Covid-19 and Football

[blandy]

6 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I can't get my head around Norwich - taking hundreds of thousands of pounds from the taxpayer to make sure they can pay their office teams and all of the people that work behind the scenes on match day - much needed money that helps to protect those jobs - without it, they could go bust and those people would be out of work. Hooray for the government stepping up to help ailing business's in time of need.

And hello, here's Norwich City waving their arse at the lot of us, investing a couple of million pounds in a new player - investing in one part of the business while the UK supports the other part - bold as you like, as if it isn't happening.

I'd like to see government look into this - it's taking the piss at a time when people are dying.

It’s not a great look is it?

It’s no different though to what many other businesses are doing.  Factories and new tooling, pubs being refitted, restaurants and new kitchens...all while staff are furloughed.

[sharkyvilla]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I can't get my head around Norwich - taking hundreds of thousands of pounds from the taxpayer to make sure they can pay their office teams and all of the people that work behind the scenes on match day - much needed money that helps to protect those jobs - without it, they could go bust and those people would be out of work. Hooray for the government stepping up to help ailing business's in time of need.

And hello, here's Norwich City waving their arse at the lot of us, investing a couple of million pounds in a new player - investing in one part of the business while the UK supports the other part - bold as you like, as if it isn't happening.

I'd like to see government look into this - it's taking the piss at a time when people are dying.

 

They barely spent any money in the transfer windows either so their profit for this season must be pretty huge.

[Zatman]

Plus I am sure people at Norwich were taking a dig at our transfer policy as well to show what a well run club they are

[Zatman]

I think this is quite interesting, connected to Villa as well with obvious Grealish rumours or if we are relegated

 

[HanoiVillan]

People on here objecting to clubs furloughing staff should take note of David Conn's new piece:

Furlough furore over Premier League clubs ignores aim of protecting jobs

'[...]

Sunak did not respond by saying, as Dowden did about football clubs, that his scheme was not designed for people employed by billionaire owners, nor that it has to be a last resort. He did not say, as Knight did about football, that if companies are still paying other employees much higher wages they are in a moral vacuum.

On the contrary, Sunak said the high take-up was a sign of the scheme’s success. It was set up for all seriously affected businesses, as a huge economic stabiliser for an unprecedented shutdown, aiming to prevent millions of people being laid off and consigned to the poverty-level welfare of the government’s universal credit system.

“We [set up the scheme] so that people were not … unemployed, they had a good income to get them through this, and they remain attached to their company and their employer,” Sunak explained. “If it ends up being significantly used I will view that as a success.”

[...]

Similar critiques could be made of many major profitable companies but the scheme was not set up as a moral test or to carry stigma. Sunak said football clubs and all companies should use the scheme responsibly but he specifically did not require company owners or higher-salaried employees to pay furloughed staff’s wages, nor for companies to show they do not have cash. Nor do companies have to pick painfully through the complications of their particular business before putting some employees on furlough.

Dowden’s argument that the scheme was set up for struggling companies, not those owned by billionaires, is wrong. Some of Britain’s largest companies are making very substantial use of it. They are supported by trade unions, who were consulted on its design and are mightily relieved it enables people to remain employed, on wages they can live on.

To take just one example, British Airways’ owner, International Airlines Group, is costing the government many, many millions, having furloughed 30,000 staff. IAG last year had a £23bn turnover, made a £2bn post-tax profit and paid shareholders £630m in dividends. Its major shareholder is Qatar Airways, owned by the world’s richest per capita state. No government minister scorned this vast corporation for using the scheme, or complained at so much UK government money being advanced to pay its staff. Unite the Union welcomed the deal, saying: “This is what can and should be done to protect workers.”'

more on link: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/apr/11/julian-knight-rishi-sunak-furlough-furore-premier-league-ignores-aim-protect-jobs

[LoughboroughLion]

Article showing the problems with extending the season and not player contracts, albeit in rugby.

May to Gloucester

Quote

Jonny May's move from Leicester to Gloucester highlights the "confusion and ambiguity" of the current situation regarding player contracts, according to a top sports lawyer.

Ignoring my Tigers allegiance, it really does seem strange that May would be able to play for Gloucester if the competition was extended - it’s a fundamentally different competition. 

As the lawyer says though, a restraint of trade complaint would likely be made and any ruling challenged. 

[Zatman]

55 minutes ago, LoughboroughLion said:

Article showing the problems with extending the season and not player contracts, albeit in rugby.

May to Gloucester

Ignoring my Tigers allegiance, it really does seem strange that May would be able to play for Gloucester if the competition was extended - it’s a fundamentally different competition. 

As the lawyer says though, a restraint of trade complaint would likely be made and any ruling challenged. 

After spending 40 million or so, Chelsea will be pissed on July 1st if Ziyech is playing for Ajax

[limpid]

7 minutes ago, Zatman said:

After spending 40 million or so, Chelsea will be pissed on July 1st if Ziyech is playing for Ajax

Then they should have signed a longer contract, or be renegotiating now.

If a contract has a term, that term can't be unilaterally changed. Not anywhere in Europe at least.

[villa4europe]

35 minutes ago, limpid said:

Then they should have signed a longer contract, or be renegotiating now.

If a contract has a term, that term can't be unilaterally changed. Not anywhere in Europe at least.

