I think it's probably time you cooled away from this thread for a bit pal.
You're getting a bit aggravating.
Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th
- Thread starter Tarrou
- Start date
You're getting a bit aggravating.
Fair point mate. I should have researched the other Nordic countries first. As a disclaimer though I did say that I wasn't sure as to why the UK had higher figures.
The rationale behind Sweden's approach seems to be letting the virus run it's course, whilst at the same time trying to keep the economy ticking over. I suppose we'll have a clearer view as to what has been the right way in a few months time. If we're all looking overall at similar deaths & new cases per 100,000 when everything reaches a plateau across the western world, then we could possibly be justified in thinking that we also could have kept large parts of our economy going without having to endure stringent lockdowns.
So he can attack me and I can't defend myself?
If he wants to carry on calling me out (by the way it's always him latching onto me, not the other way round) then why shouldn't I bring his hypocrisy up?
I don't understand how you think it would be fair for Championship sides to be promoted if they didn't play their remaining games but PL clubs would have to play their remaining games and then be relegated. As he says, he has no problem being relegated but it needs to be done in as fair a way as it possibly can be. To do that the clubs who are being promoted also need to play out their remaining games. Why should relegated threatened teams have to play for survival but promoters not have to play for that?
It's not about trying to cling on, it's about being as fair as possible and playing football when it's safe to do so.
Maybe I've not read his stuff that closely but your posts look to be boiling over and have been for a while.
Probably best hiding that chap, or having a cool off period. Then going again, as you were posting decently before.
Pretty sure that poster was championing no relegations not so long ago. So it's a change of tact to start having a go at those in line for it.
I don't understand how you think it would be fair for Championship sides to be promoted if they didn't play their remaining games but PL clubs would have to play their remaining games and then be relegated. As he says, he has no problem being relegated but it needs to be done in as fair a way as it possibly can be. To do that the clubs who are being promoted also need to play out their remaining games. Why should relegated threatened teams have to play for survival but promoters not have to play for that?
It's not about trying to cling on, it's about being as fair as possible and playing football when it's safe to do so.
Well if he agrees to stop taking shots at me (without making further digs in the process) i'll be more than happy to agree not to adknowledge him in return, and that offer extends to anyone.
But i won't stay silent if someone decides to get personal, sorry!
Risk is risk,
Just because someones risk is lower than another should anyone be put in a position where the risk of catching this virus is still there?
There would be less risk with fewer games. You want some games played and you have issues to resolve, the integrity of the overall competition is already ruined.
I'd go with where that is pointing, you could even include the idea of x number of games needed for the tv.
Their priorities just seem wrong to me. Maintaining the exclusiveness and integrity - with a different meaning - of the product is what they are most interested in. You can now start to involve Liverpool's league winning as a major part of the path forward they want to follow.
I'm not against Liverpool being given the League, because its now pathetic and funny. I don't see how this improves any of that. LFC fans might disagree.
I'm probably for there being some football. I'm against what they are actually doing.
I'd go with where that is pointing, you could even include the idea of x number of games needed for the tv.
Their priorities just seem wrong to me. Maintaining the exclusiveness and integrity - with a different meaning - of the product is what they are most interested in. You can now start to involve Liverpool's league winning as a major part of the path forward they want to follow.
I'm not against Liverpool being given the League, because its now pathetic and funny. I don't see how this improves any of that. LFC fans might disagree.
I'm probably for there being some football. I'm against what they are actually doing.
Its absolutely not fair I agree.
I don't understand how you think it would be fair for Championship sides to be promoted if they didn't play their remaining games but PL clubs would have to play their remaining games and then be relegated. As he says, he has no problem being relegated but it needs to be done in as fair a way as it possibly can be. To do that the clubs who are being promoted also need to play out their remaining games. Why should relegated threatened teams have to play for survival but promoters not have to play for that?
It's not about trying to cling on, it's about being as fair as possible and playing football when it's safe to do so.
But the problem Norwich have is that the PL and the EFL are two separate entities. So by the rules of the PL after 38 games they are down and thats it. How it is decided who replaces them isnt really up to them.
Had it been the old style of Divisions 1-4 before the PL came along then they would have a point. But I dont see they have much chance of success with this current tactic.
Some club's league seasons are more or less over with little to play for but may still be in the cups. The cups now are their season. To tell them that the league has to be completed but the cups can be voided is just pure nonsense. It either all gets completed or none of it does.
