Jump to content

Premier League 2019-2020 Thread


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, weedman said:

Lol at people who think they'll just end the season with the table as it stands. They'd be sued by just about everyone and they'd lose. There's no justification whatsoever to punishing teams when they haven't had an opportunity to compete. Not just the likes of us at the bottom but the likes of Sheff Utd at the top. Besides what about the playoffs below? No time to play them, do they just assume 3rd place goes up even though that's not in their rules? Only relegate and promote 2?

Although everyone would be annoyed at a voided season, they may try and sue, but realistically no one has achieved anything yet, so nothing is being taken away and therefore there really are no grounds for a lawsuit from the likes of Leeds or West Brom or Liverpool etc. Its not like the FA have got together to find a way to screw teams over, it's a global pandemic which is forcing us into this situation. Who would you sue? China? 

Even the oft cited promote the top 2 don't relegate anyone and have a 22 team league opens the FA up to lawsuits from everyone that misses out. That would mean the FA are saying that a teams "achievements" this season DO matter. The likes of Brentford or Forest nailed on for playoffs for example get that taken away from them in that situation. 

IMO the season has to be completed or voided. There can't be a middle ground 

I can't understand why people don't see this, it's the safest route for them and once the inevitable is in front of them it's what their solicitors will tell them. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Logic suggests this is the correct path,  their greed says it isn't.

A large predator supposedly injured some bathers...” - Album on Imgur

We're gonna need a bigger bank account. 

Edited by sidcow
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
45 minutes ago, John said:

I don't think FFP even came into Levy's mind. The thought of the government paying 80% of the wages of some of his employees and Spurs having to pay them nothing, I suspect certainly did.

Levy and Ashley wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, under any circumstances whatsoever. Spurs, Norwich and even, Newcastle are unlikely to fall foul of FFP any time soon I would have thought, they fail the integrity test for me though! 😡

Barca, Bayern and Dortmund led the way on this. Barca 70% pay cut to pay the non playing staff during the crisis. Takes the piss that league with the most money in it don't feel the need to follow suit, but the swing to the extreme right in the UK might have something to do with it.

There will need to be solutions found in the next month, to the status of the season and for the thousands of people relying on the clubs for a living. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, romavillan said:

Barca, Bayern and Dortmund led the way on this. Barca 70% pay cut to pay the non playing staff during the crisis. Takes the piss that league with the most money in it don't feel the need to follow suit, but the swing to the extreme right in the UK might have something to do with it.

There will need to be solutions found in the next month, to the status of the season and for the thousands of people relying on the clubs for a living. 

What's a swing to the left or right got do do with greedy clubs.

The clubs that act this way would act the same regardless of whether it was a con or lab govt.

If you were to argue any political leaning taking money off the govt to pay your workers is more of a left leaning angle usually, but its mostly irrelevant as the current government has no bearing on the greedy and disgusting behaviour of these clubs, it's completely reprehensible as far as I'm concerned. (If the club could afford it)

But yeah, what they are doing is completely disgusting, for me any club with a soul should be asking the players and high earning staff to take an X% pay cut so all the normal staff can continue to earn their normal salary.

Edited by MaVilla
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
5 hours ago, John said:

I agree 99.9% with the above.:thumb:  I just haven't got any sympathy whatsoever to spare for the PL clubs myself.    

You’re right, I was trying to be reasonable with totally unreasonable people. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John said:

I don't think FFP even came into Levy's mind. The thought of the government paying 80% of the wages of some of his employees and Spurs having to pay them nothing, I suspect certainly did.

Levy and Ashley wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, under any circumstances whatsoever. Spurs, Norwich and even, Newcastle are unlikely to fall foul of FFP any time soon I would have thought, they fail the integrity test for me though! 😡

Similarly, expect to see West Ham looking for rent holidays on their free stadium we all paid for out of our taxes. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Spurs, Norwich and Newcastle will feel a backlash from their decision, and rightly so. It’s pure greed by their owners and directors and a sums up everything that is rotten about the premier league.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a tipping point where it is more beneficial for us the taxpayer for the PL players to get paid the full amount and pay tax on it vs paying the non-playing staff's wages while they are on furlough?  It's a genuine question as I'm really bad at understanding this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Robbie09 said:

Spurs, Norwich and Newcastle will feel a backlash from their decision, and rightly so. It’s pure greed by their owners and directors and a sums up everything that is rotten about the premier league.

Norwich will probably not get much of the backlash, the other 2 though will take the brunt of abuse

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet the FA, PL, EFL are still as of today making noises about continuing playing football at some....what are they on, do they not see the news.

Worst day in the UK today for deaths and they are these comments, I'm absolutely disgusted by them all.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

And yet the FA, PL, EFL are still as of today making noises about continuing playing football at some....what are they on, do they not see the news.

Worst day in the UK today for deaths and they are these comments, I'm absolutely disgusted by them all.

