Yeah I couldn't the options they gave to the team. Disgraceful.
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
“ They were left with three options, one was to play immediately and get the last 50 minutes played.
'The next one was to come in yesterday at 12 noon and finish the 50 minutes and the third option was to forfeit the game, 3-0.”
I don’t particularly like UEFA but they were given 3 choices.
comment by Shark Lives Matter #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 4 minutes ago
“ They were left with three options, one was to play immediately and get the last 50 minutes played.
'The next one was to come in yesterday at 12 noon and finish the 50 minutes and the third option was to forfeit the game, 3-0.”
I don’t particularly like UEFA but they were given 3 choices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems pretty reasonable.
Looks like old Peter wanted to make the news.
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was one of the options. You’re getting excited over nothing.
So you think resuming the match the very next day is acceptable?
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 1 minute ago
So you think resuming the match the very next day is acceptable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When else can they play it? It is a tournament. Both teams have other games so need adequate rest.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was one of the options. You’re getting excited over nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah UEFA suck but there were very few options available on the table.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy saying that now as he seems to be stable, but what If the situation with Eriksen "would've been more clear" in a negative sense after the opted to wait just one day? None of the options were exactly considerate.
Had Denmark won they wouldn't be moaning about the restart time.
comment by Kroenke_out (U21076)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy saying that now as he seems to be stable, but what If the situation with Eriksen "would've been more clear" in a negative sense after the opted to wait just one day? None of the options were exactly considerate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they would likely have reviewed it. Everything is on a pretty tight schedule and these were the options to enable both teams sufficient rest before their next game.
Some of you are being way too emotive about this.
you could say that its with the benefit of hindsight ,had Denmark won the game had Schmiechel not made an error ,would there still be a problem
I’m sure they could’ve squeezed the game in a week or 10 days later, so the rush to revisit the fixture is a bit questionable. But they did give them three options so it’s not as callous as this article suggests.
I think Uefa knew the tournament could of been cancelled completely if they didn't get the game done asap. There would have been growing concerns over players grueling schedules and overall health and cancelling the tournament is not good for business/money.
comment by Kroenke_out (U21076)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy saying that now as he seems to be stable, but what If the situation with Eriksen "would've been more clear" in a negative sense after the opted to wait just one day? None of the options were exactly considerate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all reports they were only made once it was first clear that Eriksen was alive and stable in hospital and that had been told to the players.
comment by #OleOut - absolute jester of a manager (U21050)
I’m sure they could’ve squeezed the game in a week or 10 days later, so the rush to revisit the fixture is a bit questionable. But they did give them three options so it’s not as callous as this article suggests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contradicting yourself.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
He can speak for himself.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was one of the options. You’re getting excited over nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't
Sign in if you want to comment
Timely reminder that UEFA are sċum!
Page 1 of 2
posted on 14/6/21
W@nkers
posted on 14/6/21
Yeah I couldn't the options they gave to the team. Disgraceful.
posted on 14/6/21
*couldn't believe
posted on 14/6/21
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
posted on 14/6/21
“ They were left with three options, one was to play immediately and get the last 50 minutes played.
'The next one was to come in yesterday at 12 noon and finish the 50 minutes and the third option was to forfeit the game, 3-0.”
I don’t particularly like UEFA but they were given 3 choices.
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Shark Lives Matter #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 4 minutes ago
“ They were left with three options, one was to play immediately and get the last 50 minutes played.
'The next one was to come in yesterday at 12 noon and finish the 50 minutes and the third option was to forfeit the game, 3-0.”
I don’t particularly like UEFA but they were given 3 choices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems pretty reasonable.
Looks like old Peter wanted to make the news.
posted on 14/6/21
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was one of the options. You’re getting excited over nothing.
posted on 14/6/21
So you think resuming the match the very next day is acceptable?
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 1 minute ago
So you think resuming the match the very next day is acceptable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When else can they play it? It is a tournament. Both teams have other games so need adequate rest.
posted on 14/6/21
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was one of the options. You’re getting excited over nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah UEFA suck but there were very few options available on the table.
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy saying that now as he seems to be stable, but what If the situation with Eriksen "would've been more clear" in a negative sense after the opted to wait just one day? None of the options were exactly considerate.
posted on 14/6/21
Had Denmark won they wouldn't be moaning about the restart time.
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Kroenke_out (U21076)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy saying that now as he seems to be stable, but what If the situation with Eriksen "would've been more clear" in a negative sense after the opted to wait just one day? None of the options were exactly considerate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then they would likely have reviewed it. Everything is on a pretty tight schedule and these were the options to enable both teams sufficient rest before their next game.
Some of you are being way too emotive about this.
posted on 14/6/21
you could say that its with the benefit of hindsight ,had Denmark won the game had Schmiechel not made an error ,would there still be a problem
posted on 14/6/21
I’m sure they could’ve squeezed the game in a week or 10 days later, so the rush to revisit the fixture is a bit questionable. But they did give them three options so it’s not as callous as this article suggests.
posted on 14/6/21
I think Uefa knew the tournament could of been cancelled completely if they didn't get the game done asap. There would have been growing concerns over players grueling schedules and overall health and cancelling the tournament is not good for business/money.
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Kroenke_out (U21076)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
Bit of a non story. They weren’t forced to play that day, they were given the option of an alternative day, when the situation with Erikson would have been more clear.
What else should they have done?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy saying that now as he seems to be stable, but what If the situation with Eriksen "would've been more clear" in a negative sense after the opted to wait just one day? None of the options were exactly considerate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all reports they were only made once it was first clear that Eriksen was alive and stable in hospital and that had been told to the players.
posted on 14/6/21
comment by #OleOut - absolute jester of a manager (U21050)
I’m sure they could’ve squeezed the game in a week or 10 days later, so the rush to revisit the fixture is a bit questionable. But they did give them three options so it’s not as callous as this article suggests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contradicting yourself.
posted on 14/6/21
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 14/6/21
He can speak for himself.
posted on 14/6/21
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 14/6/21
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by Chelseamf™®© (U1677)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
Is this actually true? All I've heard from reputable sources is that the players wanted to play the game for Eriksen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be asking yourself why UEFA would give them such odious choices under the circumstances in the first place?
UEFA should have taken the matter out of the players hands (players who were clearly not in the right state of mind) and suspended the match to be played at a later date in the week(s). Duty of care
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was one of the options. You’re getting excited over nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't
Page 1 of 2