Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dylanisabaddog

Relegated on points per game

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Badger said:

And then there is legal action...

I can't see a solution at all! But of course there has to be one - the least terrible will have it!

The least terrible is finish the season as is and no relegation. No legal threat from relegated clubs, smaller legal threat from teams in the European places. And perhaps crucially would have more chance of getting the votes. Also as discussed elsewhere more difficult for Champ teams to launch legal challenges. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Block Y Seat 176 said:

The reality part of my brain agrees, but I’ll stand by a positive frame of mind as I’m sure Farke does until the end.

If the PL is played out behind closed doors will this be of benefit to us or negative?

I think it would be a positive, just a hunch. 

 

 

Depends on our attitude vs the opposition, but I agree it could be to our benefit. We'd have a lot to gain and even mòre to lose. We have done well against teams who stand off and allow us to play. The problem might be when we play those in and around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mason 47 said:

there are 27,000 people that will never see any team lift any title again as a result of the virus.

That is ,give or take, a packed Carrow Rd. Sobering thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Badger said:

But if I were an owner/ fan of Bristol, Millwall, Cardiff, Blackburn, Swansea I'd be very unhappy with this.

Preston have lost 4 out of the last 5; Forest and Brentford have only won 1 in their last 5! At least one, if not more of the current top six would probably have missed the playoffs if the season had continued! I'd be consulting my lawyers if I were a rich owner!

In my view the 23 team premier league is the option that upsets the least people/leaves the least scope for legal wrangles.

Obviously the teams you refer to may not be happy but what can they actually claim? That they have lost a chance of having a 1 in 4 chance of promotion? Don't see how they can prove loss as a consequence.

Meanwhile the leagues have removed the potentially more troublesome issue of unhappy relegated clubs trying to take legal action. 

There are more winners than losers under that solution which at this time of great uncertainty for the game would be a good thing surely? Adjust it back to normal by having 4 teams relegated for the next three seasons. Yes all prem clubs would take a bit of a hit because the TV monies would be shared 23 ways rather than 20 but sure they can cope with that. Even gives 120 extra games for the Tv companies!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mason 47 said:

Ultimately I believe that the emotional side of the game is clouding what should be a pretty straightforward decision.

Will it be sad for the generation of Liverpool fans who have never seen their team lift the PL trophy? Sure. But there are 27,000 people that will never see any team lift any title again as a result of the virus.

Void the season, accept that these circumstances are extraordinary, and leave the people who get paid enough to work out how to restart on the other side.

I  think you could replace that word with 'money' or 'arrogant' and it would be more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

My maths might not be right, but if we go by that link, it implies that in 6 of the last 15 seasons one team has come from a very poor position and/or put together an incredible run of results (against previous season form) to avoid relegation?

40% implies it's not really that rare an event.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

In my view the 23 team premier league is the option that upsets the least people/leaves the least scope for legal wrangles.

I think that you might be right - although a 22 team EPL might get around the whole playoff issue? Third place are six points behind and a 22 team league may be more acceptable to EPL teams, worried about over-commitment in terms of games (Champs/ Europa league etc). This would be six extra fixtures many during midweek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I think that you might be right - although a 22 team EPL might get around the whole playoff issue? Third place are six points behind and a 22 team league may be more acceptable to EPL teams, worried about over-commitment in terms of games (Champs/ Europa league etc). This would be six extra fixtures many during midweek.

I feel pretty certain they'll have to scrap the League Cup for one season at least which would free up some midweeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry chaps you are all worrying about something that won't happen, Project Restart will never happen.  Clubs will not even start proper training.  The political furore will be enough to force Boris to curtail PR sooner rather than later, UK taking steps to limit the impact of the virus PR is certainly not doing that, expect MP's from all sides making objections.  Social distancing will ensure PR cannot be allowed to succeed.  Players already making noises about concerns regarding Covid 19 and if contracted how it will affect families.

Everything points to resumption of PL not going to happen.  EFL includes 72 clubs to complete matches that many cannot believe they can afford matches played with no income best to shut up shop now and June 30th of greater impact in lower leagues.

Begin to plan for a PL campaign next season whenever that is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hogesar said:

Should the season finish normally we would LIKELY have been relegated. Not certain. Equally, it's LIKELY Leeds would have been promoted. Not certain.

What is certain is last season we DEFINITELY finished the season as the best team in the championship which entitled us to 38 games in the top division. In no way do we deserve to lose our Premier League place which was fully deserved to a Championship side who hasn't got enough points to guarantee promotion.

That's the best argument I've seen yet. I still think they will try to finish the season though, unless they are told they can't by the government - which won't be yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Coconut man, Moonheads and me...

