed.

 

[catcherintherye]

this is the point, this tort (unfairness/wrongdoing) is of nobodies making, any bodging of rules will upset some people and the bodge to the rules will have been of someone's making and those people or organisations that are wronged, can then sue the decision makers. Void is the safest legal option. I suspect that the procrastination is all parties (clubs/leagues/FA/EUFA/FIFA/Governments) are all hoping that one of the others makes a decision, then they are the ones to be in any firing line.

Yes when you start messing about changing rules, in general you create more complications. With each rule change, people lose out. You then amend to help them, and more lose out.

 

[catcherintherye]

you do - but for a very small pool of players, in the PL at least

Well for a starting point I would ignore the idea it's "very small" and even if it were it doesn't make them irrelevant. It should also be noted that Bosman was a single player, and disrupted the game enormously. You are also talking about a high number of players across all leagues, unless the views of those clubs not at the top of the pyramid don't count either?

I really think we have to avoid throwaway comments such as "very small pool of players". It's just not true, and even if it were it's not a helpful way of looking at things. A resolution needs to be found for all players, or ultimately the season cannot be extended.

 

[catcherintherye]

Don't forget that the betting industry will also be putting huge pressure on to stop a voiding of the rest of the season. Not only will they lose out on revenues from the remaining 90-odd matches (lots) but also all the ante-post bets will be voided. That's a bigger market than you'd expect.

Money again the core reason that there is zero chance of a void season.

To play devils advocate here, I suspect bookies will obviously want football to return but won't care an awful lot if it's finishing this season, or starting next.

I'd also say, a void essentially gives them an opt out of honouring any winning bets. Any bets on Liverpool for example won't have to be honoured. I suspect there will be some relief.

 

[orly]

To play devils advocate here, I suspect bookies will obviously want football to return but won't care an awful lot if it's finishing this season, or starting next.

I'd also say, a void essentially gives them an opt out of honouring any winning bets. Any bets on Liverpool for example won't have to be honoured. I suspect there will be some relief.

???

That makes no sense. If they move the season, they'd get to keep the 90+ games. Next season is next season regardless of when it starts a full set of 38 match days.

Oh, and their biggest antepost liability would have been on a City win.

 

[number4.]

Well for a starting point I would ignore the idea it's "very small" and even if it were it doesn't make them irrelevant. It should also be noted that Bosman was a single player, and disrupted the game enormously. You are also talking about a high number of players across all leagues, unless the views of those clubs not at the top of the pyramid don't count either?

I really think we have to avoid throwaway comments such as "very small pool of players". It's just not true, and even if it were it's not a helpful way of looking at things. A resolution needs to be found for all players, or ultimately the season cannot be extended.

With respect it wasn't a throwaway comment, I did my homework & referenced there are 69 players in the PL who are out of contract at the end of the season, 4 of whom have an option to extend. The majority of this 69 are not key players at the top of the first 11s, but Chelsea are quite exposed with William, pedro and giroud all free to go

 

[catcherintherye]

regarding Voiding there are so many legal issues which may come about, some will some wont, but off the top of my head...

* TV rights dispute - BT and Sky feel they are owed their pound of flesh & will probably fight for it
* If records are expundged (which is what is suggested) What happens when Spurs dock harry Kane for all the goal bonus's this season, never mind that what happens when West-ham remove every single players appearance bonus from their next paycheck
* What happens in 8 years time when Kane retires 4 Goals short of Shearers record
* Season Ticket holders - nothing stopping a class action from fans against a club, you sold us a ticket for a season - it didn't conclude I'm entitled to a full refund; you could see a scenario where West Ham fans collectively try to stick knives into their owners via this kind of mechanic
* Gambling - if all records are expunged; are all losing bets refunded from every game?
* Relegation / Promotion / European places through all the leagues
* Jan transfers - teams could argue they specifically signed a player in Jan to avoid relegation and should get that money back if the season can't be concluded eg: Reina at Villa

I could go on & yes, in a way, I'm playing Devil's advocate & I appreciate someone will just say "Force Majeure" get over it, but that wont stop some of these issues ending up in a court of law. To me it brings as many issues a Pool of 69 players of whom the majority wont have a contract dispute.

Re Belgium; it wasn't simply voided - there was an agreed awarding of title, European spots have been allocated (subject to UEFA approving) and two extra spots next season to accomodate the likely promoted clubs, result in at least 6 extra games next season to best of my knowledge

Ok I'll try to answer each point on it's merits. I will cover most by saying though, they are not legal issues. They may be moral issues, but that is very different to legal cases that an be brought. I could bring a whole plethora of extra moral issues, but have stuck to legal difficulties, which with respect you haven't resolved. But anyway

1) Yes undoubtedly this is an issue. I have always acknowledged this. In all honesty though this is a legal issue whatever happens. If the PL plays outside of the allotted contracted time, there are legal issues. If the PL puts some games on streams behind closed doors, there are legal issues. No Fans, legal issues. Under every scenario there are legal issues. It's not an argument for extending, because there are legal issues in every scenario.

