Club Statement: Coronavirus

[catcherintherye]

In line with the written statement from 100+ lower league clubs, I dispute that the current season is 'dead and is unable to be revived'.

I think the easiest way to return to Football is simply to follow the steps as instructed by the CMO and the government, wait for all this to subside and then, only when it is safe to do so, resume the current season.

I don't believe that causes chaos. I think it pushes back the Football calendar, which is something we'd have to contend with anyway. I believe that voiding the season causes chaos for all of those 100+ clubs, plus the majority of clubs in the 92. It has sizeable financial consequences which could very easily place several of those clubs into administration and threaten their very existence.

There are lots of clubs who haven't signed it as well though. It's the easiest thing in the world to jump on the bandwagon and be critical. Look if it gets cancelled I'd expect our board to kick uo a fuss, point out we are in great form and have a favourable run in and could conceivably still finish 5th. It still doesn't mean the decision to cancel, if all options have run out is not the best one.

In essence the debate is, do we disrupt multiple seasons, or do we cancel 1. There's winners and losers in both scenario's. For me I don;t think it's feasible to re-arrange seasons, so it's either lose part of a season, or potentially lose a whole season. I'm a pragmatism, and it's an easy choice to make.

 

[jaycee]

In line with the written statement from 100+ lower league clubs, I dispute that the current season is 'dead and is unable to be revived'.

I think the easiest way to return to Football is simply to follow the steps as instructed by the CMO and the government, wait for all this to subside and then, only when it is safe to do so, resume the current season.

I don't believe that causes chaos. I think it pushes back the Football calendar, which is something we'd have to contend with anyway. I believe that voiding the season causes chaos for all of those 100+ clubs, plus the majority of clubs in the 92. It has sizeable financial consequences which could very easily place several of those clubs into administration and threaten their very existence.

Bet the locals celebrated your pub shutting,just to get away from your constant ramblings

 

[Nymzee]

There are lots of clubs who haven't signed it as well though. It's the easiest thing in the world to jump on the bandwagon and be critical. Look if it gets cancelled I'd expect our board to kick uo a fuss, point out we are in great form and have a favourable run in and could conceivably still finish 5th. It still doesn't mean the decision to cancel, if all options have run out is not the best one.

In essence the debate is, do we disrupt multiple seasons, or do we cancel 1. There's winners and losers in both scenario's. For me I don;t think it's feasible to re-arrange seasons, so it's either lose part of a season, or potentially lose a whole season. I'm a pragmatism, and it's an easy choice to make.

Our board wouldn’t kick up a fuss at all. No way we’re making Europe haha.

 

[catcherintherye]

i'd agree, but as of today....

-55 european FA's committed to finishing the season when safe
- the dutch said hard deadline of 3rd August - UEFA and lots of journalists have said this is incorrect & no hard deadline
- 20/21 season will now not start as scheduled under current circumstances (original will be being played or still unsafe to play)

Well it's hard to say the Dutch are lying. I find it very hard to believe we have an indefinite deadline, in fact the statement made no reference to such a deadline (only talk of deadlines to complete the CL/EL).

Thats quite a move forward.

The question is going to be, quite quickly, do we prioritise saving an entire season, or do we prioritise saving part of a season. One will be financial very difficult, the there financially ruinous.

I think it's time for grown up discussion and choices on this, and ultimately what it means.

My preference, objectively is that the pragmatic choice has to win out. We have to prioritise completing next season in full. As a narrow perspective (IE an Everton one) we will likely be in Europe if it's cancelled, so I would expect our board to support that position. It's all about defending your own organisations interests in such a situation.

But yes, there is clearly a deadline. And in reality it may have to be sooner for top divisions than the first weekend of August, because we would have to allow extra time for the EFL to finish.