The league title is no more important to Liverpool than a team going for the Fa cup or a European trophy. Everyone has their own interests.
The league title is no more important to Liverpool than a team going for the Fa cup or a European trophy. Everyone has their own interests.
But if those other occupations are opening then why shouldn't one with less risk open?
Nope, that’s not what I was saying or implying. They’re both non essential. The entire point is about the British public and their faux moral outrage and the fact staff at these places simply won’t be afforded the same level of care as footballers. I actually have no issues with places like McDonalds opening up but I said from day one they wouldn’t protect their staff and certainly not to the levels the PL and I was told I was talking shit. You live in Austria so I imagine your general public are different, you also haven’t suffered as badly as we have. But a significant amount of our general public are morons.That's a pretty convenient way to see things you've got here. McDonalds = shite, football = good, so people are hypocrites for not seeing it that way. Alright.
Another way of seeing it would be: Mcdonalds = food = essential; football = entertainment = not so much. And yeah, Mcdonalds may be unhealthy and stuff, it's still food, so honestly, I can see why this is a bit more accepted than bringing football back. I also suspect more people like to eat at McDonalds than watching football, but I may be wrong here.
Sure, it is not essential to order in such quantities that the above-mentioned congestions arise, that's just the human aspect of the whole thing. Here in Austria it was pretty much the same, as soon as things got opened, they were instantly crowded as if the people were barely able survive without their little conveniences up to that point. That's what you get, living in a consumer's society.
So yeah, I get that people want football back, so do I, but some of you guys have to understand that it still is just entertainment. And honestly, it's 2020, we have so many means of entertainment, we're drowning in it, we should be able to survive even without football.
What some of you also have to understand, everyone lives in his own little reality, everyone is right in his ways for himself. Just that some people's priorities lie elsewhere than one's own, doesn't make them hypocrites, it makes them pretty much just human. Even if they prefer McDonalds to football
You’re talking about consumption, human nature etc. The whole fecking point of us moving forward and learning to deal with this virus is that we need to alter our human nature and our levels of consumption. McDonald’s is food but it is far down the line of food people actually need. In this country we’re unhealthy, you’d think people would try and alter their eating habits. The queues you’re seeing outside McDonalds, the social media posts, it all shows a large number of people in this country haven’t learnt a damn thing and are making zero effort to change. That is something I have a problem with.
And again the whole outrage about football returning, all the reasons given. I’m sorry but it is massively hypocritical if you’re against that but turning a blind eye (And directly contributing) to the situation currently showing itself at McDonalds.
Making a show about how you care about people’s lives, that being the reason for you not wanting football to return whilst at the same time directly contributing and turning a blind eye to poorly paid migrant workers being put in situations where they have no social distancing or adequate ppe in place to protect them. If you wanna put that down to “human nature” that’s fine. Same shit to the people lining the pockets of Amazon purchasing shit they don’t need as they continue to abuse their staff. Who again are mostly made up of migrant workers who btw the British public voted to stop coming into this country to work.
But yeah McDonalds - shite.
Football - good.
Human nature something something.
"Data from the UK's Office for National Statistics, based on a US survey" and "Data is based on low sample numbers and should be treated with caution"
If you base thoughts for footballers work on the two questions
The standardised physical proximity measure is defined by:
0 – I do not work near other people (beyond 100 ft.)
25 – I work with others but not closely (for example, private office)
50 – Slightly close (for example, shared office)
75 – Moderately close (at arm’s length)
100 – Very close (near touching)
2) how much does your job require exposure to the disease. (I wouldn't know how to answer that; is that expose to known or unknown). Could footballers be exposed everyday or never?
0 – Never
25 – Once a year or more but not every month
50 – Once a month or more but not every week
75 – Once a week or more but not every day
100 – Every day
The data set for sports players suggests more towards slightly close (59)
And an expose of towards never (6)
The application of outcome of analysis for sports players to footballers is underestimating risk.
The URL is: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...ialexposuretothecoronaviruscovid19/2020-05-11
I downloaded the dataset to explore my job as well; it's out by a long way. It's a problem when you base roles in different cultures as homogenous.
Just realised my job is more at risk than teachers according to that, (104 & 57) something I never would have thought.
Well this is the thing and why you start to the LFC thing fall apart. they want Tegridy of football to come back, but not any of the cup competitions. Like you say .... funny that.
