Premier League 2019-2020 Thread

[Zatman]

Bournemouth keeper tests positive

Edit : just like Deeney he is taking online abuse from inbred Liverpool and Leeds fans saying he doesn't have it

Edited May 26, 2020 by Zatman

[The_Steve]

It's important to consider how many players/staff are presenting as asymptomatic which is why accurate testing is so vital. It's who they come into contact with which will determine its spread. That's the inherent danger. Nor are players immune from the harms of the virus, especially from minority communities. We've seen perfectly healthy children and adults aged 30 or under die from this virus.

The next batch of results will be published tomorrow.

Edited May 26, 2020 by The_Steve

[Guest av1]

I've come to the conclusion that the only way we are going to stay up is If the season is played out. 

I've got more trust in the team to do what's needed on the pitch than I have in the PL to do what's right off it. 

[S-Platt]

What are the tests showing? Have, Had or Never?

I am still confused by the whole testing thing do you need different tests for different answers?

Which one are the Prem using?

[abdulaziz1]

20 minutes ago, S-Platt said:

What are the tests showing? Have, Had or Never?

I am still confused by the whole testing thing do you need different tests for different answers?

Which one are the Prem using?

It doesn’t show directly even when someone gets the virus.

My relatives got it, but it didn’t show up directly, some from the first test, some from second, some from third. Although they live in the same place and most probably got it together.

[weedman]

17 hours ago, TRO said:

They don't Nick, its a model brought from the contintent and we have taken it on board.

I see fors and againsts, I am not completely taken with it.

Martin Samuel made a good case against it with Arsenal in last Fridays Daily Mail.

I think if you are building a team, the manager should do it.....if you are buying, with one eye on selling, then it might be ok.....much of what Samuel was saying too.

It was only brought in to stop complete short termism that old school managers employed. Managers do not care about the future of the club, they care about their job and their paycheck. If the average span of a manager is 2 years why should they bring in 17/18/19 year olds for 5x the price of a 32 year old? Sure the club may reap the benefits in 5 years time, but if the manager has been sacked by then what does he care? 

 

With the managers in control you end up with us under MON or Bruce. Good team, good players, but no sell on value and a rapidly depleting bank balance that will, eventually, run dry and leave us with a team of 30+ year olds ready to retire and no way to replace them (short of a ridiculously lucky timing takeover from a couple of billionaires) 

If we hadn't been taken over after the playoff defeat, either Bruce would have left and been able to say "I did everything I could, the finances aren't my problem really" and he still would have eventually been picked up by a bottom feeder like Newcastle, or he'd have been forced to stay as we couldn't afford to sack him and probably would have kept us away from relegation and taken all the sympathy for our poor position as it's "not his fault we're bankrupt". And he'd be paid through the whole thing! Win win for him, the only losers would be us. 

That is why you have to take transfers out of the managers hand to a certain extent, to survive as a club you need young and improving players, to survive as a manager you need experienced, expensive players at their peak who'll never really grow in value. The club has to take priority 

[romavillan]

1 hour ago, abdulaziz1 said:

It doesn’t show directly even when someone gets the virus.

My relatives got it, but it didn’t show up directly, some from the first test, some from second, some from third. Although they live in the same place and most probably got it together.

Depends what tests they do. Right now at one of the prisons I work with, they are doing swab tests, in 48 hours they get a result on whether you are positive at that moment or not. They are also doing blood samples for antibody tests, they will show if you have had it and have developed the antibodies. Unfortunately I don't get tested as I'd love to know if I've had it or not...

If your relatives had mild symptoms, then maybe they didn't have contact with a lot of viral matter. It makes a difference how much you get exposed to, and the swab tests can give a false negative if there isn't much viral matter on the swab. Even if it's present.

I would think they are doing both types of tests on the players, *should* be the same for the general public too but they are only just starting to offer them in Italy and judging by how little of a **** the UK government has given so far, I won't hold my breath for the general public up there.

[villa4europe]

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

Bournemouth keeper tests positive

Edit : just like Deeney he is taking online abuse from inbred Liverpool and Leeds fans saying he doesn't have it

yep its full of "bottom six player how convenient "

to be fair to them baggies fans are quiet on it all, Leeds and Liverpool fans are like tramps on chips, anyone like SSN or BBC or one of these bible accounts post anything about the virus and they're there in their hundreds, Leeds in particular pop up on loads of random villa fans accounts almost like they're sat searching for comments to argue with

[TRO]

4 hours ago, weedman said:

It was only brought in to stop complete short termism that old school managers employed. Managers do not care about the future of the club, they care about their job and their paycheck. If the average span of a manager is 2 years why should they bring in 17/18/19 year olds for 5x the price of a 32 year old? Sure the club may reap the benefits in 5 years time, but if the manager has been sacked by then what does he care? 