 

[Jacko93]

I think that part of the issue is that it needs a co-ordinated response across all competitions and leagues across the continent.
For example, if the worry is that legal challenges will arise due to clubs not getting what they were expecting, then best put time aside to complete the FA cup aswell. UEFA cup winners get CL, cant deny them that. CL winner automatically qualifies. Cant deny that. Also, cant really have some clubs in next years CL due to last years results and some due to this years.

If they really want to complete this season, and it's not to do with money but "legitimacy of the competition" then by all means complete the season when it's safe to do so, until a point it just isnt viable, but make space by cancelling all european competitions and start again in 12-18 months with positions earned in 21/22. That will mean season can be reduced and still have a winter break while getting in International friendlies prior to Euros.

Tbqh, European games could just add to further spread and accelerated rise of a potential secondary spike anyway.

 

[number4.]

There are lots of clubs who haven't signed it as well though. It's the easiest thing in the world to jump on the bandwagon and be critical. Look if it gets cancelled I'd expect our board to kick uo a fuss, point out we are in great form and have a favourable run in and could conceivably still finish 5th. It still doesn't mean the decision to cancel, if all options have run out is not the best one.

In essence the debate is, do we disrupt multiple seasons, or do we cancel 1. There's winners and losers in both scenario's. For me I don;t think it's feasible to re-arrange seasons, so it's either lose part of a season, or potentially lose a whole season. I'm a pragmatism, and it's an easy choice to make.

Catcher - that (multiple seasons disrupted) debate is dead with today's news. If it's safe to play in August 19/20 will be continuing resulting in delays to 20/21, if not (on safety grounds) there will definitely be delays to 2021

*As it stands today, granted could all change tomorrow

 

[catcherintherye]

Our board wouldn’t kick up a fuss at all. No way we’re making Europe haha.

No but a sensible board ought too. Thats the point, lots of teams undoubtedly on the bandwagon now. There is likely to be some combo too, from the FA and potentially from the government, so you need to pack in a complaint to get it. Thats what it's about. Which is fine, good luck to teams, act in your own self interest.

However you can't applaud one set of teams for acting on self-interest and then criticise another lot for doing the same.

 

[Connor]

I see Ajax, despite being top of the Eredivise, have said it must be cancelled as the season is "dead"

Irate Overmars compares Dutch FA and UEFA to Trump

Ajax technical director Marc Overmars expressed his astonishment at plans to try to complete the Dutch league season and compared the country's football association and UEFA to Donald Trump.

www.rte.ie

 

[catcherintherye]

Catcher - that (multiple seasons disrupted) debate is dead with today's news. If it's safe to play in August 19/20 will be continuing resulting in delays to 20/21, if not (on safety grounds) there will definitely be delays to 2021

*As it stands today, granted could all change tomorrow

I don't read into that at all.

The statement from the Dutch FA states it has to be completed by early August. We know UEFA have previously said June 30th. Those positions still hold for me.

In all honesty, we are slowly heading to a point where a decision has to be made, about whether we play 1/4 of a season and no more, whether we play 1/4 and maybe 1/2 of a season next year, or whether we just play 1/4 of a season. The other alternative, is we repeat the season in August.

I'll be quite frank, a mixture of naivety and sense is governing this debate. Some clubs are keeping quiet for sensible legal reasons, others within football because of failing to understand, that you will not be able to re-start a 10 game season, with all the European ties, and then subsequently complete the next season. At some point a decision will have to be made.

At no point has any official UEFA statement said we would be happy to cancel a season to complete a quarter of this season. In fact the only statements have said the opposite.

It's important we frame the debate as it sits.

Look, we may still get to a point where clubs decide to break all protocol, damage themselves enormously financially, for very little gain, and decide to play 1/4 of a season 5 months after it was last played. It could happen. I think when that proposal is put to clubs though, and the reality for many that they go bust if they do that is on the cards is known, they will opt for the least worst option.

