Sutton's thoughts...

[king canary 7,558]

There is clearly no simple answer to this.

Null and void may sound simple but I imagine it would be open to a fair few challenges, even outside of the obvious Liverpool/Leeds/West Brom complaints. Would Leicester want to give up Champions League qualification? Would Sheffield United be ok with voiding a season where they are currently in line for over £25m in prize money? 

Probably the simplest plan to avoid issues like this is just to finish the season whenever possible but that also seems like the logistically impossible idea.

[BobLoz3 492]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

There is clearly no simple answer to this.

Null and void may sound simple but I imagine it would be open to a fair few challenges, even outside of the obvious Liverpool/Leeds/West Brom complaints. Would Leicester want to give up Champions League qualification? Would Sheffield United be ok with voiding a season where they are currently in line for over £25m in prize money? 

Probably the simplest plan to avoid issues like this is just to finish the season whenever possible but that also seems like the logistically impossible idea.

Knowing our fortunes this season they'll probably just think... "Oh well, it's only Norwich. Let's just hand Liverpool the title and relegate those three at the bottom. We'll feel a bit bad about Villa seeing as though we loved them spending all that cash, but whatever!"

[king canary 7,558]

1 minute ago, BobLoz3 said:

Knowing our fortunes this season they'll probably just think... "Oh well, it's only Norwich. Let's just hand Liverpool the title and relegate those three at the bottom. We'll feel a bit bad about Villa seeing as though we loved them spending all that cash, but whatever!"

Can't see that happening. Villa would have every right to be livid as they have a game in hand.

[BobLoz3 492]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

Can't see that happening. Villa would have every right to be livid as they have a game in hand.

I know. I was being flippant! 🙂

[shefcanary 2,377]

22 hours ago, Badger said:

It would actually fit in quite well with the World Cup, but what would Sky/ BT say about no football for 9 months? Surely they wouldn't keep paying the money and what then for the finances of Premier League clubs? (And indeed all the others.)

Badger, it won't be 9 months of voluntary inaction.  We're going to be in lockdown until a vaccine is widely available, Xmas at very earliest.  This ain't going away until then, as risk of a reinvigorated pandemic will be too great.  Sky / BT as we know it now will have to change.  

[All the Germans 1,072]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

 We're going to be in lockdown until a vaccine is widely available, Xmas at very earliest. 

No we won't.

[BobLoz3 492]

Well, I'm still at work and so are a lot of other people. We are not on country wide lockdown and probably won't get to that stage. Although scenarios in Italy, Spain etc. suggest otherwise.

People will still be allowed to go to the shops etc (bearing in mind they don't close too).

However, I do appreciate the fear over all of this and the uncertainty is making a lot of people very anxious of course. It isn't good for anyone. Either those actually getting ill or those making themselves ill through worry. The world as we know it may not be the same again, but I do not think we will be forced into hibernation for 9 months. Not even nearly.

 

[shefcanary 2,377]

1 hour ago, All the Germans said:

No we won't.

Hope you're right mate, but that is what the Imperial College report, the one that changed Boris' view, concludes.   Trust in what Ricardo says, he's rarely wrong.  This is going to be one hell of a difficult period.

[All the Germans 1,072]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Hope you're right mate, but that is what the Imperial College report, the one that changed Boris' view, concludes.   Trust in what Ricardo says, he's rarely wrong.  This is going to be one hell of a difficult period.

Maybe that is what the Imperial College report says but there's no way that we'll be in lockdown until Christmas. The Government are trying to stop the overwhelming numbers decimating the NHS, not actually save lives. As cold as it sounds, the government are trying to balance destroying the economy and destroying the NHS, saving people is just a byproduct. There is no way that they will sanction us being in lockdown until Christmas, it would cause too much damage to the economy.

[Aggy 747]

If we are in “lockdown” until Christmas there will be more than 80,000 over 70s dying. There will be hundreds of thousands of people homeless and starving, thousands of businesses disappeared and riots and protests countrywide.

Or, as will more than likely happen, things will remain shut until April to try and stem the tide and then we’ll get back to normal. Harsh to say, but if it’s a case of (1) 80,000 might die, or (2) hundreds of thousands will be homeless, the economy is ruined, everyone’s standard of living collapses and probably more than 80,000 will die as a result of homelessness and malnutrition anyway, then it’s an absolute no brainer. 

[ricardo 7,328]

14 minutes ago, Aggy said:

If we are in “lockdown” until Christmas there will be more than 80,000 over 70s dying. There will be hundreds of thousands of people homeless and starving, thousands of businesses disappeared and riots and protests countrywide.

Or, as will more than likely happen, things will remain shut until April to try and stem the tide and then we’ll get back to normal. Harsh to say, but if it’s a case of (1) 80,000 might die, or (2) hundreds of thousands will be homeless, the economy is ruined, everyone’s standard of living collapses and probably more than 80,000 will die as a result of homelessness and malnutrition anyway, then it’s an absolute no brainer. 

I don't  think this post is likely to age well.

[Aggy 747]

12 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I don't  think this post is likely to age well.

You may well think that, but I’m already seeing large scale redundancies and lay offs of people who are perfectly fit and healthy and would have little more than a week in bed (or less) if they caught Coronavirus. If you think we’re likely to continue with harsh lockdown measures for 8-9 months, resulting in significantly more redundancies and people likely to be kicked out of their home, with no food in shops, I think you’ll be wrong. Especially as worldwide we still have fewer than 10,000 deaths and things in China are already down to 40 deaths a day.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Aggy

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

If we are in “lockdown” until Christmas there will be more than 80,000 over 70s dying. There will be hundreds of thousands of people homeless and starving, thousands of businesses disappeared and riots and protests countrywide.

