Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
946
Supports
chelsea
If Liverpool are given the title or not I don't think anyone can take away how dominant they've been this season. They've been the best team in the league and I recognise them as such. All hyperbole and silliness aside I genuinely have no hard feelings towards most of the Liverpool supporters posting here and where I genuinely think perspective has been lacking it has usually been within understandable limits. However:




There is a intrusive, stigmatising undercurrent to your posts that is unpleasant. I'm hoping that you've simply lost your mind in a weird football nerd tantrum, and you're not actually like this in real life.
I haven't read any Redman5 posts before the ones you quoted but I think he may have a point. Troy Deeney has had issues in the past and I'm not sure the premier league should be stopped because of a few players who don't feel safe. He battered a student lying injured on the ground outside a club in 2012 and didn't seem to be too concerned for the health of his victim or his own public persona at that point. He served time for that appalling assault so it's a bit wide of the mark to suggest Redman5's posts are stigmatising and intrusive.

I find it very difficult to decide how matters could be concluded fairly and equitably. All players, fans etc of a certain club have a vested interest and I don't see how that can change.

If this season isn't played out and Liverpool are handed the title then so be it. In the past I have facetiously suggested they should refuse the trophy on moral grounds but there can be no doubt that if they were "handed" the trophy it would be a tainted victory.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
3,628
The funny thing about this discussion is that people seem way more concerned about millionaire celebrities returning to their jobs, protected by an expensive structure of safety measures, than they feel for blue collar workers of non-essential activities.
Theres a different thread for that and the same discussion is happening in there.
 

Strelok

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
531
The funny thing about this discussion is that people seem way more concerned about millionaire celebrities returning to their jobs, protected by an expensive structure of safety measures, than they feel for blue collar workers of non-essential activities.
I wouldn't see it this way. People just basically say Deeney's worry about his kid is justifiable and understandable.
 

Dec9003

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
5,525
I haven't read any Redman5 posts before the ones you quoted but I think he may have a point. Troy Deeney has had issues in the past and I'm not sure the premier league should be stopped because of a few players who don't feel safe. He battered a student lying injured on the ground outside a club in 2012 and didn't seem to be too concerned for the health of his victim or his own public persona at that point. He served time for that appalling assault so it's a bit wide of the mark to suggest Redman5's posts are stigmatising and intrusive.
Troy Deeney having issues in the past has no bearing on his decision to protect his vulnerable, infant child.
To suggest that he isn’t entirely mentally sound when making that decision is a bit gross really, and going back through his history because of a decision he’s made absolutely is intrusive.
Nobody is saying that the league is going to stop going ahead because Troy Deeney wants to protect his family.
 

Leroy The Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
12,915
Location
London
To be fair mate the guy you were replying to originally said 1 in 500 Children under 10 who do contract Covid19. Not just 1 in 500 Children in the population, but i get what you're saying.

For whats its worth i agree with your opinion that people shouldn't post stats/figures related to Covid19 based on made up/guesswork/inconclusive/manipulated data. Thats something we should all adhere to yet we're probably all guilty of at one point or another. And it should probably go without saying that this isn't the thread for it either.
You're right it isn't the thread for it, but I had to call it out because it's unwise..

Now notice the massive difference in these posts, in terms of clarity and the overall tone. @11101 Had you posted that last post to begin with I almost certainly wouldn't have jumped down your throat and got involved in bickering.

That's not true at all. In Spain and Italy (very few other countries have reported death statistics to a reliable level yet) the 0-9 age group has a 1 in 500 fatality rate, and if his kid has breathing problems he/she will be well above that. I wouldn't take a 1 in 500 chance with my children and i doubt you would either.
That's a fecking terrible article with some serious twisting going on. Georgina Lee should be ashamed:



Well of course they're not going to die from it if they haven't caught it. Might as well say its a 1 in a billion chance as kids who haven't been born yet haven't died from it either.


Out of people who actually catch the virus, 1 in 500 under 10s will die. The risk increases significantly with illnesses such as breathing difficulties.
I will use Italy as i know that the best.

