comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first examples are variables within a season whereas most of the examples being suggested are actually changing the original rules put in place to ensure a level playing field and preserve the integrity of the competition. Clubs aren't forced to hire or sack particular managers so that's a really poor example.
I'm vehemently against voiding the season though. Would be the worst outcome all round. What do you think of my idea I posted earlier? For me, that's the fairest option in terms of fewest clubs feeling hard done by. Again it's not perfect, but there's an argument against every single way of finishing.
You're ignoring the fact that a lot of the games around the relegation zone are 6 pointers and only some of the teams will have had the advantage of playing at home.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 seconds ago
You're ignoring the fact that a lot of the games around the relegation zone are 6 pointers and only some of the teams will have had the advantage of playing at home.
------------
Pride, I guess thats the mini side debate here though, would playing at home without fans be a massive advantage like it is with crowds?
Amuses me that F1, golf, cricket, even darts are doing everything possible to get their show on the road, in whatever ways are safe and practical. But some sections of football are doing all they can to sabotage a resumption.We are in exceptional circumstances that threaten the existence of many clubs. Compromise is essential, not spurious arguments about "integrity".
comment by RadebeTedd (U17015)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
I fully accept that the use of neutral venues does affect things and is inherently unfair, for all the reasons stated above.
But, sadly, having players, coaches and fans invest in 75% of the season chasing titles, promotion, qualification for Europe or avoidance of relegation, only to have it voided and count for nothing 80% of the way through, also damages the integrity of the sport.
It seems to me, that only way to avoid such damage is to complete the season as and when it's possible to do so safely.
But the money men - and the whole financial aspect, from sponsorship to transfers - seem to have insisted that that isn't possible.
So, perhaps, the question should be what is the least unfair way to end this season?
Personally, I'd say that for all its faults, the neutral venues isn't a terrible option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summed up
comment by JackCharlton (U19203)
posted 4 minutes ago
Amuses me that F1, golf, cricket, even darts are doing everything possible to get their show on the road, in whatever ways are safe and practical. But some sections of football are doing all they can to sabotage a resumption.We are in exceptional circumstances that threaten the existence of many clubs. Compromise is essential, not spurious arguments about "integrity".
----------------------------
cretainly feels that way Jack.. not sure its true though, but I'm with you
comment by JackCharlton (U19203)
posted 11 minutes ago
Amuses me that F1, golf, cricket, even darts are doing everything possible to get their show on the road, in whatever ways are safe and practical. But some sections of football are doing all they can to sabotage a resumption.We are in exceptional circumstances that threaten the existence of many clubs. Compromise is essential, not spurious arguments about "integrity".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally in life, successful people are the “can dos” not the “we can’t do this because” people.
5 comment Jack!
Give them the choice
1. Void the league and the cups.. no champions or relegation, no money for finishing positions and repay some TV money.
2. Finish now, champions and relegation..pay out on positions, but refund some TV money.
3. Complete at neutral grounds, pay out on positions and hopefully the TV companies will be happy with the revenue from screening all/most of the games.
One thing that bothers me with all this "what should we do next that on balance will be the fairest conclusion" question is bearing in mind the billions of pounds flowing into football , certainly at The PL level and into the FA - surely some bright spark should have written into the rules what happens in a situation like this I.e if it stops at this point in the season we do xyz.
WW2 basically stopped full top level football for 6 years.
The whole sorry issue is that there was nothing in writing at the start of the season that was legally binding on all Football clubs - once you start the competition it's very difficult to introduce rules that cant be challenged in court.
The horse has well and truly bolted this time but those in Authority need something in place ready for the future.
How sponsors and TV are dealt need to be part of this as well because as I see it unless the season is finished Sky will be wanting recompense and footy cant afford it!
Even if we were able to restart with full crowds in normal grounds, the seasons fairness has still been compromised.
Take us as an example - we won 5 in a row, no goals conceded. All that momentum and confidence is killed with a restart. Aston Villa on the other hand lost 5 in a row, the break will benefit them. Harry Kane is back from injury whereas he would have missed almost all the rest of the season with Spurs.
There is no solution that will be as fair as would normally be. But the best solution is to finish the remaining games. Football needs to adapt in order to survive, like every other industry. These players who refused a pay cut need to realise there is no income in football currently. Without games, they are not worth the tens of thousands a weeks they earn. TV subscriptions will have fallen off a cliff, match going fans are out of pocket. If there is a way to play safely (which there clearly is) it needs to be done.