I actually don’t even want it back. It’s nicer without all the bullshit that surrounds it. Life is simpler. The caf is nicer too
How rude
No problem with that. But that is why I asked you how to fix all those problems that will accure in coming month. There is lot of problems that should be fixed before we even talk about starting football again. And because I don't see a solution in plenty of them I don't see how football can be played.
I can't remember that I have been talking that much about safety. It is more about everything else around football that will be hard to deal with now that we are in middle of May. And for "hypocritical nonsense being thrown around" I would ask myself first, isn't it hypocritical to go to media and talking about staying home but arguing for football to open up?
I have read and watched Giesecke a lot and he strikes me somehow of cold person not taking this to seriuos. Or that he has been trough a lot and doesn't show any emotions talking about this or other deadly viruses. I would say that he has been involved in some way in swedish way of handling things even if he isn't really officially involved.
By the way. Swedish Health Association, despite having society half open, have not given sports green light. Swedish FA are very angry but epidemiologist in the country have said that no sport would be treated differently. Everyone would have same rules. This is a country where there is freedom but under responsibility.
Last edited:
Everyone is calling you out on this take
None of us hate football. Its why we are all here.
You need to let it go mate
People can judge those questions regarding how often they get infected by other people on the office or where they work, also based on what the policy off the office is regarding sick people coming to work. That could be a factor in how close you work with other people or how often your co workers, or people with whom you interact with, get sick and therefore may pass it on to you.
Based on that you can answer how exposed you are to general diseases. For my profession (Actuary) it shows relatively low risk, which I agree with given that we don't work in conditions where a lot of close contact is required or where we have a lot of sick people coming in to work.
Ofcourse it can be off for some professions, given the vast range of jobs they have in the page, but on average the results seem to make sense as the generally high risk jobs are classified as high risk while others aren't. Even in football, you have cases of footballers reporting sick with the flu but they still didn't manage to pass it on to the whole squad before that, so that would suggest that it might not be that easy to spread diseases in that environment as others.
I think that the issue is that people uniquely use this argument for football and it definitely stems from a condescending place because, essentially, you can say this about anything but it’s only used for football. What is so great about movies and TV shows they’re just actors playing characters on a screen, saying lines they’ve rehearsed, right?
Galatasaray, Besiktas and Fenerbahçe suspend training after positive cases
https://observador.pt/2020/05/15/governo-reune-se-para-decidir-proxima-fase-de-desconfinamento/
You have interpreted the infection part different to me. I don't disagree they could have added polices, number of sick people etc. The original survey was asking employees subjective views on a range of issues using a Likert scale. The two specific questions used by ONS was; How much does your job require exposure to the disease (COVID)? How physically close to other people are you when you perform your current job?
What I'm saying is, unless you're working with known COVID cases, eg in a COVID ward, I'd use the requirement to tackle (reduced proximity) as an variable against unknown cases, for footballers. Using unknown cases isn't reliable. If the footballer example is used, using their measures, footballers could be towards the top of the risk table. So you're right it can be off, reinforcing the example, physios are #6. and implied footballer #243 (very odd physios have close proximity and footballers doesn't). Even my own profession depends on level and workload within the role, type of learning environment and pedagogic approach. They measure proximity as 253/359, and exposure 167/359; they're both wrong for my work.
Hopefully, employers understand and use the stats correctly, it would be concerning if it's used as fact and in isolation for other factors/measures. Over to the HR guys for a risk assessment
There’s nothing great about it in comparison to football, and you’ll never find me claiming otherwise. The entire of the entertainment business, which sports fall under, is based around the premise that these people can perform some skills, like play football or recite their lines, to a very high level, such that it’s able to bring enjoyment to us, or invoke some emotional response in us.
Maybe it’s where I am, but I don’t really see much of that argument being used about football. Maybe because we don’t really have any big leagues here, but I’ve always thought it’s a crime that people often criticize the wages in football, while saying nothing about the obscene amounts of money actors and singers make. They’re all subsets of the same industry and you can’t be upset with one and not the other.
I assume the idea with footballers on this scale is that because of testing its unlikely you would be in contact with unknown cases. Whereas an officer worker maybe within 6 feet but not touching distance, but is highly likely to be in a situation where there are unknown cases.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52679614BBC Sport said:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
In the most Belgian fashion ever, they've neglected all input from the taskforce they put together themselves and then created an alternative solution in less than half a day, which still makes no sense and will see lots of legal action taken place. Especially the Westerlo going up proposal is as ridiculous as they come. Once again they've proven how incompetent and outdated an FA they are. Quite scandalous, truth be told.