The government has published 1 in 500 as a case fatality rate for under 10s. Case fatality is not the same as infection fatality, it is only confirmed cases. To work out the infection fatality rate out you need to know how many people really had the virus, and serological studies in the worst hit part of Italy estimate the number of people who have had the virus is around 5% of the population.

There are around 280,000 under 10s in this area, so you can estimate 14,000 have had the virus, and 3 have died. Call it a 1 in 5,000 infection fatality rate, but remember that is only an estimate, and this is the worst area in the country. Nobody knows how many under 10s really die from the virus. But it is definitely not 1 in 5 million.


@stevoc - In both Spain and Italy it's the under 2 age group that is most affected of all children. I'm not aware of any deaths closer to age 10. Whilst it is a form of breathing issue, asthma is not one of the main identified comorbidities for the virus.
 

Le Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
1,026
I wouldn't see it this way. People just basically say Deeney's worry about his kid is justifiable and understandable.
Was talking about the whole thread really.
I have a newborn and I'd be worried too in all honesty. So yes, I agree that Deeney's worries are perfectly understandable.
But if I was being paid to do a job and refused to do so because I have a newborn, despite all safety measures being adopted by my employer, I'd be fired, and whose fault would it be? They are not open for charity.
That's the cold hard reality for most people out there.
That leads to the question, what makes Troy Deeney so special that he can sit safely at home making millions while most people have to face the risks and their fears to bring food back home?
He wants to be safe, everyone does, everyone is worried about a family member in the risk group, but imagine if everyone downed tools because of that.
Using your position of power to ensure you're safe at the expense of your obligations, while the common folk are exposed, is the stuff politicians are crucified for.
 

Posh Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,202
Location
Peterborough, England
Was talking about the whole thread really.
I have a newborn and I'd be worried too in all honesty. So yes, I agree that Deeney's worries are perfectly understandable.
But if I was being paid to do a job and refused to do so because I have a newborn, despite all safety measures being adopted by my employer, I'd be fired, and whose fault would it be? They are not open for charity.
That's the cold hard reality for most people out there.
That leads to the question, what makes Troy Deeney so special that he can sit safely at home making millions while most people have to face the risks and their fears to bring food back home?
He wants to be safe, everyone does, everyone is worried about a family member in the risk group, but imagine if everyone downed tools because of that.
Using your position of power to ensure you're safe at the expense of your obligations, while the common folk are exposed, is the stuff politicians are crucified for.
Depends on your employer. I know for a fact my boss would have sympathy in that situation.
 

Dec9003

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
5,525
Was talking about the whole thread really.
I have a newborn and I'd be worried too in all honesty. So yes, I agree that Deeney's worries are perfectly understandable.
But if I was being paid to do a job and refused to do so because I have a newborn, despite all safety measures being adopted by my employer, I'd be fired, and whose fault would it be? They are not open for charity.
That's the cold hard reality for most people out there.
That leads to the question, what makes Troy Deeney so special that he can sit safely at home making millions while most people have to face the risks and their fears to bring food back home?
He wants to be safe, everyone does, everyone is worried about a family member in the risk group, but imagine if everyone downed tools because of that.
Using your position of power to ensure you're safe at the expense of your obligations, while the common folk are exposed, is the stuff politicians are crucified for.
“I’ve lost my Dad, my Gran, my Grandad... I’ve more or less everyone that I care about. So that, to me, is more important than a few quid in my back pocket.”
He won’t be sat at home making millions, he’s happy to sit at home and not be paid to protect his family, why does that bother you so much?
Sure, he’s lucky to be able to have enough money to do that, but go after the government for not giving people with vulnerable families enough protection rather than going after footballers doing what’s best for their families.
 