I'm afraid i'm at the point where I honestly don't give a damn. The seasons already over from what I can see.
I really want my team promoted, but in the right way. In a utopian scenario where I watch them score the goal, finish the game, where i'm actually there (along with everyone else). I want that euphoria, I want that elation. Without that, even watching behind closed doors on TV, were we to get over the line, i'm just not sure it'd be the same or even anywhere close. Everyone's opinion on how it should end, is more or less as valid as the next persons. It's a discussion forum and respect all round to everyone.
I'll be back, I know I will, whatever league, whatever the situation and whenever the turnstiles are there to walk through (safely). If we have to go again, so be it.
The self-interest, however understandable, just feels wrong right now. Especially given how many are struggling to feed families, pay bills and keep roofs over heads - or in far too many cases stay alive.
Not sure about integrity, just feels like perspective which is needed more than anything.
comment by The Spanish Italians - its all going to end in tears (U21595)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 seconds ago
You're ignoring the fact that a lot of the games around the relegation zone are 6 pointers and only some of the teams will have had the advantage of playing at home.
------------
Pride, I guess thats the mini side debate here though, would playing at home without fans be a massive advantage like it is with crowds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't be as big an advantage but it would still be an advantage as all the pitches in the league are different and you will be most used to your own.
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first examples are variables within a season whereas most of the examples being suggested are actually changing the original rules put in place to ensure a level playing field and preserve the integrity of the competition. Clubs aren't forced to hire or sack particular managers so that's a really poor example.
I'm vehemently against voiding the season though. Would be the worst outcome all round. What do you think of my idea I posted earlier? For me, that's the fairest option in terms of fewest clubs feeling hard done by. Again it's not perfect, but there's an argument against every single way of finishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand your point of view.
I just think finishing the season as was always intended but with different dates and venues is much closer to the original than excluding some clubs from the promotion race at 39 games.
How would you use games to finalised euro places in the premiership without it being a drastic change to the fairness of the original competition?
Would you set up a play offs to allocate fourth spot? if so what advantage do Chelsea have going into them that replicates their points advantage?
Without looking at the run ins what if Man Utd have a much easier run in than Chelsea and lose that advantage?
At least with neutral venues everyone is treated the same with the benefit of their success or lack of throughout the season so far.
What I would say about neutral venues is that I would still expect the best teams to win the most points. Do you think that there would be a drastic change in the points per game won by teams during the last 1/4 of games as there were for the first 3/4.
I would expect the variations to be very similar to the variations seen in previous seasons.
I know you haven't said this but I also do not see the point of continuing the season as I have said if relegation is excluded because that will leave only a handful of sides with anything to play for and will certainly compromise the results.
I accept neutral venues is not perfect at all. But still think it's the fairest option.
comment by biccodewhite (U8797)
posted 1 hour ago
Give them the choice
1. Void the league and the cups.. no champions or relegation, no money for finishing positions and repay some TV money.
2. Finish now, champions and relegation..pay out on positions, but refund some TV money.
3. Complete at neutral grounds, pay out on positions and hopefully the TV companies will be happy with the revenue from screening all/most of the games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only problem is you know who would vote for what.
In the premiership;
Top 4 will vote to keep league positions. So will 13th to 17th who are in danger of going down.
Bottom 3 and 5th to maybe 12th will vote to continue games as they are all hoping to either get into Europe or Champions League.
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first examples are variables within a season whereas most of the examples being suggested are actually changing the original rules put in place to ensure a level playing field and preserve the integrity of the competition. Clubs aren't forced to hire or sack particular managers so that's a really poor example.
I'm vehemently against voiding the season though. Would be the worst outcome all round. What do you think of my idea I posted earlier? For me, that's the fairest option in terms of fewest clubs feeling hard done by. Again it's not perfect, but there's an argument against every single way of finishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand your point of view.
I just think finishing the season as was always intended but with different dates and venues is much closer to the original than excluding some clubs from the promotion race at 39 games.
How would you use games to finalised euro places in the premiership without it being a drastic change to the fairness of the original competition?
Would you set up a play offs to allocate fourth spot? if so what advantage do Chelsea have going into them that replicates their points advantage?
Without looking at the run ins what if Man Utd have a much easier run in than Chelsea and lose that advantage?
At least with neutral venues everyone is treated the same with the benefit of their success or lack of throughout the season so far.
What I would say about neutral venues is that I would still expect the best teams to win the most points. Do you think that there would be a drastic change in the points per game won by teams during the last 1/4 of games as there were for the first 3/4.