Broadly speaking I think a court will take the position you pay for the games viewed, you've had 3/4ers so you pay for 3/4. The concern I would have, is if we cancel next season, trying to finish a quarter of this season, we lose an entire seasons money. That will take a very challenging situation and make it a terminal one.

2) I mean I don't think this is a legal issue at all. It's a worthwhile question, but courts are not going to waste time intervening in who has how many goals. Harry Kane is not going to be able to display loss of earnings because he's 4 goals short of a record. We have this issue with games in WW1 & 2 and I am unaware of any legal challenges that have been made.

3) Bonuses and salaries will need to be agreed between clubs and their players. There's nothing to say that clubs will need to start claiming back goal bonus money. If a club wants to do it fine, they can live with the consequences. They don't have to though.Thats not an issue of voiding, it's an issue of how clubs conduct themselves. You can again have equivalent issues if you extend beyond the seasons out. In truth you probably have far bigger issues.

4) Yes fans could take action. Fans could also take action if you play games outside the allotted period. They could take action if games are behind closed doors. Or if they are arrested trying to get to a game they have paid for a ticket at. I accept it's an issue, it's an issue in any scenario, so it's not a unique problem for voiding.

5)I imagine no bets will be honoured. Gambling company's have astute small print that gets them out of all sorts of things. Again, I will keep repeating myself, but you will have similar problems (and probably greater problems) if they void results outside of the regular season and teams go on to win. Losing bets will not be refunded, it was a 90 minute game, possession is 9 tenths of the law. Gambling's default position will be all bets are void and such an approach from the league will at least sync with this.

6) I have no idea of how the legal challenge for this would work. An event out of the control of the FA/PL rendered the league unplayable. They could do know more. The opposite to what you are saying is true of course. If a side signs a player, is unable to register them and then goes down, they will sue. In the void scenario, nobody would go down, so I see no reason why Aston Villa would sue. They will sue if they end up getting relegated on the back of an end of season circus.

I have had a go at answering each point raised, without needing to resort to force majure in any circumstance. In truth most of the above, while worthwhile and important to note, is not really within the remit of legality. I am not a legal mind by any stretch, but if I can defend most of the above, a legal team for the PL should be able too.

On the substantive points on contract law I have raised though, there seems to be little defence, beyond the "oh well it's not that many players". That will simply not wash in a court of law I'm afraid.

None of this means the league will be cancelled and voided. It only really means, if they had any sense they would.

 

[catcherintherye]

???

That makes no sense. If they move the season, they'd get to keep the 90+ games. Next season is next season regardless of when it starts a full set of 38 match days.

Oh, and their biggest antepost liability would have been on a City win.

How do you mean, keep the 90+ games?

I fully understand they want football and sport back. The in game betting is huge. I don't think they will be bothered whether it's this season, or next season, as long as people gamble.

Maybe their liability is City. If the season is void though, and all positions void, they will not be paying out on City, Liverpool or anyone else. Your best case scenario is they may refund bets on Liverpool. I'd imagine they would quite welcome a voiding of the season.

 

[orly]

How do you mean, keep the 90+ games?

I fully understand they want football and sport back. The in game betting is huge. I don't think they will be bothered whether it's this season, or next season, as long as people gamble.

Maybe their liability is City. If the season is void though, and all positions void, they will not be paying out on City, Liverpool or anyone else. Your best case scenario is they may refund bets on Liverpool. I'd imagine they would quite welcome a voiding of the season.

There are 90 odd individual matches left of the season. 90 opportunities for profit. Why would they turn this down?

It misses the fundamental basics of the betting model. Why do you think they have night racing? Or this mad virtual races? Because it is infinitely better, and more profitable, to keep the urge fed. The idea that bookies in this country would be like "yeah no worries, let's have no football (comfortably their most profitable and highest turnover market) from the PL for 6 months is completely wrong.

 

[catcherintherye]

With respect it wasn't a throwaway comment, I did my homework & referenced there are 69 players in the PL who are out of contract at the end of the season, 4 of whom have an option to extend. The majority of this 69 are not key players at the top of the first 11s, but Chelsea are quite exposed with William, pedro and giroud all free to go

Ok so we the equivalent of 6 full first teams worth of players to resolve? I don't consider this a small number of players at all. It's a major headache.

The average salary for the PL is what 60k p/w? Thats perhaps being cautious. Thats a liability of around £20 million pounds a month on salaries. Thats before you factor in what additional salary they may have, sign on fees etc. Someone has to be accountable for those funds if we are going to extend this season 2-3 months?

The situation will be more profound in lower league football too. It will be much much higher than 69 players.

All ways round, when you consider a single footballer overhauled the game in the 90's, this is not going to be wished away with a wishy washy solution.