Le Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
1,026
Depends on your employer. I know for a fact my boss would have sympathy in that situation.
I don't doubt it. But if your leave could result in disastrous losses to the company perhaps they could not simply forgo your services and leave it at that.
In this case, it is not unreasonable for them to adopt every safety measure they can and ask you to return to work.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
21,723
Depends on your employer. I know for a fact my boss would have sympathy in that situation.
Yep. Especially if they were asking us to return to work earlier than people in comparable roles (i.e. completely nonessential and incompatable with social distancing). No safety measures they could put in place would change the fact that their employees are taking on increased risk.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
16,243
Location
Scotland
Supports
Everton
I don't like this stance of people acting like they have authority to claim irrationality due to mental health problems in the past or that they have any right to speak about someone who has anxiety and how they deal with it or what they feel like living with it. Anxiety, along with every mental health problem is something that is very personal and individual to you. Just because you know someone who has anxiety it does not mean that another person with it will be feeling the same things as them or it be due to the same things that they have or developed their anxiety. People with anxiety are also capable of feeling anxious, nervous or worried about a situation like any other human being is without it being linked to their anxiety. Being protective and trying to ensure the best possible safety for a child that has breathing difficulties and could be impacted by Covid-19 if they managed to catch it is completely rational and something any parent I imagine would try to avoid. The players seemingly have this option to choose not to go into training if they do not wish to due to coronavirus. They've been given this option. It is not fair to moan about Deeney, moan about his employers for giving them that option or your own employers for not giving you that option to not go in. Unfortunately there is going to be huge disparities with working class, middle class and the upper class in the privileges that each has to not go into work or go into work and that is an issue in itself but that isn't Deeney who is at fault for that, it is the people at the top who have said "go to work".

Deeney isn't the pinnacle of human morality (If I remember correctly he cheated on his wife) but in this scenario he isn't doing anything wrong. He's trying to protect his family and he's entitled to do that without 'anxiety' even being discussed.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
21,723
I don't like this stance of people acting like they have authority to claim irrationality due to mental health problems in the past or that they have any right to speak about someone who has anxiety and how they deal with it or what they feel like living with it. Anxiety, along with every mental health problem is something that is very personal and individual to you. Just because you know someone who has anxiety it does not mean that another person with it will be feeling the same things as them or it be due to the same things that they have or developed their anxiety. People with anxiety are also capable of feeling anxious, nervous or worried about a situation like any other human being is without it being linked to their anxiety. Being protective and trying to ensure the best possible safety for a child that has breathing difficulties and could be impacted by Covid-19 if they managed to catch it is completely rational and something any parent I imagine would try to avoid. The players seemingly have this option to choose not to go into training if they do not wish to due to coronavirus. They've been given this option. It is not fair to moan about Deeney, moan about his employers for giving them that option or your own employers for not giving you that option to not go in. Unfortunately there is going to be huge disparities with working class, middle class and the upper class in the privileges that each has to not go into work or go into work and that is an issue in itself but that isn't Deeney who is at fault for that, it is the people at the top who have said "go to work".

Deeney isn't the pinnacle of human morality (If I remember correctly he cheated on his wife) but in this scenario he isn't doing anything wrong. He's trying to protect his family and he's entitled to do that without 'anxiety' even being discussed.
Correct.
 

Le Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
1,026
“I’ve lost my Dad, my Gran, my Grandad... I’ve more or less everyone that I care about. So that, to me, is more important than a few quid in my back pocket.”
Yeah that was exactly what I meant.
The rest of your post was fine. Why can't you just make your point without making this strawman?
 

Dec9003

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
5,525
Yeah that was exactly what I meant.
The rest of your post was fine. Why can't you just make your point without making this strawman?
You said he was going to be sat at home making millions, which he isn’t.
I’m responding to what you said, I’m not making a straw man argument.
 

