Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36027218)

I personally don't believe the season should a) be null and void or b) simply end as it stands. There's be all kinds of legal action flying around both from teams relegated and teams just missing out on promotion. The same would be if the season was made null and void. The only fair and obvious answer is to play all the remaining fixtures as soon as it's possible.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36027206)

You did read my answer to someone elses post did you not OB as l made it very clear in my answer that there is no chance of a resumption to football on the 3rd of April.

Listening to a respected football journalist on SSN he thinks after talking to the important people in the game the season is over OB.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36027209)

Can you point me to the Government advice where it recommends employers continue to expose their employees to people who have contracted coronavirus, are suspected to have coronavirus or have contact with third parties with known contact with an individual confirmed to have coronavirus?

You are confusing the public gathering advice with established health and safety at work law. While the Government advice appears to pretend everything is fine, it doesn't create any indemnity for employers not taking reasonable steps to the health and safety of their employees.

Only yesterday the Premier League were happy to go ahead, with significant matchday revenues at stake and (if abandoning this season altogether) television revenue, until the Arsenal manager was confirmed to have the virus - with the suspicion being he caught it in a game on February 27th - as the owner of that team has the virus. When this became a risk to their employees they decided it was best to limit exposure.

No employer could reasonably put their employees on a field against Arsenal, and whoever Arsenal played last week, and claim they took all reasonable steps to protect their employees.

Equally I'm sure none of these clubs would want a player to die as a result, perhaps still with instalments to pay to his previous club outstanding and compensation to a widow. Insurers would almost certainly not pay out.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027238)

Sorry, Den, I was meaning to quote your earlier post and then somehow highlighted the later one!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027238)

I agree with you, 3 April is out of the question for the resumption of football if the whole rationale is to prevent infection. The peak for contagion will be sometime between mid-April and mid-May, so we are staring in the face of no football for another 3 months without any footie if we apply the logic behind this decision, unless they decide to play without spectators, that is.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027238)

Yes, employers certainly have a duty of care to their employees, but this still appears to be an over-reaction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/51777154

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36027240)

That is okay OB.:)

---------- Post added at 08:27 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ----------



You see even without spectators not present at sporting events that brings up its own plethora of problems as all sporting events even without spectators require support staff which there are quite a few and one of the most important is a doctor and a medical vehicle with several qualified medical support staff in situ.

Given the gravity of the situation they are likely to be required elsewhere in far more important matters.

---------- Post added at 08:33 ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 ----------



One of the biggest crisis this country has faced l would not class as appearing to be a over-reaction.

You heard Boris Johnson yourself and l am no fan of him but he is guided by the foremost medical experts in the field of epidemiology.

Enough said...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027245)

It is a gross over-reaction, Den. Influenza causes up to 646,000 deaths worldwide every year. So far, coronovirus hasn't even claimed 5,000.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027245)

It is a gross over-reaction, Den. Influenza causes up to 646,000 deaths worldwide every year. So far, coronovirus hasn't even claimed 5,000.

What we are succumbing to is the rabid need for the media to excite their audiences and grab their attention. Everything is well OTT these days. I'm surprised you football fans are taking it so well!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36027249)

What complete lockdowns in certain countries , national emergencies called , sport unlikely to be played for 4 to 6 months , Supermarkets in talks with the government to limit their product lines and possible rationing of core basic products to follow , NHS put on a war footing , etc , etc , etc.

That to me is not a over-reaction unless you think Boris and the other world leaders are not telling the public the truth.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027238)

Yes, employers certainly have a duty of care to their employees, but this still appears to be an over-reaction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/51777154

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36027253)

That link doesn’t address any of the points I made.

Where does it say a club couldn’t be sued if a player died after playing Arsenal?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027265)

The link was to the fact that the measure taken to shut down sporting events was not in accordance with government advice. You are the one obsessing about being sued, not me. I have acknowledged that employers have a duty of health and safety for their employees, but employers only have to act proportionately.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36027268)

Yes, I acknowledged earlier that the Government had offered advice but I specifically asked you where that overrides Health and Safety law. The link you have provided has failed to do so.

As huge capitalist enterprises don't you think that they have weighed up the risk? If opposition players/fans contract the virus and the worst happens it's them in court, not Oliver Dowden in flawed attempts to create calm by ignoring the risk.

Football clubs as employers, and operators of large leisure facilities, will have had plenty of discussions with their lawyers, insurers, accountants and medical advisers on this. They're also gambling millions weighing up potential outcomes, not simply keyboard warriors hypothesising from the safety of their living room.

There's absolutely nothing interesting about your inflammatory invite for others to give you their opinion. The second such statement in this thread - the previous being something about being surprised at football fans putting up with it.

This is self evidently not an ordinary influenza strain - if it was the case nobody would have noticed for a start. It'd have just been chalked up as a few more Chinese flu deaths.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027270)

Paragraph 1. I did not state that health and safety law was over-ridden by government adviceof this nature. I argued proportionality. If you want a link to prove the point I am not making, feel free to Google to your heart's content.

Paragraph 2. Again, I did not claim that as employers, etc, they had not weighed up the risks. What I said was that I thought it was an over-reaction.

Paragraph 3. I do not need your agreement to invite views on this.

Paragraph 4. Well, clearly you have been taken in by the hysteria. You have not commented on my pointing out that the worldwide death toll has not even reached 5,000 yet, when influenza kills over half a million in a year. So what, exactly, is so special about this one? Yes, it is a new strain, and no, we do not yet have a vaccine. Nevertheless, the death toll comparison is extremely significant. We scarcely notice the presence of the flu viruses that are normally present until they affect us or a member of our own families. The media has scaremongered to such a degree that this new strain results in the public clearing the supermarket shelves in abject panic. Funny old world. Just as well it's not Spanish flu, that really would have been a cause for concern.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36027178)

Sometimes companies have to swallow the cost and do the right thing but whether they do no one knows.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36027274)

I'm sure Sky and BT can swallow the cost but I doubt Premier Sports can.
I can see some of those now having to work from home upgrading their home broadband which will be good news for BT, Sky, TT and VM. And I doubt they will downgrade their speeds when matters improve.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36027207)

If the sports seasons are not finished, which they may well not be, then the league tables as currently standing should be the final result and used to decide championships, euro qualifications, promotions and relegations.

The only exception should be outstanding games a team might have to equal the number of games the rest of the division has played (assuming this will make any difference to either teams league status next season)

Most leagues are well over 80% completed - to say all those games are meaningless is a ridiculous argument, or clutching at straws by supporters of teams not wanting to be relegated?

Originally Posted by johnathome (Post 36027618)

I think that will trigger lawsuits from Villa et al.

I'm sure i read something about a team in the relegation zone threatening that.