I don’t think they are advocating playing - until the government decrees it acceptable - just that the current plan is to play the remaining fixtures whenever it is deemed safe to do so. The relative success of the current restrictions will be clearer by the end of April. This will give an indication, not a guarantee, of whether the restrictions could be lifted enough to play the remaining games, perhaps behind closed doors, in June. Whilst there’s still a small possibility of completing the season without affecting next season, I can see why they haven’t voided the 19/20 season just yet. There’s also a chance they plan to complete the season even if it does impact next season - although a recent statement from UEFA appears to steer away from this.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

via the athletic, Matt Slater:
 

Several leading sports lawyers have raised serious doubts about the implications of extending the season beyond June 30, with one lawyer saying it is simply “not realistic”, while another said the situation would be an “absolute nightmare”.

The crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic is, of course, bigger than football or any other sport, but that does not mean the professional game is not dealing with significant and unprecedented challenges.

One of the most complicated issues is how to finish the current season in Europe, where many players’ contracts expire on June 30, a hard deadline to end one season and start another that nobody expected would be forced to move.

But that is the predicament facing administrators, clubs, leagues and players as they try to work out how to preserve the integrity of their competitions, as well as satisfy their various broadcast and commercial contracts, assuming their respective governments let them do so.

If the season is to be extended beyond June 30, clubs are going to want to extend some of their expiring contracts, but they are unlikely to want to hand out new three-year deals, so they are very likely to be short-term deals,” says Nick De Marco QC, a barrister with Blackstone Chambers.

“But this presents a perennial problem for players: if you get injured while playing on a short-term contract, you could find yourself without a job. Now, it makes sense for all parties to negotiate and find a way through this, but it is not required for players to agree to these short-term extensions under English law.”

Dan Lowen, a sports contract specialist at London-based law firm Level, agrees with De Marco.

“Some with expiring contracts may be delighted to be paid by their clubs for a few more weeks or months, but others will refuse to accept any extension as they won’t want to jeopardise a long-term or better contract with a new club,” says Lowen.

A working group set up by world football’s governing body FIFA to look at the regulatory issues posed by the pandemic has recently sent a report to the game’s stakeholders.

In this report, which The Athletic has seen, FIFA says the “three core matters” that must be addressed are expiring contracts, the “appropriate timing” for the next transfer window (currently scheduled to open on July 1) and “frustrated” agreements that can no longer be fulfilled because of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The concept of frustration exists in common law systems, like England’s, and civil law systems, such as Switzerland’s, where FIFA is based. In simple terms, it says contracts can be set aside if an unforeseen event makes it impossible for the contract to be fulfilled.

This is particularly significant now that clubs are unable to provide their coaches, players and non-playing staff with work, and may be struggling to pay them. As a result, clubs have been persuading their employees to take pay cuts or defer wages until life returns to normal, with players at Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Juventus among those who have accepted cuts.

So far, only a handful of teams in England and Scotland have agree to do likewise, although Newcastle United, Norwich City, Bournemouth and Tottenham Hotspur have become the first Premier League clubs to take advantage of a government-backed scheme to furlough their non-playing staff. This means these employees will be paid 80 per cent of their usual salaries, up to a maximum of £2,500 a month, out of the public purse — a controversial move for companies who employ millionaires.

FIFA can only provide general guidance on these matters and its proposal is that “clubs and employees (players and coaches) be encouraged to work together to agree on deferral and/or reduction of salary by a reasonable amount for any period of the stoppage”.

The English Football League, Premier League and Professional Footballers’ Association met on Wednesday in attempt to reach a united position and it is expected that English-based players will agree to defer a proportion of their wages.

That is certainly the hope of global players’ union FIFPro, whose secretary general Jonas Baer-Hoffmann told reporters on Tuesday he hoped the various contractual issues could be resolved “collectively, with the right will on both sides”.

But, presumably as an example of the wrong will, he also highlighted the example of seven-time Slovakian champions MSK Zilina, who became the first European club to start liquidation proceedings after the start of the coronavirus crisis on Monday when 17 of their first-team players refused to accept an 80 per cent pay cut.

This is clearly an extreme example, but it highlights how difficult it can be to find common ground or a way through the crisis.

As Lowen points out, the situation in the England, particularly at several of the Premier League’s top clubs, is further complicated by the fact many player contracts are now “heavily skewed towards incentives” or bonuses. 

“In normal times, these contingent payments are seen as a win-win because the clubs recognise that they gain if a player meets these targets,” he says. 

“If the season is cancelled, players will not receive these bonuses, some of which they could have reasonably expected to have received. In those circumstances, should they also agree to cut or defer their basic salaries?

“There is often a difficult tension between the regulatory and legal spheres in global sports and this crisis is shining a bright light on that. FIFA is in a tough spot because it has 211 member associations: each one of those may have a slightly different approach to the regulations around contracts and will have different legal frameworks in which those contracts exist.”

A good example of this is how an English court might interpret a contract expiring on June 30 versus a court elsewhere in Europe, and it is based on the concept of “contractual intention”.

“In England, it is based on what an objective bystander would reasonably consider the intention of the contract to be,” explains De Marco. 

