Jump to content

How will Coronavirus affect football?


Carl Sagan

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, rammieib said:

I see Ageuro has said the players are scared to play. I probably get that, but I bet he isnt scared taking home 250k a week to not do his job.

 

You're probably right, but they are two completely separate issues.  Nobody forced his employer to offer such wages!

I suspect it's not the "You need to go back to work" instruction he specifically fears, but the "You need to go back to work and start mingling with lots of other people" instruction.

I appreciate, many are already doing so, but that's not to say they aren't scared!

I would fully understand any of these top players refusing to go back... They "don't need the money" so why risk their health, and that of their family?
Muckerette is currently thinking along the same lines, should she get called back (City Centre clothes shop)... "I don't work enough hours/earn enough money, to take the risk"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 22/04/2020 at 20:24, BodminRam said:

So if it does  how can they tackle each other, I mean keeping 2 meters apart would be impossible, unless they wash their hands after, 

where would away teams stay with all the hotels shut. if they are tested it doesn't mean you cant catch it 10 mins later. 

Im really unsure about this

Something something...Jacob Butterfield....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2020 at 08:30, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Article in the Times goes through some of the measures in the 41 pages guidebook. Very detailed, very impressive they've done their homework, in short very German. However, there is no mention about what something quite important,  protecting the players during the 90 odd minutes the match is taking place. Everyting else seems covered, pre and post match to be fair but still...

 

I think there are two separate issues that to me are getting mashed together. For young, fit footballers there is very, very negligible risk. Put into context there is a much greater risk of them breaking their leg during the game than becoming seriously ill from Covid.

You can't definitely stop them catching the virus, surely no one is saying you can? We go to the shops, work, walk...we all take risks large or small now. 

Lockdown is not about not catching the virus because its so deadly...its about stopping it rapidly spreading. Kids were in school with no restrictions when we knew most of the risks, only when we feared it could spread too fast and overwhelm services did we act. 

The risk of football resuming is the fact 30,000 want to be there watching it. People are travelling from all areas to watch in close proximity and then going back to those different locations. Even without fans you have medical staff, cleaners, groundsmen, camera men, security, background staff... So you are talking hundreds of people. 

Players coming into contact with each other is inevitable and not overly concerning...nurses, teachers, social care, shop workers are doing it all day regardless of how much we pretend they aren't. Plane loads of people were arriving but the numbers in the grand scheme of things were too low to really affect the R figure. 

That's the reality, a few dozen footballers possibly passing the virus to each other is minutely low in risk and affecting the R figure. However its seen as 'unnecessary' and will be decided politically rather than rationally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use the tried and tested methods to decide the outcome of matches:-

A) The toss of a coin......or

a slightly fairer method observing distancing.

B)  One goalie from each team tries to save five penalties from five chosen members of the other team alterately whilst those players stand 2mtrs apart to wait their turn. This at least leaves the chance of win, draw or lose!

No celebrating in the dressing rooms, no excitement for the fans, but at least it brings closure. 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/01/championship-plan-hold-play-offs-even-if-season-not-completed-promote-leeds-west-brom

If this happens, I'm sure we'll all be sure to remind certain clubs of the circumstances.

There are 9 games left to play... 27 points!

Swansea in 11th are just one potential game away from overtaking Preston in 6th.  (We're only 2 games off, ourselves!)
Even Fulham are only 2 games (plus GD to catch up) from catching West Brom for the autos.
Surely there'd be a poo-storm if they took this route!  Too many teams would want to fight such a decision... Wouldn't they?

Can they legally change the rules part way through the season?
Will they pay appropriate financial compo to those teams who arguably miss out?
Would the clubs need to vote on such a proposal?

 

Ignoring the maths, of course, but for once, I'm so glad we're in mid-table mediocrity, and this mess doesn't affect us, from a more realistic perspective!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/05/2020 at 08:45, Chester40 said:

I think there are two separate issues that to me are getting mashed together. For young, fit footballers there is very, very negligible risk. Put into context there is a much greater risk of them breaking their leg during the game than becoming seriously ill from Covid.

You can't definitely stop them catching the virus, surely no one is saying you can? We go to the shops, work, walk...we all take risks large or small now. 

Lockdown is not about not catching the virus because its so deadly...its about stopping it rapidly spreading. Kids were in school with no restrictions when we knew most of the risks, only when we feared it could spread too fast and overwhelm services did we act. 