I would expect the variations to be very similar to the variations seen in previous seasons.
I know you haven't said this but I also do not see the point of continuing the season as I have said if relegation is excluded because that will leave only a handful of sides with anything to play for and will certainly compromise the results.
I accept neutral venues is not perfect at all. But still think it's the fairest option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My play offs comment was in regard to the EFL play offs, my fault though as I didn't explain it well enough
Fully understand where you're coming from in your penultimate paragraph regards (no) relegation. I was just trying to think of what would be the least litigious path in the event of all divisions not being able to finish.
Unfortunately I think all paths lead to litigation. There is no way of avoiding that now.
Most of that will be due to self interests.
We would take action instantly if prevented from gaining promotion.
Anyone that’s relegated will take action whatever the method.
Basically anyone that’s not happy with the result will take legal action regardless of the method chosen to end the season.
The problem we have is that while we can discuss what we think is the fairest way to resolve the season, the clubs will not be interested in this. Their only concern will be what gives them the biggest advantage/outcome. That’s obvious with the sides that are opposed to project restart. It’s also completely understandable. But that’s why we need to stop trying to please everyone. Make a decision and get on with it.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11706/11983289/crystal-palace-chairman-steve-parish-defends-premier-league-restart-stance-neutral-venues-the-least-worst-option
Steve Parish accepts this is not ideal. But is the best option and necessary for the finances of clubs.
Great article by Jamie Carrigher in the Telegraph today discussing the idea that neutral venues impact the integrity of the league:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/05/08/clubs-bleating-sporting-integrity-wrong-neutral-venues-safest/
Sign in if you want to comment
Integrity
Page 2 of 2
posted on 4/5/20
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
posted on 4/5/20
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first examples are variables within a season whereas most of the examples being suggested are actually changing the original rules put in place to ensure a level playing field and preserve the integrity of the competition. Clubs aren't forced to hire or sack particular managers so that's a really poor example.
I'm vehemently against voiding the season though. Would be the worst outcome all round. What do you think of my idea I posted earlier? For me, that's the fairest option in terms of fewest clubs feeling hard done by. Again it's not perfect, but there's an argument against every single way of finishing.
posted on 4/5/20
You're ignoring the fact that a lot of the games around the relegation zone are 6 pointers and only some of the teams will have had the advantage of playing at home.
posted on 4/5/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 seconds ago
You're ignoring the fact that a lot of the games around the relegation zone are 6 pointers and only some of the teams will have had the advantage of playing at home.
------------
Pride, I guess thats the mini side debate here though, would playing at home without fans be a massive advantage like it is with crowds?
posted on 4/5/20
Amuses me that F1, golf, cricket, even darts are doing everything possible to get their show on the road, in whatever ways are safe and practical. But some sections of football are doing all they can to sabotage a resumption.We are in exceptional circumstances that threaten the existence of many clubs. Compromise is essential, not spurious arguments about "integrity".
posted on 4/5/20
comment by RadebeTedd (U17015)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
I fully accept that the use of neutral venues does affect things and is inherently unfair, for all the reasons stated above.
But, sadly, having players, coaches and fans invest in 75% of the season chasing titles, promotion, qualification for Europe or avoidance of relegation, only to have it voided and count for nothing 80% of the way through, also damages the integrity of the sport.
It seems to me, that only way to avoid such damage is to complete the season as and when it's possible to do so safely.
But the money men - and the whole financial aspect, from sponsorship to transfers - seem to have insisted that that isn't possible.
So, perhaps, the question should be what is the least unfair way to end this season?
Personally, I'd say that for all its faults, the neutral venues isn't a terrible option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summed up
posted on 4/5/20
comment by JackCharlton (U19203)
posted 4 minutes ago
Amuses me that F1, golf, cricket, even darts are doing everything possible to get their show on the road, in whatever ways are safe and practical. But some sections of football are doing all they can to sabotage a resumption.We are in exceptional circumstances that threaten the existence of many clubs. Compromise is essential, not spurious arguments about "integrity".
----------------------------
cretainly feels that way Jack.. not sure its true though, but I'm with you
posted on 4/5/20
comment by JackCharlton (U19203)
posted 11 minutes ago
Amuses me that F1, golf, cricket, even darts are doing everything possible to get their show on the road, in whatever ways are safe and practical. But some sections of football are doing all they can to sabotage a resumption.We are in exceptional circumstances that threaten the existence of many clubs. Compromise is essential, not spurious arguments about "integrity".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally in life, successful people are the “can dos” not the “we can’t do this because” people.