The measure used lumps sports people together, therefore a sport where actions are independent of others is classed the same as a team sport. It's no surprise that testing is being used in "an attempt" to lower risk, the same being true of spitting (why question spitting if tests are perfect), turning the head away in a tackle (why turn the head away if tests are perfect). We agree, it's largely about whether people perceived the requirements of their role relative to unknown cases. Do most of us know our own status? The UK populous statue is largely unknown.
It's interesting when thinking of football philosophies; who wants to play under the "Sam Allardyce" approach.
It's very naive to think this is not about being relegated and the financial implications (not only club but at savvy clubs like Brighton i'd be certain 99% of players have relegation salary cut clauses)
I don't understand how you think it would be fair for Championship sides to be promoted if they didn't play their remaining games but PL clubs would have to play their remaining games and then be relegated. As he says, he has no problem being relegated but it needs to be done in as fair a way as it possibly can be. To do that the clubs who are being promoted also need to play out their remaining games. Why should relegated threatened teams have to play for survival but promoters not have to play for that?
It's not about trying to cling on, it's about being as fair as possible and playing football when it's safe to do so.
You play your 38 games and bottom three are relegated, that is as fair as it gets. End of story. You are relegated. What Murray is angling for is like getting rightfully sacked for not being good enough at your job and hanging around the reception demanding to see the CV's of people being interviewed for a position. It's got sweet FA to do with you.
I've not championed anything but put across what I deem to be the sweetest of bitter pills to choose from. I am against relegation for teams that do not get to play their full quota of games because relegation has dramatic negative impacts on clubs and communities and even more amplified in this new climate.
I am not anti-relegation due to the pandemic. In fact I have stated and will 100% follow through that if they (which now thankfully seems off the table) played out the season to a finish but without relegation I would never again watch a single game of English football.
Are positions standing as is, so? Promotions and relegations, too?
They’re going with the ppg thing, which whilst shit they don’t really have a choice and then doing playoffs. They don’t have the money to facilitate what the Pl is doing to get things over the line so it makes sense. Waiting on a decision from League one is says too. That’ll be a lot harder because it’s bottleneck at the top/mid table of that league.
It’s not like your CV/job analogy at all, that’s an awful take.
I forgot that footballers were robots and shouldn’t have feelings about their families and friends.
But is that a bad thing? It's unlikely there is going to be a vaccine in the next year. What happens with their neighbours next winter? The virus isn't simply just going to go away. It's way too early to be critical of Sweden's strategy based on the death rate during the first wave. In a year or two from now, things might and very possibly will, look very different. There is every chance, that as long as your health system hasn't been swamped, to the extent that care is rationed based on age etc, that the countries with the most infections per capita, have actually done the best. And I know that's not what a lot of people want to hear as it's become so political. But without a vaccine, would you rather be in Sweden or Denmark next winter?
This is why I really think we should use football as an example of how to go forward and start playing again with, crowds and without social distancing. I think the key is to limit the participants and fans, based on age and health status. If we'd left our schools open, there is a good chance 75% of our kids would be immune, the same is true for Uni's. Pubs, football stadium, restaurants, schools etc, all need to open up and as many young, healthy, people as possible need to be exposed to the virus. The data shows us the NHS should be able to cope over the summer and the benefits, come the winter, will be dramatic. Football clubs and footballers should lead the way, by campaigning to restart, in front as large of crowds as logistically possible. Social distancing of more vulnerable should remain as strict or even stricter. Of course the logistics will be challenging, but at least we'll know it's for a purpose and a move in the right direction. The absurd strategy to get playing again BCD, does nothing but shield people in the hope a vaccine comes along.
Its not unique but its said about football more than any other sport by people who have no interest or hate football because football is the worlds biggest sport and billions of people around the world are fanatical about it. These people don't appreciate how great a sport it is, the happiness it brings people and the positive (and negative) ways it affects people. So they only view it as 22 men kicking a ball around.
But at times like this when the world has ground to a halt, hundreds of thousands of people have died and with more dying everyday, many people still in lockdown and the economy in the shitter it gives you perspective.
And with that yeah even fanatical football fans like the vast majority on here (who are mature enough) will realize it is just a game with 22 men kicking a ball around. And while it will be great to have it back when its safe, it hasn't been a priority for the last few months.
Fair enough, play the games behind closed doors, but the “results” should only stand officially if they are in home and away stadia full of fans with normal rules, otherwise it’s more like exhibition or training games.