Le Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
1,026
You said he was going to be sat at home making millions, which he isn’t.
I’m responding to what you said, I’m not making a straw man argument.
That first paragraph was textbook strawman but why don't we just leave that at the door?
It's true that the way I phrased implied he'd be making his wages at home which is not the case. For that I apologize.
It's up to both parties (him and the club) to make an agreement. The club can agree to his terms, knowing how disastrous it can be for them. Or they could get into a struggle that would result in a contract rupture or Deeney playing without his head in the game.
No scenario is good for Watford. It's a lose lose situation for them, but they have a say in the situation.
I'm not criticizing Deeney's behaviour and I'd likely do the same in his position. It's about protecting his child, which I totally get. It can't be used as grounds for every other player to do the same though. People are acting like the players owe nothing to the clubs, which they totally do, granted all the safety measures are being taken to prevent them from being exposed while doing their jobs.
They should be grateful that can do their jobs with a dozen extra layers of protection over the ordinary people.
 

Strelok

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
531
Was talking about the whole thread really.
I have a newborn and I'd be worried too in all honesty. So yes, I agree that Deeney's worries are perfectly understandable.
But if I was being paid to do a job and refused to do so because I have a newborn, despite all safety measures being adopted by my employer, I'd be fired, and whose fault would it be? They are not open for charity.
That's the cold hard reality for most people out there.
That leads to the question, what makes Troy Deeney so special that he can sit safely at home making millions while most people have to face the risks and their fears to bring food back home?
He wants to be safe, everyone does, everyone is worried about a family member in the risk group, but imagine if everyone downed tools because of that.
Using your position of power to ensure you're safe at the expense of your obligations, while the common folk are exposed, is the stuff politicians are crucified for.
I totally understand your point and what you feel about.

However as some posters has pointed out above. It's all about what choices available to you I think. Life isn't always fair you know. The blue collar workers you mentioned can very well refuse to work and stay home. They just can't. Like most of us.

Regarding the case of Deeney, him staying home making millions or not is not the matter here imo. God happened to smile upon him with football talent, and he had worked his ass out to become a professional player. He happens to be able to afford the choice to refuse to work, stay home and still can take care of his family while us common folks don't. Not his or anyone's fault. It's just simple as that I think.
 

fps

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
2,923
Was talking about the whole thread really.
I have a newborn and I'd be worried too in all honesty. So yes, I agree that Deeney's worries are perfectly understandable.
But if I was being paid to do a job and refused to do so because I have a newborn, despite all safety measures being adopted by my employer, I'd be fired, and whose fault would it be? They are not open for charity.
That's the cold hard reality for most people out there.
That leads to the question, what makes Troy Deeney so special that he can sit safely at home making millions while most people have to face the risks and their fears to bring food back home?
He wants to be safe, everyone does, everyone is worried about a family member in the risk group, but imagine if everyone downed tools because of that.
Using your position of power to ensure you're safe at the expense of your obligations, while the common folk are exposed, is the stuff politicians are crucified for.
I think if he's in a position to do the sensible thing, he shouldn't avoid doing that just because others are in a worse situation. If people want to fight their employers on this, they can, and should.
 

MackRobinson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
2,435
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
You really should get a hobby nstead of letting posts on here get to you . I've read some of the most mental crazy things on this place . It is what it is
Hardly bothered but it was a simple request asked in the politest of ways. I have no idea a) what the bolded has to do with anything and b) why you're intent on being offended.

Cheers.
 

Rooney in Paris

Gerrard shirt..Anfield? You'll Never Live it Down
Scout
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
30,492
Location
In an elephant sanctuary
I don't like this stance of people acting like they have authority to claim irrationality due to mental health problems in the past or that they have any right to speak about someone who has anxiety and how they deal with it or what they feel like living with it. Anxiety, along with every mental health problem is something that is very personal and individual to you. Just because you know someone who has anxiety it does not mean that another person with it will be feeling the same things as them or it be due to the same things that they have or developed their anxiety. People with anxiety are also capable of feeling anxious, nervous or worried about a situation like any other human being is without it being linked to their anxiety. Being protective and trying to ensure the best possible safety for a child that has breathing difficulties and could be impacted by Covid-19 if they managed to catch it is completely rational and something any parent I imagine would try to avoid. The players seemingly have this option to choose not to go into training if they do not wish to due to coronavirus. They've been given this option. It is not fair to moan about Deeney, moan about his employers for giving them that option or your own employers for not giving you that option to not go in. Unfortunately there is going to be huge disparities with working class, middle class and the upper class in the privileges that each has to not go into work or go into work and that is an issue in itself but that isn't Deeney who is at fault for that, it is the people at the top who have said "go to work".