But by the sounds of that article they don't have a term, they have a date

1st July ziyech is a Chelsea player contractually regardless of the season being finished or not

Its almost like a return to the pre window days

[limpid]

8 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

But by the sounds of that article they don't have a term, they have a date

1st July ziyech is a Chelsea player contractually regardless of the season being finished or not

Its almost like a return to the pre window days

A term is a set of dates (in a contract). It's why there is no such thing as a pre-contract; just a contract with a term that starts in the future.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand the legal details of a player transfer, but I suspect that there is:

• a contract between the player and their current club
• a contract between the player and the new club
• a contract between the clubs to cover any fees

Probably all of these would need to be renegotiated in order to change a date. All will have different break clauses and exclusions and possibly be covered by different jurisprudence.

If a country FA, or UEFA / FIFA or a player's union tried to do something like refuse to change player registrations, it's hard to conceive of how they could do that lawfully. The only way it could happen is by way of an accord in that everyone has to agree to it so that no-one makes a legal challenge.

[villa4europe]

We agree then! 

I thought you meant term as in season 

I would expect there to be an employment contract and then a terms of sale contract, both will contain a date (1st July) and then also some sort of cease of employment document between ziyech and ajax 

Completely agree I don't see how fifa can possibly stop that from happening 

The only possible out I could guess at is a force majeure clause in the sales contract which ajax would have to try and claim against which might not work because corona was already a thing before it was signed

[HanoiVillan]

Interesting developments in Scotland, where they are attempting not to finish the season:

(We would still be relegated under this system as Watford have a better points-per-game than we do).

[PieFacE]

What if we won our game in hand though?

[fightoffyour]

2 hours ago, PieFacE said:

What if we won our game in hand though?

That’s why they are using points per game, to account for games in hand, otherwise they would just take the current league standings. Of course we could win our game in hand, but we averaged around a point per game and so that would be the assumed result.

This would be awful for us, obviously.

[villa4europe]

My problem with it isn't that we have a game in hand it's that we still have to play West ham, a team we can overtake with a win

[PaulC]

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

My problem with it isn't that we have a game in hand it's that we still have to play West ham, a team we can overtake with a win

Our away form is so bad do you expect that to happen. 

[villa4europe]

13 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Our away form is so bad do you expect that to happen. 

Nope but that's not the point

We could win our game in hand and stay up 

We could beat West ham and stay up 

Us being relegated thanks to points per game would be a nail in the coffin for me 

[Mic09]

I think that players contracts is not as much of an issue as many might think in the grand scheme of things.

Players are nothing but contractors who work for a club for a period of time. The clubs are not dependant on them, and the competition (premier League) should not be based on who plays for a club at any given time. After all, Aston Villa joined the PL. Not Aston Villa, consisting of a given 25 players. 

If they did decide to carry on after june, all they would have to do is open the window, allow clubs to confirm a new squad and carry on.

*Not that I want it to happen. End it now.

[PaulC]

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Nope but that's not the point

We could win our game in hand and stay up 

We could beat West ham and stay up 

Us being relegated thanks to points per game would be a nail in the coffin for me 

To be honest, I really believe that if the season was to conclude we'd stay up. It would be the same as starting the season and our form was a lot better when we started the season than when it was suspended. 

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

If they did decide to carry on after june, all they would have to do is open the window, allow clubs to confirm a new squad and carry on.

*Not that I want it to happen. End it now.

Are you suggesting they allow new transfers - so players can play for a new club?

I can see players leaving clubs because their contracts have expired, but I can't see the leagues letting them play for their new clubs.

It might then also be possible to let players that have already negotiated contracts in advance that start on 1st July to play for their new clubs - both would be awful from a sporting integrity position, but would at least be clear.

I don't think you can just open the window and allow new negotiations and deals to take place until after the end of the season.

Consider a few cases

- Ziyech, who on 1st July will be a Chelsea player - if there are games to be played by Chelsea, should he be made available? If he is, then Chelsea gain a sporting advantage - if he's not, then they're having to pay him to do nothing but train - there'd be the potential for a legal case to cover his wages.

- Foster, the Watford keeper - out of contract on 1st July - does he sign a new temporary contract with Watford to see out the season? He's risking a potential long term injury without a long term contract - is there an insurance responsibility? What if he's lining up a "retirement home" deal as a back up for a big club for three years and doesn't want to risk losing that - does he stay home? Can he then claim a restraint of trade legally because he's not permitted to get a job even though he's out of contract? For Watford, do they just have to agree to whatever he demands if he wants to stay on? They lose both of their senior keepers on 1st July - if he wants £400k a week for a month, do they have to just pony up or face up to having no senior goalkeeper?

- Keinan Davis - out of contract on 1st July - still a young man and one that will get interest from clubs - if he doesn't sign for Villa, again there's the potential for a restraint of trade if he can't play for someone else - but if you let him sign for another club, you get a problem with sporting integrity if for example he scores for West Ham against Villa on the last day. Unlike Ziyech, clubs won't want to sign him on 1st July and pay him to do nothing while they finish the season, so he'll likely be left with a period where he can't work.

If you open the window, then you do face the idea of Grealish playing out the season in red, you face the prospect of one of the relegation teams going out and spening £150m on new players to get out of it - an open window is the Wild West. 

It get's really tricky after the 1st July and whilst FIFA can maybe have some influence over registrations - they can't just say "We've had a think about it and we're going to ignore employment law during this time" it's ridiculous - it seems to be what they're claiming.