“In this case, the fact the contracts say June 30, it would be reasonable to assume that is what was intended. But under civil law, you look more at the subjective interpretation of intention. So, for example, if you had evidence to suggest the parties to the contract actually meant ‘until the end of the season’, you could more easily extend it.”

Some experts have suggested football needs to look again at its player contracts, as they do not contain “force majeure” clauses that guard against unforeseen circumstances.

“They are common in other sports contracts,” says Dan Chapman, head of the sports and employment teams at Leathes Prior, a law firm in East Anglia.

“For example, the last race of the season in Formula One is scheduled for Abu Dhabi but the sport has had to cancel and reschedule races before. This is reflected in the drivers’ contracts, which have more flexibility.

“Football contracts, on the other hand, really aren’t very sophisticated and I wonder if this is something we should look at after the crisis. If you’re (Birmingham City’s) Jude Bellingham, just to pick one example, are you really going to want to play a few more games in the Championship this summer if you already have a move to Borussia Dortmund or Manchester United lined up?

“I don’t think extending the season for months is realistic or possible from a legal point of view. I can’t see players agreeing to short-term extensions if they know they’re going to be cramming games in before facing a quick turnaround for another long season. The risk of injury will only be increased.”

De Marco, however, is not so convinced that football contracts can or will be changed as a result of the crisis.

“Football contracts are not like most employment contracts for good reason,” he says. “First, they are the product of years of collective bargaining between the clubs, players’ unions and the governing bodies, so they cannot be altered without consultation. 

“Second, they are fixed-term contracts, so players cannot just be made redundant or dismissed on notice because there is no work for them. And there are no force majeure clauses in them because of the highly specific nature of the industry. 

“A Liverpool player cannot just hand in his notice and join Arsenal in the same way most of us can move to new companies. This is because of the integrity and team stability issues this would pose for football competitions, but it is a fundamental restraint of trade. Therefore it is only fair that players get something in return. 

“Force majeure clauses might seem reasonable to some but most players only get two or three good contracts in their lifetime: is it fair that those contracts could be ripped up for something that is completely beyond their control?”

Lowen believes one possible way out of the legal minefield is to relax FIFA’s ban on pre-contract agreements between clubs in the same country. Under the current rules, players can sign pre-contracts with clubs abroad, as Aaron Ramsey did when he left Arsenal for Juve.

“One way of potentially allaying players’ concerns would be for national associations to allow players to do this now for moves within national borders,” says Lowen. 

“This could, however, lead to potential issues with the integrity of the competition, as players could face their future employers in the final matches of the season. But signing a pre-contract would in theory give players a degree of protection against the risks and impact of a bad injury.”

Daniel Geey, a sports lawyer at Sheridans, raises another potential headache for clubs and players. “What happens if a player is out of contract on July 1 but cannot be employed or registered by another club until the new season starts because the transfer window has moved? That’s a restraint of trade,” says Geey.

“And then there will be other players who will only sign extended contracts if they are rewarded for the added risk of injury. That is why I can imagine some clubs would simply decide to play on with a smaller squad.

“My gut feeling is the clubs will have enough players to finish the season without dishing out lots of short-term deals, although this will clearly lead to some questions about the integrity of the competition. Watford are a good potential example as Heurelho Gomes and Ben Foster are out of contract. That is a good prisoner’s dilemma for them as they wonder if they should re-sign or not.”

Another lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous, said all these issues amounted to the “absolute nightmare” mentioned above and it is why he believes the game will reach a “tipping point” in the coming weeks and realise the season cannot be completed.

He said he thought the leaders in each league would be awarded the respective titles, the current Premier League table would decide the European places, the top two in the Championship, League One and League Two would be promoted and there would be no relegation. The divisions would then be readjusted over the coming seasons.

“Somebody will try to sue the leagues but I think it will be a case of the path of least resistance and I’m sure a settlement can be reached with the broadcasters,” he said.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooo! 
I really want this season to be voided. It makes total sense to just void it and if you have to, promote the top two in each decision, then the season after just relegate a few more to restore the balance. The situation with contracts will get ridiculous otherwise. 

I don't really care if they hand Liverpool the title. It will be kinda funny if they win it because it is so tainted!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, romavillan said:

Barca, Bayern and Dortmund led the way on this. Barca 70% pay cut to pay the non playing staff during the crisis. Takes the piss that league with the most money in it don't feel the need to follow suit, but the swing to the extreme right in the UK might have something to do with it.

There will need to be solutions found in the next month, to the status of the season and for the thousands of people relying on the clubs for a living. 

It is absolutely ridiculous that there hasn't been something like the 70% across the board hasn't been suggested, at least for clubs in the top leagues. Obviously lower down the leagues it causes issues. Union Berlin players sacrificed 100% of thier salary. Schalke as well I think. However, 70% is no small amount. Arsenal players have taken voluntary reductions so that no non playing staff lose their jobs. 

Regarding Levy, he is a cretin. I know there have been a lot of posts saying greedy players and so on. Levy is paid more than any player at Tottenham. Why would you take a voluntary pay cut when your boss who earns more than you has no intention of taking one?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â