5 comment Jack!
posted on 4/5/20
Give them the choice
1. Void the league and the cups.. no champions or relegation, no money for finishing positions and repay some TV money.
2. Finish now, champions and relegation..pay out on positions, but refund some TV money.
3. Complete at neutral grounds, pay out on positions and hopefully the TV companies will be happy with the revenue from screening all/most of the games.
posted on 4/5/20
One thing that bothers me with all this "what should we do next that on balance will be the fairest conclusion" question is bearing in mind the billions of pounds flowing into football , certainly at The PL level and into the FA - surely some bright spark should have written into the rules what happens in a situation like this I.e if it stops at this point in the season we do xyz.
WW2 basically stopped full top level football for 6 years.
The whole sorry issue is that there was nothing in writing at the start of the season that was legally binding on all Football clubs - once you start the competition it's very difficult to introduce rules that cant be challenged in court.
The horse has well and truly bolted this time but those in Authority need something in place ready for the future.
How sponsors and TV are dealt need to be part of this as well because as I see it unless the season is finished Sky will be wanting recompense and footy cant afford it!
posted on 4/5/20
Even if we were able to restart with full crowds in normal grounds, the seasons fairness has still been compromised.
Take us as an example - we won 5 in a row, no goals conceded. All that momentum and confidence is killed with a restart. Aston Villa on the other hand lost 5 in a row, the break will benefit them. Harry Kane is back from injury whereas he would have missed almost all the rest of the season with Spurs.
There is no solution that will be as fair as would normally be. But the best solution is to finish the remaining games. Football needs to adapt in order to survive, like every other industry. These players who refused a pay cut need to realise there is no income in football currently. Without games, they are not worth the tens of thousands a weeks they earn. TV subscriptions will have fallen off a cliff, match going fans are out of pocket. If there is a way to play safely (which there clearly is) it needs to be done.
posted on 4/5/20
I'm afraid i'm at the point where I honestly don't give a damn. The seasons already over from what I can see.
I really want my team promoted, but in the right way. In a utopian scenario where I watch them score the goal, finish the game, where i'm actually there (along with everyone else). I want that euphoria, I want that elation. Without that, even watching behind closed doors on TV, were we to get over the line, i'm just not sure it'd be the same or even anywhere close. Everyone's opinion on how it should end, is more or less as valid as the next persons. It's a discussion forum and respect all round to everyone.
I'll be back, I know I will, whatever league, whatever the situation and whenever the turnstiles are there to walk through (safely). If we have to go again, so be it.
The self-interest, however understandable, just feels wrong right now. Especially given how many are struggling to feed families, pay bills and keep roofs over heads - or in far too many cases stay alive.
Not sure about integrity, just feels like perspective which is needed more than anything.
posted on 4/5/20
comment by The Spanish Italians - its all going to end in tears (U21595)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 seconds ago
You're ignoring the fact that a lot of the games around the relegation zone are 6 pointers and only some of the teams will have had the advantage of playing at home.
------------
Pride, I guess thats the mini side debate here though, would playing at home without fans be a massive advantage like it is with crowds?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't be as big an advantage but it would still be an advantage as all the pitches in the league are different and you will be most used to your own.
posted on 4/5/20
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first examples are variables within a season whereas most of the examples being suggested are actually changing the original rules put in place to ensure a level playing field and preserve the integrity of the competition. Clubs aren't forced to hire or sack particular managers so that's a really poor example.
I'm vehemently against voiding the season though. Would be the worst outcome all round. What do you think of my idea I posted earlier? For me, that's the fairest option in terms of fewest clubs feeling hard done by. Again it's not perfect, but there's an argument against every single way of finishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand your point of view.
I just think finishing the season as was always intended but with different dates and venues is much closer to the original than excluding some clubs from the promotion race at 39 games.
How would you use games to finalised euro places in the premiership without it being a drastic change to the fairness of the original competition?
Would you set up a play offs to allocate fourth spot? if so what advantage do Chelsea have going into them that replicates their points advantage?
Without looking at the run ins what if Man Utd have a much easier run in than Chelsea and lose that advantage?
At least with neutral venues everyone is treated the same with the benefit of their success or lack of throughout the season so far.
What I would say about neutral venues is that I would still expect the best teams to win the most points. Do you think that there would be a drastic change in the points per game won by teams during the last 1/4 of games as there were for the first 3/4.
I would expect the variations to be very similar to the variations seen in previous seasons.
