Ways To End The Season Fairly

Discussion in 'The Hornets' Nest - Watford Chat' started by EB Hornet, Mar 13, 2020.

  1. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    Again, you’ve avoided the question that’s repeatedly been put to you - would you say the same if Burnley were in the bottom six? Which historically over the past 10 years, you have been as much as us. In fact, you’ve been relegated more recently than us. So it leads many of us to conclude that the opinion you hold is based purely upon the fact that Burnley are clear of danger.

    It’s a bit of a rhetorical question though as only one answer will be genuinely believable as I’m sure you know.
  2. I think there should be relegation based on footballing merit or lack thereof.

    Bye-bye Burnley.
  3. dsr

    dsr Academy Graduate

    Like I said, if the season can't be completed, just as in non-League it couldn't be completed, then there shouldn't be promotion or relegation. (Apart from obviously to fill the empty spaces caused by Bury's demise.) But if the league could be completed but certain clubs refuse to try, then relegation should happen. Preferably for the clubs that vote against football - which would make it interesting if the bottom three or four (West Ham are in jeopardy too) vote for football to carry on but 7 clubs above them vote against.

    I don't see it coming to that. Yes, there may be 8 clubs opposed to playing at neutral grounds. Actually, there are 20 opposed to playing at neutral grounds. It's a matter of will those 8 be so very much opposed that they will sabotage the whole season for their own ambitions? Or will they hate the idea but vote in favour anyway? We don't know how much of the anti-neutral, we're-in-it-for-ourselves statements are firmly held beliefs and how much is a negotiating position.
  4. dsr

    dsr Academy Graduate

    It wasn't until Barber at Brighton raised the issue that it first occurred to me that any club would deliberately sabotage the season and put other clubs into bankruptcy purely because they were frightened of losing. I still don't know if they would actually go through with it. I would hope I would still want to see football played even if Burnley were at risk of losing; I'm surprised that more of you don't. After all, there is no benefit to the fans if the club goes bust while a member of the non-playing Premier League.
  5. Relegation Certs

    Relegation Certs Squad Player

    I've got better things to do than read this thread, but any Watford fan who is doing anything over than vociferously demanding the season is declared null and void needs to be sent to the funny farm.
  6. Not going to happen at Turf Moor, is it? Not with Dyche in charge, anyway.
  7. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    So you’ve skirted around the question without giving a clear answer - yet alluded to the fact that the answer you’d probably give is one that absolutely no one believes you would.

    Glad that’s sorted.
    The Voice of Reason likes this.
  8. hornetgags

    hornetgags McMuff's lovechild

    Damn right. Why would I relinquish any home advantage just because some no marks have nothing to play for?

    Why don't you have a word with your owners and ask them to fall on their sword and offer Burnley up for voluntary relegation?

    I'm sure it would be welcomed by all clubs and global audiences.
    Spoad, GoingDown, Otter and 1 other person like this.
  9. a19tgg

    a19tgg Reservist

    But that’s a fictitious and hyperbolic scenario.

    Firstly, it should stand to reason that remaining in a compromised Premier League is infinitely preferable to relegation? It’s not reasonable to expect clubs to put themselves in a situation that unfairly increases their risk of relegation, because it might make the league finically less attractive for others.

    Staying in the premier league is preferable under any circumstances to relegation, it’s mind boggling they you can’t understand that.

    But more importantly voting against something that disadvantages a club and puts them at greater risk of relegation is not at the trade off of bankrupting other clubs. That is something you’ve made up to dramatise the situation.

    Surely you know how negotiation works? Sky/Bt and the premier leagues overriding objective is to fulfil the season and have the games televised. In order for this to happen they will use all the negotiating power they have, including the threat of loss of money and relegation. At a point that all avenues have been exhausted and it is clear football cannot resume then the situation will change. It is in none of the involved parties interest to lose money, surely that much makes sense? It’s clearly not in Sky’s interest to bankrupt the clubs that are its product and visa versa. At this points negotiations will start about including this seasons lost games into next season and a reasonable compromise that suits both parties. But quite clearly it doesn’t suit either party to allude to such a situation while there is a chance the games can be played.
  10. wfc4ever

    wfc4ever First Team Captain

    And we all know that the fans of any team in our position would do they same ..
  11. Harrybassetthater

    Harrybassetthater Academy Graduate

    If matches are to be played at neutral venues why not compensate the relegated teams with an extra payment e.g. £20,000,000. This would cushion the blow especially for a relatively small team in Premier League terms like Watford if they did finish in the bottom three. I think a proposal like this could see a resumption at neutral grounds pass the vote with 14 votes needed out of twenty. It would also give remaining matches a competitive edge with something at stake, which would satisfy both Sky and B.T.
  12. To make it cost neutral it would have to be a lot more than £20m. It would need to be 180% of a clubs revenue in the PL.
  13. dsr

    dsr Academy Graduate

    If the rest of the this season does not happen, the £750m which is owed to the league will not be received in full. It may not be received at all.

    Can you not see how the loss of £750m to football might risk bankrupting some clubs? Sky aren't particularly bothered if Watford and Burnley go bust, because Leeds and West Brom and Fulham and other clubs will replace us.

    And the side issue, that if the Premier League says they don't want to play, it makes it harder-to-impossible for the rest o fthe league to get started. and Sky are even less bothered about small clubs like Accrington and Bradford and Luton.

    Why does this scenario make Watford more likely to get relegated? If all six teams play at neutral grounds, then it doesn't make all six teams more likely to go down, obviously. So why are Watford put at a disadvantage and which of the other five are gaining by it?
  14. a19tgg

    a19tgg Reservist

    We do not know what will happen with the £750m yet because we are at the stage where that will be used as negotiating tool to get football back up and running at all costs. At a point that becomes impossible negotiation around the £750m will take place, but the agreement between Sky and the premier league is reciprocal, it is in neither parties interest to materially damage each other.