The risk of football resuming is the fact 30,000 want to be there watching it. People are travelling from all areas to watch in close proximity and then going back to those different locations. Even without fans you have medical staff, cleaners, groundsmen, camera men, security, background staff... So you are talking hundreds of people. 

Players coming into contact with each other is inevitable and not overly concerning...nurses, teachers, social care, shop workers are doing it all day regardless of how much we pretend they aren't. Plane loads of people were arriving but the numbers in the grand scheme of things were too low to really affect the R figure. 

That's the reality, a few dozen footballers possibly passing the virus to each other is minutely low in risk and affecting the R figure. However its seen as 'unnecessary' and will be decided politically rather than rationally. 

But all of those players, coaches, backroom staff........ have families. They will be in contact with vulnerable people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Van Wolfie said:

What happens when a player spits on the pitch?. End of game and disinfect the turf?

So many variables. It's a nightmare trying to bring footy back for the forseeable future.

That's a good point. Maybe all players in the matchday squad have to be able to prove they're all clear? Suggests testing them all weekly or whatever? Certainly sounds more of a logistical challenge than i think we have evidence of being considered so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been reported that there is a split between the premier clubs, with the top 6-8 clubs wanting to play and finish the season, but the bottom 6-8 clubs, seeing relegation staring at them, not wanting to risk it and want the season void, so keeping their premier status, and so earning another £100+ million next year.

What would happen if the government & premier league allow matches to go ahead and one of the bottom clubs says some of their players have the virus and refuse to play?

Will the league award the game to the team willing to play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're now talking about playing 60 minute matches. FFS, just void it and bring it back when we can have proper football again.

At this point I'm totally convinced the only realistic option is to void the season, no promotion/relegation and work towards starting a proper season in September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

They're now talking about playing 60 minute matches. FFS, just void it and bring it back when we can have proper football again.

At this point I'm totally convinced the only realistic option is to void the season, no promotion/relegation and work towards starting a proper season in September.

So they want to move god knows how many people, putting them and their families all at risk, to play reduced games! Whoever came up with this needs their face slapping, never mind giving their head a wobble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EFL are now stating there's a £200 million hole in the funding for EFL clubs. Maybe if they weren't so busy trying to hunt EFL clubs down, taking them to court for FFP, they would have tried to make a deal with the Premier League and FA to funnel the money down the leagues properly. Hopefully the money bubble has burst, and a salary cap is brought in to stop this madness. How can the top division have so much yet the teams below have so little. And we're ran by an organisation who has zero interest in protecting the long term interests in football clubs. The EFL have been a disgrace, even before we got into trouble with them. Regardless of the virus, there's been no plan to secure finances for teams. Why have they not been challenging the monopoly at the top for help? As per usual, they've got their priorities all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

They're now talking about playing 60 minute matches. FFS, just void it and bring it back when we can have proper football again.

At this point I'm totally convinced the only realistic option is to void the season, no promotion/relegation and work towards starting a proper season in September.

Am I the only one who cant understand what difference reducing the game times would have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Am I the only one who cant understand what difference reducing the game times would have?

Apparently they are worried about players being at increased risk of getting injured. I hate modern football so much. I'm glad we've moved away from the days where players got kicked all over the field and there was no support for them if they suffered a career ending injury, but what we have now is ridiculous. Can players really not be trusted to manage their own performance levels so they don't run themselves into the ground if they aren't 100% match fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎02‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 07:56, Brummie Steve said:

Use the tried and tested methods to decide the outcome of matches:-

A) The toss of a coin......or

a slightly fairer method observing distancing.

B)  One goalie from each team tries to save five penalties from five chosen members of the other team alterately whilst those players stand 2mtrs apart to wait their turn. This at least leaves the chance of win, draw or lose!

No celebrating in the dressing rooms, no excitement for the fans, but at least it brings closure. 

image.png

Did suggest this myself a while ago .  That or just average the points per game over the season to create a table . Won't be far of with that.

The other suggestion was to complete the season in july and august and just have a twenty three game league next season .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Did suggest this myself a while ago .  That or just average the points per game over the season to create a table . Won't be far of with that.

The other suggestion was to complete the season in july and august and just have a twenty three game league next season .  

That is the way the french league was finalised. Cant think of any other way tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...