I know you haven't said this but I also do not see the point of continuing the season as I have said if relegation is excluded because that will leave only a handful of sides with anything to play for and will certainly compromise the results.
I accept neutral venues is not perfect at all. But still think it's the fairest option.
posted on 4/5/20
comment by biccodewhite (U8797)
posted 1 hour ago
Give them the choice
1. Void the league and the cups.. no champions or relegation, no money for finishing positions and repay some TV money.
2. Finish now, champions and relegation..pay out on positions, but refund some TV money.
3. Complete at neutral grounds, pay out on positions and hopefully the TV companies will be happy with the revenue from screening all/most of the games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only problem is you know who would vote for what.
In the premiership;
Top 4 will vote to keep league positions. So will 13th to 17th who are in danger of going down.
Bottom 3 and 5th to maybe 12th will vote to continue games as they are all hoping to either get into Europe or Champions League.
posted on 4/5/20
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
You've written an article on Integrity and then used these words:
"It will be less fair on some clubs than others"
You've killed your own argument stone dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But everything is less fair on some clubs than others. What about the amount of fixtures we have moved every season for tv? Should those seasons be null & void?
What about the sides that play against top teams before a Champions League game?
What about sides that play against top sides with different managers, or different injuries.
All of the above is less fair for some sides than others every season.
But we accept it as necessary because it is.
We are in exceptional circumstances that will lead to an arguably less fair competition. But we don't know who will be effected most. While Brighton might be loudest at complaining, they might benefit with the fact that Villa struggle with this more. They may even thrive under the conditions. It is not something that targets specific clubs.
And it is far more fair than cutting the season short having all played different opponents twice. And it is far more fair than calling the season null & void.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first examples are variables within a season whereas most of the examples being suggested are actually changing the original rules put in place to ensure a level playing field and preserve the integrity of the competition. Clubs aren't forced to hire or sack particular managers so that's a really poor example.
I'm vehemently against voiding the season though. Would be the worst outcome all round. What do you think of my idea I posted earlier? For me, that's the fairest option in terms of fewest clubs feeling hard done by. Again it's not perfect, but there's an argument against every single way of finishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand your point of view.
I just think finishing the season as was always intended but with different dates and venues is much closer to the original than excluding some clubs from the promotion race at 39 games.
How would you use games to finalised euro places in the premiership without it being a drastic change to the fairness of the original competition?
Would you set up a play offs to allocate fourth spot? if so what advantage do Chelsea have going into them that replicates their points advantage?
Without looking at the run ins what if Man Utd have a much easier run in than Chelsea and lose that advantage?
At least with neutral venues everyone is treated the same with the benefit of their success or lack of throughout the season so far.
What I would say about neutral venues is that I would still expect the best teams to win the most points. Do you think that there would be a drastic change in the points per game won by teams during the last 1/4 of games as there were for the first 3/4.
I would expect the variations to be very similar to the variations seen in previous seasons.
I know you haven't said this but I also do not see the point of continuing the season as I have said if relegation is excluded because that will leave only a handful of sides with anything to play for and will certainly compromise the results.
I accept neutral venues is not perfect at all. But still think it's the fairest option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My play offs comment was in regard to the EFL play offs, my fault though as I didn't explain it well enough
Fully understand where you're coming from in your penultimate paragraph regards (no) relegation. I was just trying to think of what would be the least litigious path in the event of all divisions not being able to finish.
posted on 4/5/20
Unfortunately I think all paths lead to litigation. There is no way of avoiding that now.
Most of that will be due to self interests.
We would take action instantly if prevented from gaining promotion.
Anyone that’s relegated will take action whatever the method.
Basically anyone that’s not happy with the result will take legal action regardless of the method chosen to end the season.
The problem we have is that while we can discuss what we think is the fairest way to resolve the season, the clubs will not be interested in this. Their only concern will be what gives them the biggest advantage/outcome. That’s obvious with the sides that are opposed to project restart. It’s also completely understandable. But that’s why we need to stop trying to please everyone. Make a decision and get on with it.
posted on 5/5/20
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11706/11983289/crystal-palace-chairman-steve-parish-defends-premier-league-restart-stance-neutral-venues-the-least-worst-option
Steve Parish accepts this is not ideal. But is the best option and necessary for the finances of clubs.
posted on 8/5/20
Great article by Jamie Carrigher in the Telegraph today discussing the idea that neutral venues impact the integrity of the league:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/05/08/clubs-bleating-sporting-integrity-wrong-neutral-venues-safest/
Page 2 of 2