Ways To End The Season Fairly

They will be playing Liverpool and MC junior teams. 6 points in the bag.

 

I don’t think a vote to relegate the bottom 3 would carry. Sure, it would suit 17 clubs who are ultimately looking out for themselves first and foremost. But clubs like Watford and Brighton can’t make public comments about things having to be fair, and then unfairly be voting clubs down.

As much as I don’t think there’s much compassion left in the game, I also think clubs would know that it could well have been them in the bottom 3 - and could be in future seasons. They won’t vote for it.

 

I guess we’d all club together, we’ll all vote against neutral grounds etc but everyone needs to vote against relegation as the league stands now as a result.

The problem with that potentially, is 6 isn’t enough in either scenario if I’ve understood the way voting works.

 

I really do believe there are more than 6 clubs that are opposing things. That’s been alluded to by both Brighton and Watford in their comments.

Only the media are peddling this line that it’s the bottom 6 because it’s an easy sell.

 

Relegation is one of the issues that the FA has a veto on. So it doesn't matter if 7 teams or 20 teams vote to change the rules for no relegation, if the FA votes against (and they say they will) then 3 teams are relegated; the only issue would be deciding which 3.

 

That’s purely based on a completed season, so that the PL don’t suddenly decide to change the rules to pull the drawbridge up and have a closed shop. Completely different situation and circumstances if the season can’t be finished. They have the power to veto rule changes, but if the season is void what rules will be changing? Particularly tricky for the FA as well considering they themselves decided to void some of the lower league seasons.

 

As we've seen many times before, if the PL tell the FA to pipe down, they will.

 

https://www.101greatgoals.com/news/...clubs-may-voice-opposition-to-neutral-venues/

There could be 8 clubs that object to Project Restart. The bottom six of course, plus they've surmised it to be Spurs and Arsenal the other two.

 

Yep. And likely more than that. SSN literally just ‘breaking’ a story that says their sources claim the majority of clubs in the bottom half want relegation scrapped if it’s restarted. Cant say I agree with that move...but hopefully it’s enough to get the PL to wake up and realise they aren’t just going to get 14 clubs to vote for current proposals.

 

I’d not read this before: Burnley have previously revealed that they’ll run out of money by August if football doesn’t return

Interesting how this Burnley chap seems to think that Watford are a club “Who have never cared about money” Yet his noble, frugal, highly sensible and well run organisation are set to run out of money presumably before we will if we’re opposing the restart.

But of course it’s entirely reasonable to expect the bottom six to put Burnley’s interest ahead of their own isn’t it.

 

Last night amongst all the bluster Bojo admitted that despite the lockdown the R0 is barely below 1. As lockdown is eased the R0 will spike and project restart will most likely die on its arse.

 

I’m not sure, this is probably one for the Covid thread but all the studies show the main risk of transmission is inside under sustained contact. So pubs, restaurants, in the home and specifically care homes as we know. Realistically allowing people to stay outside for much longer and gather in outside places shouldn’t really have a big impact. I have no clue in reality but I think it will still keep us below 1 so we will continue to see a decline. It’s probably the next stage where the risk increases more, but realistically the season won’t finish until August either way so it could be scuppered at any point.

 

Very possible.

 

Aren’t Burnley debt free? Presumably they mean running out of their own money and needing external finance. We ran out of our own money in the early 90s I think.

 

Ive no idea about their finances, I do know it’s pretty bizarre for a Burnley fan to expect Watford and other relegation clubs to put Burnley’s interests ahead of our own.

Although we have debt, my understanding is it’s to Gino and at quite a tasty interest rate which is effectively how he makes money out of us? So although we have debt, it’s never going to be in Gino’s interests to suddenly call that debt in. Ultimately the club are an asset to him and I’m sure one day he would like to sell at the right price, but that means he will continue to have a vested interest in keeping the club as valuable as possible.

 

Burnley have £40m in the bank -no debt and the article said that cash would run out-seems reasonable. They do not have very rich owners and maybe don't want to get into debt (other than the £20m owed to other clubs for transfers in)

Their reliance on income other than TV is the same as ours at 16%-they just about break even overall before player sales -we lose about £16m pa. They have about the same attendances as us so for sure our merchandise and marketing revenues will be equally small compared to many.

We have £84m of external debt and £14m of cash but also owe £50m to other clubs

 

I think we have a large amount of external debt as well now..........

 

The Pozzos have £4.4m lent to the parent club-Hornets Investment Lts but that is dwarfed by the £70m owed to Xiii Capital who have no connection to the club-in turn Hornets Investment Ltd on lend that money to the club-Gino makes no money from the club.

All the other clubs around us in the bottom 6 either have next to no debt (Villa and Norwich) or its owed to their owners (Bmuff- £100m-BHA £270m and West Ham £113m)-we are the only club owing money to "strangers"

 

Burnley's cash reserve was enough to survive on for 6 months if we have no income at all. Maybe Watford have another source of income that they can tap into while hoping three clubs go bust before them?