 

[catcherintherye]

There are 90 odd individual matches left of the season. 90 opportunities for profit. Why would they turn this down?

Ok got you, apologies I just didn't get that point at all previously.

I would say there is a limited amount of games we can play in a year. I don't think we are going to get to a point where we play more games. If those 90 games are played, a similar number of games will need to be moved off the schedule.

The worst case scenario in this, is we do something mad, like have a half season, or even cancel the next season altogether, so lose more games.

So yes, I see your point, and if it were the case of having 90 extra games to the existing schedule I'd agree. I just don't see that as a realistic option though.

 

[number4.]

Ok so we the equivalent of 6 full first teams worth of players to resolve? I don't consider this a small number of players at all. It's a major headache.

The average salary for the PL is what 60k p/w? Thats perhaps being cautious. Thats a liability of around £20 million pounds a month on salaries. Thats before you factor in what additional salary they may have, sign on fees etc. Someone has to be accountable for those funds if we are going to extend this season 2-3 months?

The situation will be more profound in lower league football too. It will be much much higher than 69 players.

All ways round, when you consider a single footballer overhauled the game in the 90's, this is not going to be wished away with a wishy washy solution.

No - as with all this there is far more nuance.

For example of the effective 64 (5 have contract options) 18 are goalkeepers and only one is a first choice keeper (Ben Foster) who is expect to agree a new contract at watford anyway. Further more, of the list there are 29 players are aged 33 or over and the majority of them would be seeking or be offered one year/rolling contracts.

Secondly, I dont think anyone is suggesting that there will be a requirement for teams to retain players post contract date, just that they will have the option to do so if they can come to agreement with the player & future team in the event of a pre-contract elsewhere.

 

[catcherintherye]

No - as with all this there is far more nuance.

For example of the effective 64 (5 have contract options) 18 are goalkeepers and only one is a first choice keeper (Ben Foster) who is expect to agree a new contract at watford anyway. Further more, of the list there are 29 players are aged 33 or over and the majority of them would be seeking or be offered one year/rolling contracts.

Secondly, I dont think anyone is suggesting that there will be a requirement for teams to retain players post contract date, just that they will have the option to do so if they can come to agreement with the player & future team in the event of a pre-contract elsewhere.

But for the integrity of the competition you cant have some teams keeping players, others not keeping players. That is chaotic and unworkable, morally unfair and legally indefensible.

There needs to be a solution to the conundrum that is fair, consistent and defensible legally. A free for all is not it.

 

[mccole]

So let's sort this:

92 games (9/10 per team not including Domestic or European games) to play to finish the season so Wednesday and Saturday for 5 weeks.

Before kickoff, teams must return to training so an extra week.

So 6 weeks for this to be completed however no one knows how long this will start and the longer it does go on, the more and more financial pressure comes down on clubs in the entire English leagues.

So every week this takes the more money lost by clubs and potentially financially clubs could go bust so the quickest and most productive thing to do is cancel this season.

Now Premier League and The FA are suggesting pay cuts to players for a year and negotiating with the PFA. This money will go towards saving clubs and protecting those who couldn't possibly foresee such a financial impact.

Regarding Premier League with players earning a suggested 30% this would slow down outgoings and keep clubs within their budgeting.

Now what about Sky/BT/International TV deal worth £762m? For me clubs need to do two options;

Option 1)
With a 30% wage saving this will go towards each club individually rebalancing this deal for example:
Everton - £160m a year wages take away 30% would be a saving of £48m or a Sigurdsson.

Now I propose we offset our percentage to Sky with every other club and we start cutting our cloth better.

Option 2)
Go back to Sky and renegotiate an additional season/games with clubs handing over a smaller fee as goodwill. We give Sky a huge opportunity to score a HUGE publicity points by not calling in the debt and a HUGE opportunity to keep future Premier League games on Sky before the new boys on the block: BT, Amazon or the company destroying "Prem-Flix"

Sky would hold a lot of power and be able to hold the keys to the kingdom for another decade or so.

Everyone one wins expect Liverpool

 

[number4.]

But for the integrity of the competition you cant have some teams keeping players, others not keeping players. That is chaotic and unworkable, morally unfair and legally indefensible.

There needs to be a solution to the conundrum that is fair, consistent and defensible legally. A free for all is not it.

what ever happens now the integrity of this seasons league is gone; but none the less there are vested interested moving heaven and earth to see it continue. We agree on a lot in this thread, but here I think you are over thinking it. Clubs will have the option to "roll" contracts if they can agree with player and if they cant the player doesn't play.

Realistically, you are talking about 10-12 players & some of these are a stretch, in total who would be likely to play first football in the remaining games.......

Willian
Ryan Fraser
Jan Vertonghen
David Silva
Pedro
Adam Lallana
Jeff Hendrick
John Lundstram
Olivier Giroud
Japhet Tanganga
Timothy Fosu-Mensah
Ashley Westwood
ben foster
Robbie Brady
Matthew Longstaff