 

With the managers in control you end up with us under MON or Bruce. Good team, good players, but no sell on value and a rapidly depleting bank balance that will, eventually, run dry and leave us with a team of 30+ year olds ready to retire and no way to replace them (short of a ridiculously lucky timing takeover from a couple of billionaires) 

If we hadn't been taken over after the playoff defeat, either Bruce would have left and been able to say "I did everything I could, the finances aren't my problem really" and he still would have eventually been picked up by a bottom feeder like Newcastle, or he'd have been forced to stay as we couldn't afford to sack him and probably would have kept us away from relegation and taken all the sympathy for our poor position as it's "not his fault we're bankrupt". And he'd be paid through the whole thing! Win win for him, the only losers would be us. 

That is why you have to take transfers out of the managers hand to a certain extent, to survive as a club you need young and improving players, to survive as a manager you need experienced, expensive players at their peak who'll never really grow in value. The club has to take priority 

you make points that are credible......but if you have a ship with a hole in the side and its 50 miles to port, you have to be able to fix it......the engineers in port may be wonderful, but you can't get there.

Planning for the future is all very noble and valid, I might add.....but run badly we could be in the 1st division, when the likes of Louie Barry comes  good....unlikely, but that is the dark side of jam tomorrow, particularly in football.

Sure, its worked for Southampton and Brentford, changing managers has made no difference to them, with their recruitment policies......personally, I would like to keep the managers and let them build the team, providing we have got the right manager, then the concerns you highlight, maybe then miniscule.

The "here and now" is essential to get right too or there is no future, to speak of.

I have no idea how good or bad Suso is, but the buck stops with Dean Smith......and Dean smith must be backed or sacked.

I get what you are saying, but the new method, does not entirely protect us from the shortism you talk about......its like Zonal marking  v Man marking, it all has its place, and there is no right way.

I still standby my observation, that a DOF is more likely to buy with one eye on selling on, than help build a team.....certain types of players crucial to a teams balance, could be overlooked by a zealous DOF, only concerned with the individual success of the said purchase.

as an example its in unlikely in the late seventies, early eighties that the type of player we bought, would be bought by a DOF......It was a vision by Ron Saunders and his two ably assisted coaches.....He was derided in the day by his 110% work rate mantra, until it was clear that it was working for him.....How many DOF's would have served Ron well in his pursuit of excellence.....very few, I would wager.

I get why owners do it, but in my view, its mainly to negate their in ability to appoint the right managers in the first place.....and avoid wasting money, but the sad fact is, its just a different person wasting the same money,( if you get it wrong) without the responsibility of the end result.

Edited May 26, 2020 by TRO

[The_Steve]

As they should:

Quote

Premier League clubs are likely to face legal action if a player contracts coronavirus due to returning to training or playing, i can reveal.

i can reveal that under the Health and Safety at Work Act clubs have a duty to provide a safe environment for players to work within, and if it was found that a player had contracted Covid-19 as a result of returning to training and playing their club would be liable.

“Government guidance is all about doing risk assessment and putting as much as responsibility with the authorities, the leagues and the clubs,” Simon Leaf, head of sport for leading law firm Mishcon de Reya, told i.

“Technically speaking, governing bodies could be liable for effectively encouraging something that is not safe. The legal cases generally revolve around contact sports like boxing, where the British Boxing Board of Control was found to owe a duty of care to participants. It wouldn’t be a far stretch to say the Premier League owes a duty of care to its players. They need to be careful with the approach they take and carry out risk assessments.

“But primarily the liability will sit with clubs, who have an employment relationship with the players. Like every other employer in the country they have a statutory duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act, obliging them to provide a safe work environment.

“That obligation is potentially a serious one. Ultimately, clubs could be criminally liable for not providing a safe work space, getting into a corporate manslaughter type situation. That only applies in rare circumstances, but it is certainly something clubs will be aware of and treading carefully to avoid.