This isn't just about Burnley's interest, you know. There is a bigger issue at stake. There are two options:

1. Football continues but Watford have to take their chances of relegation.
2. Football remains at a grinding halt but Watford are still in the (temporarily non-existent) Premier League.

It's clear from your board that the majority of you are quite happy to stop football for as long as it takes if it keeps you, nominally if not in practice, in the Premier League.

 

You sound butt hurt about Watford, are you Sean Dyche in disguise?

Duxbury has said he wants football to restart, when it is safe to do so, and in a way which maintains integrity of the competition.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

On the weekend I took a peek at the Brighton forum, obviously they were the first to publicly reject the neutral ground proposal. In there they agree with Duxbury but they were also having a pop at dsr for writing the same stuff he's been writing here.

 

dsr is the Burnley superhorns

 

It's a shame that only 6 clubs are involved in the relegation scrap, or the their rule requires 15 clubs to agree. However, as rumoured, more than 6 clubs are against the neutral group proposal, things could get very interesting.

Of course all clubs don't want relegation, that's a no brainer, but if we start playing football again, I cannot see how they could possibly justify no relegation. We can kick up a fuss about neutral grounds all we like, but it's the same for all clubs. By sheer coincidence, the bottom six have 5 at home and 4 away......with Villa actually having 6 at home and 4 away. We're all in the same boat.

Now, if the league was to be voided, that's a totally different thing. I think they would be fully justified in scrapping relegation under those circumstances.

The only way the EPL and FA could go, if clubs refuse to play at neutral grounds is to say, ok, then we void the league and these three sides would be relegated on PPG. They would soon switch their vote given that choice for sure. Clubs will play hardball but so will the EPL/FA.

It would be interesting to see if clubs could be relegated without the season being completed. I'd be amazed if there was such a rule in place to cover that event. So it would have to be something new, which is voted for. You could easily see a vote of 17 to 3 in favour of relegating those unlucky three, but legally would the EPL/FA be able to do that?

 

That debt was an advance on the tv money wasn't it?

 

But what precisely is your issue with this?

And you conveniently ignored the question I asked you a couple of days ago. At least six clubs oppose a restart with neutral venues and by sheer coincidence those six clubs happen to be the bottom six. So if Burnley happened to be in the bottom six are you suggesting you’d be bucking the trend and putting the interests of other clubs ahead of your own??

 

It's all very well saying that clubs must be relegated if the PL season is completed, but if the all the other leagues are voided as they stand, who would be promoted to replace those relegated teams?

How can it be fair to promote teams that have not finished their season? The simple answer is that it isn't.

I think that if by some miracle the PL is played out in full and no matter who the bottom 3 teams end up being. It cannot be fair to replace them in the PL with teams from The Championship who have not actually won the right to be promoted other than in some contrived non-footballing way.

Therefore I think it would be completely justified for the PL to refuse to allow the Championships contrived promotion winners access to the PL.

Which would mean that the PL bottom three would have to be reelected to stay in the PL. Which would be just like what used to happen with the bottom of the old 4th division when the bottom team was often reelected to stay in the league rather than promoting the champion team from the top non-professional league.

 

I appreciate your optimism and I hope you are right but logically if the lockdown is loosened and more people go back to work the infection rate will spike.

 

Money, unfortunately. The lower leagues have been voided because there is little to no money at stake. The further up the pyramid you go the greater the desire to cobble together something half arsed and that ignore fairness and integrity, that puts more money in people’s pockets, or protects people from losing it via litigation.

Edit: Sporting merit doesn’t apply when you’re South Shields and 12 points clear at the top of your league, but it miraculously will when you’re leeds, 7 points clear who choked from the same position only 12 months earlier.

 

If it is impossible to complete the season, then I agree that there shouldn't be any promotion or relegation.

But if it is possible to complete the season and 7 clubs choose not to because they are frightened of losing, then I would relegate the whole lot of you if I could get away with it.

Perhaps a solution might be to relegate the bottom three, promote nobody, and have a shortened season (which may be necessary by force majeure) next year. That should get votes from Watford in self-interest because it reduces the risk of relegation in later years as well.

 

It's not the money that's at stake that makes the problem, it's the money coming in. I watch Accrington Stanley when Burnley haven't a game, and they get relatively little TV money and have to live off gate receipts. Without gate receipts, they can't pay the players; they were all put in furlough along with all but four staff as soon as furlough became available. Andy Holt (their chairman) has said that they haven't the money to bring them back for 2 months+ to play games with no income.

 

They are seemingly separating the Championship from L1 & L2 I suspect for this very reason. Everything I’ve seen in the media regarding the lower leagues has said it’s the bottom two leagues that are most in danger of being imminently voided and that the Championship will be a separate case.

 

But ‘sporting merit’ hasn’t been applied to the non league clubs who have had their seasons voided, yet it’s being touted as a way to promote/relegate teams where there is significantly more money at stake?