Deeney isn't the pinnacle of human morality (If I remember correctly he cheated on his wife) but in this scenario he isn't doing anything wrong. He's trying to protect his family and he's entitled to do that without 'anxiety' even being discussed.
Exactly this.
 

Dec9003

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
5,525
That first paragraph was textbook strawman but why don't we just leave that at the door?
It's true that the way I phrased implied he'd be making his wages at home which is not the case. For that I apologize.
It's up to both parties (him and the club) to make an agreement. The club can agree to his terms, knowing how disastrous it can be for them. Or they could get into a struggle that would result in a contract rupture or Deeney playing without his head in the game.
No scenario is good for Watford. It's a lose lose situation for them, but they have a say in the situation.
I'm not criticizing Deeney's behaviour and I'd likely do the same in his position. It's about protecting his child, which I totally get. It can't be used as grounds for every other player to do the same though. People are acting like the players owe nothing to the clubs, which they totally do, granted all the safety measures are being taken to prevent them from being exposed while doing their jobs.
They should be grateful that can do their jobs with a dozen extra layers of protection over the ordinary people.
This is a much more reasonable post than the one I first replied to, perhaps you just hadn’t gotten your point across well initially.
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
946
Supports
chelsea
Troy Deeney having issues in the past has no bearing on his decision to protect his vulnerable, infant child.
To suggest that he isn’t entirely mentally sound when making that decision is a bit gross really, and going back through his history because of a decision he’s made absolutely is intrusive.
Nobody is saying that the league is going to stop going ahead because Troy Deeney wants to protect his family.
Of course it is fair to consider somebodies past actions when considering their decision making.

Troy Deeney isn't the only player with children but he seems to be making a different decision to the vast majority of the other players. Are they bad parents or do they have a more balanced perspective?

Maybe there is more to this than this pillar of society would have you believe.
 

rjnd

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
12
Supports
liverpool
Any chance that people could confine this to the UK and stop the scare mongering which is no doubt very scary for anyone without medical training to fully understand. I am a Liverpool supporter but whatever happens in football, I believe, will be done with a full comprehensive factual risk assessment involving Sage. The last thing the German federation or ours want is a serious illness to any top player. This country has some of the very best world renowned medical professionals including virologists, epidemiologists and scientific advisers and make no mistake the UK will most likely find a vaccine first if one is to be found.
It is on this basis that I do not believe football at the highest level will be allowed to return unless it is as safe as it can be made and that the associated risks to the participants are extremely low and justifiable all things considered. If i were a footballer, who presented with the facts pertaining to this country was still concerned about bringing home a virus i might consider isolating myself at accommodation provided by my employer from commencement of contact training until season closure. I would feel that I probably shouldnt be in this position but I would do it nonetheless. That would then remove the whole at risk family group being muted and i am sure the premier league must have at least taken advice on this.
To attempt to alley the fears of anyone reading this who may have children or teens in their households and be worried these are some simple UK wide facts. Please avoid stories coming out of certain other countries until these are scientifically ratified by WHO for example. The Swiss for example believe that children under 10 years cannot even contract covid 19 as until they are at least that age they simply do not possess enough of the receptors required for the virus to latch on to. They may have a viral load in their upper respiratory tract and test positive but are not getting very ill. The Germans next door believe this is probably true but like us want to wait until these findings are scientifically proven. Children are usually very good transmitters of infection but that may also not be the case with covid-19
1. The UK has had 3 deaths in the under 15 age group thus far after testing positive for Sars-cov19. This represents 0.01% of total deaths.
2. The UK has had 448 deaths in the 15-44 age group thus far after testing positive for Sars-cov19. This represents 1% of total deaths.
Please note that these figures do not include comorbidity which means having more than one disorder and most young deaths i believe do include at least one.
Although overall risk is very small in the under 40 age group a greater incidence of more severe illness in the Black, asian minority ethnic group is evident. Even when all other risks are removed the risk remains double those of the white population
Football isnt close to returning at this time and any start is still likely 4-6 weeks away and a lot will change in that time no doubt. One thing is certain though. Even if the likes of Oxford get very lucky a vaccine is going to be 18 months away at best. One may never be found by which time most clubs below the top 10-15 will be dead if we follow the NO risk approach. Football will have no fans for at least this season and next and we need to find ways of supporting the lower leagues whilst we wait and getting the country and not just the premier league to a position of living with this virus as best we can.
I for one believe that we cannot carry on as we are and watch the country slowly die economically and the human misery that has already started and resulting deaths that will follow.
If LFC win the title, great. If someone decides otherwise, so be it. Whatever happens, footballs pyramid surviving until a vaccine or effective treatment is found is the most important consideration.
 