Or, as will more than likely happen, things will remain shut until April to try and stem the tide and then we’ll get back to normal. Harsh to say, but if it’s a case of (1) 80,000 might die, or (2) hundreds of thousands will be homeless, the economy is ruined, everyone’s standard of living collapses and probably more than 80,000 will die as a result of homelessness and malnutrition anyway, then it’s an absolute no brainer. 

I don't think 'we' are actually in lockdown - and whatever is happening in Europe can only extend for a shortwhile as food prduction and distribution is essential.

My thought is that it is accepted that there is little than can be done in the way of increased 'infection (and deaths), but what can be done, and is necessary is to avoid a sudden unmanagable rise before resources are fully mobilised. Which as those resources come into play so will the numbers who have 'got over' the virus and (hopefully) be able to go back to work etc without the riusk of spreading the virus further.

From what I have read the government will use the armed forces to cover esential services/supplies with the rest having to make do. With no horse racing 'horsebox' drivers will be available (as an example). I'm sure we can manage without clothes, shoe and sportswear shops for a couple of months as no doubt other non essential commerce pauses.

As said before once the initial panic has settled down a bit I think folk will be surprised how much others rally round. Vunerable are looked out for, people become more aware of what is needed and actually get on with doing it. Mostly though unsung acts of help and care.

It might also demonstrate how much work can be done from home without millions being forced into tiring and expensive commutes. Maybe some might come to understand that you don't need to flog your ar se off so as to have a fortnight somewhere exotic either,

Maybe we will see the otherside of 'human nature' - the one that shows compassion toward and thought for others rather than the bog roll snatcher of today.

[Aggy 747]

Agreed with all of that Bill. Already there is a large sense of communities rallying I would say. That’s very important, both for people who’s lives are at risk if they catch Coronavirus and others who are in very uncertain times while the economy starts grinding to a halt. Yes there are people ‘hoarding’ but there’s an equally large push back against that. Likewise, doing what we can (in a proportionate manner) to avoid overwhelming health services is important too.

What will be interesting is how it affects society long term. Working from home is the obvious one - companies who previously didn’t have any real contingency plan and required everyone in the office every day will have to invest in new technology to allow people to work from home in the case of such an emergency in the future. Many local restaurants are starting up takeaway services which no doubt they’ll continue after everything is back to normal as well.

There are less obvious ones too - we’re seeing pollution drop in northern Italy, which might open a few eyes and make people consider how they go about their daily lives. The social landscape could well change a lot - this could be a real final blow to cinemas for example, which are already struggling but if more people get Netflix (etc.) subscriptions whilst cooped up indoors and there’s a general move away from large social gatherings even when everything is back to normal, then a lot of cinemas might just cease to exist. 

[king canary 7,558]

15 hours ago, BobLoz3 said:

I know. I was being flippant! 🙂

Sorry Bob but we've got a pandemic on- all flippancy is cancelled until further notice.

[SteveN8458 61]

On 17/03/2020 at 12:34, ricardo said:

The seaon cannot be finished, it is therefore nul and void.

this

[Mr Apples 1,315]

Sutton is also keen for the season to be called in it's current position so Celtic become Scottish champions and achieve nine in a row...funnily enough the other side want the season to be declared null and void. 🤔

Apples

[Bill 1,788]

21 hours ago, king canary said:

There is clearly no simple answer to this.

Null and void may sound simple but I imagine it would be open to a fair few challenges, even outside of the obvious Liverpool/Leeds/West Brom complaints. Would Leicester want to give up Champions League qualification? Would Sheffield United be ok with voiding a season where they are currently in line for over £25m in prize money? 

Probably the simplest plan to avoid issues like this is just to finish the season whenever possible but that also seems like the logistically impossible idea.

err, there is one rather large flaw in that thinking

that is any decisions like this will be taken with those clubs voting on them

I'm not sure who KC thinks will be deciding otherwise

the PL has 20 'shareholders' it's current clubs at anyone time so the idea of taking legal action against yourself would seem rather absurd.....to say the least

[king canary 7,558]

36 minutes ago, Bill said:

err, there is one rather large flaw in that thinking

that is any decisions like this will be taken with those clubs voting on them

I'm not sure who KC thinks will be deciding otherwise

the PL has 20 'shareholders' it's current clubs at anyone time so the idea of taking legal action against yourself would seem rather absurd.....to say the least

I think you proved on the Brexit thread you're very good at being both very wrong and very confident about it at the same time, so I'll take your views on this with a large pinch of salt.

[Bill 1,788]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I think you proved on the Brexit thread you're very good at being both very wrong and very confident about it at the same time, so I'll take your views on this with a large pinch of salt.

Ah yes, silly me

thinking the PL was owned and ran by the 20 member clubs

perhaps you could make up something else

.....or just back what you have claimed with something that resembles  a suggestion that you understand this at all ie who will vote

and was it you that told us about the German method that had been agreed

I could reply to your other toy thrown out of your pram but that is probably best dealtt with when all these promises happen - as yet none have 😁

 

so the floor is yours - explain where I am wrong about how decisions are made by the PL

[shefcanary 2,377]

Well having just spent over an hour queuing outside Boots to collect a prescription (only 2 people allowed in at a time to protect their staff - government regulation apparently), then reading about the EPL suspension extension until end of April, with most commentators saying it is unlikely for a start then, some people appear rather bullish that this will be over soon.  

Today's news from China that today was 1st day in 3 months without a new case (believe, believe), would mean mid-May was earliest for a similar scenario here, if and only if we had a China-style lockdown and economic production break which we don't yet.  And don't start me on secondary wave of infections. 

EPL won't start until there is a vaccine available for all.  This time next year folks.