 

[catcherintherye]

I see Ajax, despite being top of the Eredivise, have said it must be cancelled as the season is "dead"

Irate Overmars compares Dutch FA and UEFA to Trump

Ajax technical director Marc Overmars expressed his astonishment at plans to try to complete the Dutch league season and compared the country's football association and UEFA to Donald Trump.

www.rte.ie

Fairly consistent with the Dutch FA's statement and the wider noises from UEFA on deadlines. As time ticks by, we move more slowly towards cancellation.

It's telling today, no statement from any organisation said we would finish at any cost, or extended indefinitely etc. The language is softening. Thats Juventus and Ajax now saying the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

In all honesty, we are slowly heading to a point where a decision has to be made, about whether we play 1/4 of a season and no more, whether we play 1/4 and maybe 1/2 of a season next year, or whether we just play 1/4 of a season. The other alternative, is we repeat the season in August.

Nobody has yet been able to put forth a solid argument on why an August - May season is so utterly crucial that it could potentially force the shortening of future seasons to fit that traditional time frame.

 

[catcherintherye]

Nobody has yet been able to put forth a solid argument on why an August - May season is so utterly crucial that it could potentially force the shortening of future seasons to fit that traditional time frame.

Well they have. I have explained to you, the August to May season is primarily for safety, but also because this has been the structure that has allowed the PL to negotiate the most lucrative TV deals in football history. It would be utter madness to consider changing from that if you could avoid doing so.

I have yet to see a single bit of evidence, from any football fans, before this situation that anybody wanted a change to the schedule to become a summer sport. I've seen thousands of moans about all sorts of things, but never once heard that.

So the argument for August to May is that it's extremely popular, it is the tradition of the game, it's the safest way to play league football in climates of most of Europe and that it's the deal the broadcasters like.

There are plenty of other reasons, but the above is frankly more than enough.

Our question is, is the decision to void a single season (which is not a good thing) enough of a bad thing to outweigh all of the above. I appreciate thats not a "right v wrong" answer and will come down to personal preference.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

In line with the written statement from 100+ lower league clubs, I dispute that the current season is 'dead and is unable to be revived'.

On what grounds do you dispute this?

 

[Deleted member 38674]

Well they have. I have explained to you, the August to May season is primarily for safety, but also because this has been the structure that has allowed the PL to negotiate the most lucrative TV deals in football history. It would be utter madness to consider changing from that if you could avoid doing so.

I have yet to see a single bit of evidence, from any football fans, before this situation that anybody wanted a change to the schedule to become a summer sport. I've seen thousands of moans about all sorts of things, but never once heard that.

So the argument for August to May is that it's extremely popular, it is the tradition of the game, it's the safest way to play league football in climates of most of Europe and that it's the deal the broadcasters like.

There are plenty of other reasons, but the above is frankly more than enough.

Our question is, is the decision to void a single season (which is not a good thing) enough of a bad thing to outweigh all of the above. I appreciate thats not a "right v wrong" answer and will come down to personal preference.

That’s not a new or good, cogent argument. It’s essentially the same argument - “It’s tradition, it’s always been that way”. And that’s not a reasonable or rational answer as to why it must stay that way.

August - May is for safety? So would an October - July season be unsafe? What would make an Aug-May season more safe than a Oct-Jul one, for example?

Changing the season schedule is something that would absolutely need to happen anyway, even without the CV19 issue. A change to the traditional Aug-May season is categorically going to happen as the upcoming World Cup is being held in December.

August to May is not “popular”, it’s just the only frame to which a season has been run in living memory. Popular would imply its the most liked when compared to other time frames. No other time frame has yet been tried.

It’s unreasonable and massively fanciful to assume that fans would turn their backs on the game, both in terms of matchday attendance and home viewing, in any number, let alone numbers sufficient for sponsors to be able to command reduced deals based on an October - July season, rather than the current August - May season, for example.

 

[number4.]

On what grounds do you dispute this?

whether you agree or disagree with him, @Keiran has been nothing but articulate and thorough (and I mean REALLY thorough) just read his posts ;-)