Posh Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,202
Location
Peterborough, England
Of course it is fair to consider somebodies past actions when considering their decision making.

Troy Deeney isn't the only player with children but he seems to be making a different decision to the vast majority of the other players. Are they bad parents or do they have a more balanced perspective?

Maybe there is more to this than this pillar of society would have you believe.
I’m assuming you must know the extent of the breathing condition that his child is suffering from to make a statement like this?
 

Tibs

Full Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
12,346
Location
Gtr. Manchester
The comment about malaria is still the worst in this thread. No surprise it's the same bell acting up again. fecking cretin.
Maybe there is more to this than this pillar of society would have you believe.
[/QUOTE]

What do you mean?
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,149
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
Troy Deeney isn't the only player with children but he seems to be making a different decision to the vast majority of the other players. Are they bad parents or do they have a more balanced perspective?
If every football player had a five month old baby with breathing difficulties, the talks to restart the league wouldn't have even got off the ground due to resistance from players. So the comparison of Deeney to 'the vast majority' of fellow professionals is rendered completely invalid by taking into account his exceptional personal circumstance.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
29,048
Of course it is fair to consider somebodies past actions when considering their decision making.

Troy Deeney isn't the only player with children but he seems to be making a different decision to the vast majority of the other players. Are they bad parents or do they have a more balanced perspective?

Maybe there is more to this than this pillar of society would have you believe.
You appear to be totally missing the point with your comments.

It's not having kids that is issue. It's having a kid with breathing difficulties.
The virus causes real issues along those lines.

So his stance is totally reasonable.

Being a bit of a loathsome character in the past doesn't change that.

And the other poster basically suggesting his past mental health issues in some way should be factored in is bizarre and unfair.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
1,608
Location
ATL
If every football player had a five month old baby with breathing difficulties, the talks to restart the league wouldn't have even got off the ground due to resistance from players. So the comparison of Deeney to 'the vast majority' of fellow professionals is rendered completely invalid by taking into account his exceptional personal circumstance.
It's absolutely incredible that half the people in the last few pages seem to completely ignore the breathing problems. Maybe because it makes their argument that Deeney is just being 'whiny' or 'irrational' (I'd argue that concern for a young child even without breathing problems never fits that category) completely ridiculous.
 

Sparky Rhiwabon

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
10,767
UK Government are preparing and planning for a second wave, which they think could be worse than this one.
 

Dec9003

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
5,525
Of course it is fair to consider somebodies past actions when considering their decision making.

Troy Deeney isn't the only player with children but he seems to be making a different decision to the vast majority of the other players. Are they bad parents or do they have a more balanced perspective?

Maybe there is more to this than this pillar of society would have you believe.
Troy Deeney has an infant child with breathing conditions, the fact that you’re unaware of that suggests you’ve not even read what he said.
This is a sensitive topic as it is without people like yourself giving their two cents with no idea what they’re talking about.
 