    But if Premier league clubs are going bankrupt then ALL clubs are going bankrupt. If the PL season isn’t finished neither is the championship season. Championship clubs are run closer to the wire than most, they still have a TV deal, all be it much smaller, what happens to their TV deal money? How do they survive with no TV money and no gate receipts which they are far more reliant on? Any premier league club at risk of bankruptcy because of the situation is a million times more likely to get outside investment to keep them going than a championship club. Your entire argument makes absolutely no sense.
    The Voice of Reason likes this.
  15. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    Deliberately sabotage?!!!

    If money is the only factor that is important to clubs like Burnley, why don't you support the continuation of the season with fixtured played at home club grounds rather than neutral grounds?

    That is all Brighton, Villa and Watford have asked for.

    If the other clubs vote for neutral grounds and don't get the required 14 supporting clubs THEY are sabotaging the season if they then don't vote for clubs to play at their own grounds.

    Why is the choice limited to neutral grounds or PPG? If you and other clubs really want to continue the season fairly then what is wrong with considering other options that will, more than likely, get the required support?
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
    The Voice of Reason likes this.
  16. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    You state this as fact but the truth is the TV companies have said nothing yet. Moreover, they will have to play it carefully if they want to make financial demands of the PL as they will be acutely aware of the rise of streaming services and their interest in securing rights to games. Sky and BT I would say will be pretty unlikely to make demands that doesn't allow clubs room for manoeuvre and will be far more willing to negotiate a deal with a the PL and its clubs than I think many are claiming.

    But if you can prove what you're saying, go ahead.
  17. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team

  18. Otter

    Otter Gambling industry insider

    Very much taken out of context, the government has not given the green light for football to restart from 1st June, what they said was that there can be no professional sport in England before that date. Plus based on what Boris said last night, the relaxations will only happen if the R0 stays under control.
  19. NathWFC

    NathWFC First Team

    How do people actually get this stuff so wrong?
  20. dsr

    dsr Academy Graduate

    You want me to prove that there is a doubt whether all the TV companies that have contracts for Premier League football, will pay in full even if they get no matches? That's a tricky one.

    I suppose if you or anyone can prove that all that income is cast iron guaranteed, then that proves me wrong. But I susepct there's still a doubt until the money arrives.
  21. dsr

    dsr Academy Graduate

    I do support continuing the season at home grounds rather than neutral grounds. I support playing with full crowds. I support life getting back exactly as it was before coronavirus. But none of those things are possible. If the PL can persuade the ogvernment that there is no problem with home grounds, then we obviously play with home grounds. but if we can't persuade the government, we don't just say "this isn't perfect, lets give up" - we carry on the best we can.
  22. Otter

    Otter Gambling industry insider

    It's quite possible that the UK broadcasters could be placated by the fact that additional matches may be allowed during the remainder of the current contract, I suspect that these discussions may have taken place. The problem lies in the international rights where all matches are broadcast anyway and consumer choice where there are simultaneous kick offs.
  23. Otter

    Otter Gambling industry insider

    Probably written by a scouser.
    The undeniable truth likes this.
  24. ForzaWatford

    ForzaWatford Squad Player

    Add to that the players will be nowhere near match fit and will need at least 4 weeks to get anywhere near match fit again
  25. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    I’m not the one making blanket claims about them not paying, that was you. And your whole opinion on Watford and appearance on this forum is based upon it?
  26. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    Why do we carry on the best we can?
  27. dsr

    dsr Academy Graduate

    Because sitting in a corner crying doesn't help anyone.
  28. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    And neither dies coming on an opposing teams forum and crying either. Hasn’t stopped you coming here and to others though has it?
  29. Knight GT

    Knight GT Predictor extraordinaire 2013/14

    I don't think anybody has said they are against football being played, they just want it played the way the rest of the season has been completed apart from fans obviously. I think we're all entitled to an opinion but not everybody will agree with it
    sydney_horn likes this.
  30. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

  31. GoingDown

    GoingDown Pizza & Figs

    With confirmation of 'no elite sport' until 1st June, I assume this means that there will be no team training til then as well.

    Going to pushing it if they want to include a mini pre-season.
  32. Knight GT

    Knight GT Predictor extraordinaire 2013/14

    Look at the fixtures. We have 3 very winnable home fixtures. Newcastle, Norwich and Southampton, Leicester and Man City. Win three of those and we probably stay up. It's probably the best run of home games any of the bottom six have. Brighton's is horrendous. Why would we willingly sacrifice that advantage to please other clubs with nothing to play for. That makes no sense
  33. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    So why is there no vote on home grounds being used? Why is it just a choice between neutral grounds or PPG?

    Where have the government said they won't approve home grounds being used?

    If the EPL go for a resumption with home grounds and the government say no then you may have a point. But, at the moment it is clubs like yours that are blocking that option in favour of neutral grounds so, if that vote fails, it is squarely on your shoulders.
    Spoad likes this.
  34. GoingDown

    GoingDown Pizza & Figs

    Did you see who posted it???
    hornetgags likes this.
  35. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    The Times and Daily Mail just now reporting that the PL are going to ask the government to remove the neutral grounds directive, after today's four hour talks didn't lead to any other compromises:



    I reckon the authorities will eventually cede to this request to enable the breaking of the deadlock amongst the PL teams - meaning they will agree to resume the season beginning in June.
    sydney_horn likes this.

Share This Page