It's not about the money, money, money...

21st March 2015 Leicester City played 29 games won  19 points.

Norwich currently played 29 games won 21 points.

Leicester went on to win the PL in 2016.

So there's no case based on the PL football season to relegate Norwich.

But is there a case based on the cha-ching cha-ching?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

No promotions after this many games played would stink of corruption. 

Sorry, how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, king canary said:

I feel pretty certain they'll have to scrap the League Cup for one season at least which would free up some midweeks.

Yes, I suppose they could do this + abandon FA cup replays. the extra 6 games per team might be a sweetener for Sky/ BT over TV revenues this year, by allowing them to show some of the extra games on top of thatwhich has been negotiated?

Edited by Badger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes, I suppose they could do this + abandon FA cup replays. the extra 6 games per team might be a sweetener for Sky/ BT over TV revenues this year, by allowing them to show some of the extra games on top of thatwhich has been negotiated?

Yeah that is what I'd guess- here is an extra bunch of games, you don't have to pay us anymore but don't ask for a refund on this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm prepared to accept relegation, as it was likely anyway.

BUT ONLY if it's accepted that Leeds were likely to drop out of the top two before the end of the season, then lose the semi-final play off.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These calculations and speculations are all very well, and I have been as guilty😳 as anyone, but unless some kind of emergency plan is worked out and out in place soon, and certainly well before June 30, they are likely to be rendered moot.

The lower divisions cannot financially hang around for months waiting for the Premier League to come  to a decision and some action that might  - or just as easily might not - mean some money eventually filters its way down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who thinks the 22-team solution is the least likely outcome? It may seem the most fair on the surface, but there would be four extra games to fit in and every Premier League club would have to forego around 10% of the TV income in order to redistribute it. I can't see the majority of clubs voluntarily agreeing to lose over £10m each when their finances are being squeezed tightly as it is.

Apparently in Italy the 22-team idea is not even being discussed, and I highly doubt the Premier League would discuss it either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing was ever happening today. There is a significant meeting next Friday after the governments latest lockdown announcement where things will then take shape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever PL decide it is highly unlikely that the Championship will complete.  PL clubs already spending in anticipation of Project Restart looking at ppe equipment i.e. high spec masks.  I don't believe there is the money in Championship clubs to meet costs such as these or provision of private medical facilities.  No discussions about tournament at one venue.. Leeds, WBA and Fulham can meet added expense smaller teams such as Barnsley, Luton and Charlton will struggle without gate receipts.  You cannot have the championship without all 24, bottom three might just scupper plans to complete before Jan 30 a significant date.

And government will not sanction completing all outstanding EFL matches even if all agree to finish the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So far into the long grass that they lost it 🤣

Edited by ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even on this forum, there have been a few solutions put forward, and each of them have shown they have pros and cons.

That alone shows there is no correct solution, which, and it would come to it if necessary, in legal terms, means the only winners will be Lawyers!

The virus is in the driving seat here, but we all know , that because of today's date and fixture/tournament schedules over the next 12-15 months means that the only way forward is to scrap everything, thereby everyone 'loses' and there are no 'winners'. In this current scenario you can't have winners AND losers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Am I the only one who thinks the 22-team solution is the least likely outcome? It may seem the most fair on the surface, but there would be four extra games to fit in and every Premier League club would have to forego around 10% of the TV income in order to redistribute it. I can't see the majority of clubs voluntarily agreeing to lose over £10m each when their finances are being squeezed tightly as it is.

Apparently in Italy the 22-team idea is not even being discussed, and I highly doubt the Premier League would discuss it either. 

Of all the artificial solutions I think the EPL’s lawyers would say it was the least expensive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the output of today's meeting was to have another meeting. Inspirational.

The deadline for completion remains 30/6. Beyond that player contracts come into play and a handful may even become the property of other teams as of 1/7 - perhaps some of our own. A truly bizarre situation should they decide to restart the season. EPL have absolutely no control over contracts signed in good faith clubs prior to COVID-19.

I think the EPL are just running the clock down to the inevitable cancellation of the season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

I  think you could replace that word with 'money' or 'arrogant' and it would be more appropriate.

I totally agree. But I think you'd have a more unanimous voice in football calling for a decisive void decision if it was, say, Man City running away with the Prem & West Brom and Middlesbrough at the top of the Championship. The fact it's two historically-relevant teams on the brink of something that would mean a lot to them means a natural emotional foothold forms in favour of continuing to argue for restarting.

The whole thing just reeks of waiting for someone else to make the decision, to pass culpability onto someone else; even as the death toll officially surpasses the capacity of Carrow Road. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...