I hear you mate, and want to clarify I absolutely believe the situation IS serious and the game should have been postponed.
I'm not quite clear on what I said implied otherwise. It's more about the timing that the information was given to Everton (so they claim - and WHOSE REASONING CAN ALSO BE CRITIQUED) not what one does with this information with little time to do anything other than postpone the game for safety reasons.
And once again, for those reading I AM NOT BACKING EVERTON'S STATEMENT since I can see how some might think this.
Again, I think the issue Everton has is the timing of the release of information not the itself and the postponement on its own with the revelations.
Everton appear to be insinuating that/trying to explore if City held the COVID cases so late that the game had to be postponed, rather than report the info sooner and have an "independent body" determine who was at risk and if the game needed to be postponed. They also seem to be wondering if the PL just glossed over the timing for whatever/some reasons (not necessarily due to some malicious intent or conspiracy).
Here's the BBC's reporting on Everton's view which is pretty much what I suspected at a minimum was the case (even if one also argues it's "counter-intelligence":
Manchester City's Premier League match at Everton on Monday is postponed after the visitors return a number of positive coronavirus tests.
www.bbc.com
Now, does that mean they have to post that statement? That's arguably an even bigger question.
What if it was discovered City knew of the cases days ago but didn't tell the PL until Monday? I don't know the answer, and does not mean City are "guilty" of anything either, but I can tell you neutrals would sure want to know why.
Respect, btw, but you told me to have some class, and I think that is a misunderstanding on what I'm saying.