You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Coronavirus: Football Discussion Thread
- Thread starter berryblue
- Start date
cleavers
Moderator
I don't think football should be restarting for starters, but the PL can afford to test its players, most other leagues can't, certainly not the WSL in general (though I'm sure the top 3 would do it, if asked, but Bristol City et al ?), so it has to be all or nothing.That is completely immaterial.
This is positive discrimination. If it’s ok for the PL to go ahead, then so should ALL football. From the bottom to the top.
The Championship seem to have the money too, but there's no way the majority of the rest of the EFL can, which is why that is off, as for grass roots, it's not coming back unless there is vaccine sadly.
cleavers
Moderator
It doesn't matter that testing is subject to error, you could be tested and it not be an error, but 24 hours later you could be infected anyway, so go into a game, every game, not knowing.Even testing is subject to error.
King KdB of Belgium
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,228
The plain and simple truth about declaring this season null and void. Is that those who are involved in running the Premier League are only interested in not repaying any money to either Sky or BT.
It is simple greed on the boards part of the Premier League this and nothing else. The welfare off the players is off secondary importance to them. As long as the money keeps rolling in why should Richard Masters and the rest off the Premier League board worry.I
If players have to retire due to catching this Covid19. We will cross that bridge when we come to that situation. Let's hope that that situation doesn't happen. If it does we could be in serious trouble. Especially if the players/clubs insurance will not pay out because they were not covered
It is simple greed on the boards part of the Premier League this and nothing else. The welfare off the players is off secondary importance to them. As long as the money keeps rolling in why should Richard Masters and the rest off the Premier League board worry.I
If players have to retire due to catching this Covid19. We will cross that bridge when we come to that situation. Let's hope that that situation doesn't happen. If it does we could be in serious trouble. Especially if the players/clubs insurance will not pay out because they were not covered
Last edited:
cleavers
Moderator
Precisely why, the "world famous FA Cup" is not being touted in the same way to restart, and yet it only needs 7 games to complete it, so could be over in 7 days, 2 games Sat, Sun, 1 game Tue, Wed, 1 game Sat, giving the country a "moral boost".The plain and simple truth about declaring this season null and void. Is that those who are involved in running the Premier League are only in not repaying any money to either Sky or BT.
It is simple greed on the boards part of the Premier League this and nothing else. The welfare off the players is off secondary importance to them. As long as the money keeps rolling in any should Richard Masters and the rest off the Premier League board worry.
HolisticJim
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 4,251
But you wonder if the women are being paid whereas the men refusing to play would cost them there salary and thus it’s still discrimination.I don’t think anyone is being forced to do anything, no one would blame any player if they refused to return
cleavers
Moderator
I suspect many of the women are furloughed as their general salaries are not high.But you wonder if the women are being paid whereas the men refusing to play would cost them there salary and thus it’s still discrimination.
I don’t think it would cost them their wages tbh, that would be a PR nightmare. However, the men and women’s games are separate entities, with different considerations to be made for each, I don’t see discrimination here.But you wonder if the women are being paid whereas the men refusing to play would cost them there salary and thus it’s still discrimination.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Do we know who is picking up the tab for all the additional safety measures, testing etc as that may have been a consideration by FA to only select men's teamI don’t think it would cost them their wages tbh, that would be a PR nightmare. However, the men and women’s games are separate entities, with different considerations to be made for each, I don’t see discrimination here.
It doesn't matter that testing is subject to error, you could be tested and it not be an error, but 24 hours later you could be infected anyway, so go into a game, every game, not knowing.
This is the thing. Mariappa tested negative one day, and positive a few days later.
If they were back in full training he would have had potentially 3-4 days of full contact training where he could have infected any number of teammates/staff.