Megadrive Man

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
391
Supports
Liverpool
If every football player had a five month old baby with breathing difficulties, the talks to restart the league wouldn't have even got off the ground due to resistance from players. So the comparison of Deeney to 'the vast majority' of fellow professionals is rendered completely invalid by taking into account his exceptional personal circumstance.
There was always going to be some resistance to a restart by some players. The main thing I don't like about Deeny is the way he is going about getting his point across.

Chelsea and Kante are handling this well. Kante is understandly very worried abut this virus as he has a pre existing heart condition and his brother died of a heart attack. He has chosen not to resume training, and to potentially miss the remainder of the season due to concerns about contracting the virus and that is completely fine and he has been supported by his club. Fine. That should be the end of it. Deeney should do the same.

Also if Deeney's main concern is about catching the virus and passing it on to his baby, he could potentially self isolate away from the baby for the period that he's playing football and for 2 weeks afterwards? If we are never able to find a cure or vaccine will Deeney retire?
 

Posh Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,202
Location
Peterborough, England
There was always going to be some resistance to a restart by some players. The main thing I don't like about Deeny is the way he is going about getting his point across.

Chelsea and Kante are handling this well. Kante is understandly very worried abut this virus as he has a pre existing heart condition and his brother died of a heart attack. He has chosen not to resume training, and to potentially miss the remainder of the season due to concerns about contracting the virus and that is completely fine and he has been supported by his club. Fine. That should be the end of it. Deeney should do the same.

Also if Deeney's main concern is about catching the virus and passing it on to his baby, he could potentially self isolate away from the baby for the period that he's playing football and for 2 weeks afterwards? If we are never able to find a cure or vaccine will Deeney retire?
His child won’t be five months old forever and I don’t have any details on the nature of the child’s illness. We can’t really say anymore on the subject without more information. To do so seems unfair to me.
 

Turnip

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
1,626
Location
Beckham's right nipple
Not necessarily. Germany also had cases and just went through as envisioned.

Don't think there will be football in May either way though.
Main difference is Germany have the virus under control outside of football, meanwhile percentage-wise we have the most deaths in the world.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,149
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
There was always going to be some resistance to a restart by some players. The main thing I don't like about Deeny is the way he is going about getting his point across.

Chelsea and Kante are handling this well. Kante is understandly very worried abut this virus as he has a pre existing heart condition and his brother died of a heart attack. He has chosen not to resume training, and to potentially miss the remainder of the season due to concerns about contracting the virus and that is completely fine and he has been supported by his club. Fine. That should be the end of it. Deeney should do the same.

Also if Deeney's main concern is about catching the virus and passing it on to his baby, he could potentially self isolate away from the baby for the period that he's playing football and for 2 weeks afterwards? If we are never able to find a cure or vaccine will Deeney retire?
Why does that question at the end not apply to Kante as well as Deeney? And Deeney is captain, therefore he has been representing his club in the video calls with league officials. Of course he is going to be more vocal than Kante on the matter.

Can you not see why Deeney would not want to isolate himself away from his young and vulnerable baby for the sake of finishing the season? It’s not hard to see why he would be reluctant to forego that physical connection for the sake of playing football, especially when we can only speculate as to the severity of the baby’s pre-existing medical condition.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
3,628
There was always going to be some resistance to a restart by some players. The main thing I don't like about Deeny is the way he is going about getting his point across.

Chelsea and Kante are handling this well. Kante is understandly very worried abut this virus as he has a pre existing heart condition and his brother died of a heart attack. He has chosen not to resume training, and to potentially miss the remainder of the season due to concerns about contracting the virus and that is completely fine and he has been supported by his club. Fine. That should be the end of it. Deeney should do the same.

Also if Deeney's main concern is about catching the virus and passing it on to his baby, he could potentially self isolate away from the baby for the period that he's playing football and for 2 weeks afterwards? If we are never able to find a cure or vaccine will Deeney retire?
So your now telling him to just abandon his wife and son at a time when they likely need him the most for the purpose of our entertainment?

He's already said he doesnt care about the money. He's prepared for the financial hit to keep his family safe.

There should be no one moaning about it.