 

Regarding waivers:

Quote

Players have been asked to sign a form explaining the return to training workplace health and safety policy the Premier League are putting in place, which some players have interpreted as a waiver, understandably given they were asked to sign it. But even if clubs tried to use this to argue they were not liable in the event of a claim, again the law would not be on their side.

”It is impossible under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for a club or the Premier League to limit or exclude its liability in any way for any personal injury or death - which potentially makes any written waiver that a player is asked to sign not worth the paper it is written on,” Leaf said. "This is one of the first principles that lawyers learn at law school.

“If the player picked up the disease through playing and could show the club had been negligent letting them train or play then that waiver wouldn’t be effective.

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by The_Steve

[zab6359]

On 26/05/2020 at 02:33, useless said:

Unless we have an amaznig turnaround in form we wlll continue losing games, we just have to make sure that we win more than the other teams in the relegation battle with us, doesn't matter if one of those wins comes against Sheffield United or not as long as we get them.

Pretty much where I feel we are at, I felt before Covid hit we were to reliant on what other teams were doing and not good enough to get ourselves out of trouble. I don't see any reason that will have changed due to the lay off. Have hated this season we've been so poor for the majority of it! 

[Nabby]

Vote to resume full contact training has passed 

[danceoftheshamen]

Just had an official letter regarding my season ticket. It says it will either be refunded or an "e-voucher" issued for future use and i'll be emailed the details soon.

I wonder how that'll work regards future season tickets? As in if i take the refund do i effectively "lose" my seat?

I am assuming if you want to keep your slot you have to use the e-voucher which i guess would make sense although when will that be i wonder?!

 

[The_Steve]

The league says players are now able to train as a group and “engage in tackling while minimizing any unnecessary close contact.”

Good luck with that.

[nick76]

16 minutes ago, zab6359 said:

Pretty much where I feel we are at, I felt before Covid hit we were to reliant on what other teams were doing and not good enough to get ourselves out of trouble. I don't see any reason that will have changed due to the lay off. Have hated this season we've been so poor for the majority of it! 

I agree before the virus we were on a incredibly poor streak in terms of results and performances but if we had been consistent in terms of results ie with our game in hand and beaten Sheff Utd we would now be out of the bottom six.

Our average league position is 16.7.  Up until mid December we consistently stayed out of the relegation places.  We regularly went on a run of defeats and then got a win, which kept us above the relegation zone.  Arguably we lost on one of key players in McGinn during December (who was slightly out of form then) and he's back, which hopefully will do a world of good for our chances. 

Even after our defeat to Southampton (our last but one game) we were 17th but since then we didnt play Sheff Utd so fell one game back and lost to Leicester.

So I would argue we havent been poor for the majority of it, we have been where are supposed to be at the moment.......pre-virus for at least four games we were awful, I give you that and yes we were smashed by Man City 6-1 in January.  Do I wish things had gone better, obviously yes, do I wish we would stop making basic individual mistakes that has really cost us, yes but if you had asked me at the end of January if we were I expected us to be then I would've said yes.  We were always going to lose over half our games, any expectation above that was silly but at the end of January I was ok. 

As I said the last few games before lockdown had knocked me how poor we were but before that I cant argue we have been poor.  Maybe poor by overall compared to the big teams and established teams but not poor for where we expected to be at the start of the season.  At the end of January I would've given us a 'C' grade....a pass but with massive areas of potential improvement.

[nick76]

8 minutes ago, Nabby said:

Vote to resume full contact training has passed 

Edited May 27, 2020 by nick76

[The_Steve]

Premier League players and staff will be tested for Covid-19 twice a week. Kick in the teeth for NHS and other key workers.

[nick76]

1 minute ago, The_Steve said:

Premier League players and staff will be tested for Covid-19 twice a week. Kick in the teeth for NHS and other key workers.

Just embarrassing! I just dont know how they face themselves.  

Everybody knows the situation regarding the NHS and other first responders and then still turn up to take those tests......just have no......dont even know the word.

I wonder what the players and staff say to family members who are NHS workers....how do you argue that footballers get tests before NHS workers, you just cant.

[Zatman]

I dont think footballers would argue the NHS deserve it more. This is being pushed by the same scumbags who would allow a murderous regime buy a football club but might block it as they feel media rights are more important 

[PaulC]

28 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Premier League players and staff will be tested for Covid-19 twice a week. Kick in the teeth for NHS and other key workers.

Aren’t there enough tests for NHS and front line workers yet? Are they impacting on them getting tested, if so I agree.