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.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027772)

Good news at last. Sky Sports and BT Sport will cease billing for their services while all sport is suspended.

https://advanced-television.com/2020...cription-fees/

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36027773)

No mention by Virgin yet..

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36027772)

Good news at last. Sky Sports and BT Sport will cease billing for their services while all sport is suspended.

https://advanced-television.com/2020...cription-fees/

Originally Posted by ScottishSteve (Post 36027774)

It’s for commercial customers like pubs etc and not home customers

Originally Posted by newapollo (Post 36027775)

Sorry to disillusion you OB, but it's only commercial subs for the present

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36027802)

I'll probably continue with mine as I'm getting it massively discounted and have been watching a few bits of archive stuff and magazine type shows , good news though for those who are paying more or full price.

Originally Posted by alwaysabear (Post 36027945)

Lots of Prem teams are not even training together or are in isolation now. So any restart of the league will need a few weeks at least to get in shape .
I really cannot see any resumption of this season unless something dramatic happens.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36028029)

Where does no live coverage of sports on Sky Sports leave Virgin Media customers.

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/03/1...ause-subscrip/

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36028213)

My personal feelings about this is that Sky should automatically suspend sky sports subs whilst there's no live sports action or at the very least reduce them significantly. It would be a great gesture and win them lots of brownie points.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36028215)

Those on the Sky platform can pause their Sky Sports subscriptions whilst Virgin as usual have sat on their Jack Jones and done diddly squat.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36028216)

Yes I know but wouldn't it be a great gesture by Sky to simply say to their sky sports customer "hey have the sports channels on us whilst there's no live sports". If everyone paused their sub then I would imagine advertiser's wouldn't be too happy,would they?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36028215)

Those on the Sky platform can pause their Sky Sports subscriptions whilst Virgin as usual have sat on their Jack Jones and done diddly squat.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 36028241)

At the moment most adverts will be having little to no impact anyway. Nobody is buying anything other than food and people are staying indoors.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36028257)

Yes, a friend has suspended his sky sports subscription - interestingly he is still able to play existing recordings from sky sports - he gets his directly from sky and this doesn't affect any discounts he has.

Notice a difference from our situation.

VM really should do something similar.

I wonder whether the current situation would be a valid reason to cancel VM altogether even if in contract as they are not supplying the content as advertised?

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36028307)

Wonder what Sky have offered to Virgin .if nothing why would they take the hit . Can't you give virgin notice .it won't be back anytime soon are all!

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36028327)

I could, but according to some who have done so, I would lose the discount I currently receive - so wouldn't be any better off.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36028355)

That's one heck of a discount:erm:

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36028374)

You can't tell me they haven't got a discount from sky so they should be passing it on not pocketing it.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36028375)

We just don't know but if they had, I would expect an announcement to that effect and suspect Sky would make it conditional on VM passing it on to their customers.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36028355)

That's one heck of a discount:erm:

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36028355)

That's one heck of a discount:erm:

Originally Posted by RobboEdin (Post 36028582)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36028585)

When l phoned up the other day we wanted to stop Sky Sports but yet were told our bill was going to actually go up by £1 so one was actually not going to get any benefit from it as one hoped.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36028621)

Presumably, you also have discounts which would be removed?

Originally Posted by oxfordmark (Post 36028867)

What if your bundle includes SS as standard?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36028907)

Good point - do any of the bundles include this as standard - I seem to recall taking the top bundle when I joined VM and having to add Sky Sports as an extra although BT Sports was included foc

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36029122)

Sky and BT will 'lose £1bn if sporting events stay shut until August'

https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-until-august

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36029127)

Don't worry Den, they'll survive.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 36030320)

3pm Saturday blackout for televised football has been lifted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52161561

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030384)

UEFA are nuts, there's absolutely no chance of any football season finishing this year, how can you expect players to play behind closed doors and keep social distancing, they are totally deluded.

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 36030387)

I don't see how it makes UEFA nuts ??

It is as silly keeping the ban in place as it is lifting it - if no games can be played.

In a statement, Uefa said: "Uefa has lifted the 'blocked hours' protection granted to England and Scotland for the remainder of the 2019-20 season following requests from the relevant national associations as a result of measures taken in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic."

So why slate UEFA?

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030396)

Because they could easily have solved this by declaring the season null and void!

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36030400)

UEFA could never make the season 'null and void' because they would be sued by numourous clubs who either miss out on promotion or are relegated.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36030395)

If the games are to be played behind closed doors then one would presume every player will be tested and cleared to play ? This is a nightmare situation for the football authorities to resolve because the season has to be finished otherwise there will be all sorts of legal issues.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36030400)

UEFA could never make the season 'null and void' because they would be sued by numourous clubs who either miss out on promotion or are relegated.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36030400)

UEFA could never make the season 'null and void' because they would be sued by numourous clubs who either miss out on promotion or are relegated.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36030401)

It would open up a Pandora's box in my view.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030404)

If UEFA cant do it then the respective leagues could, we've already had suggestions that as the league standings are at present then that's the way the league will finish, and that does indeed cause huge problems, but some lower English football has already declared their season null and void.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36030405)

I can’t see it happening. Too much money - Sky and BT are owed a product.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030408)

Wouldn't they come under the same terms that the government are handing out to businesses, jfman?

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030402)

Football pales into insignificance, people are dying ffs, football is the last thing on peoples minds!

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36030432)

Just read an article on the Internet stating the Premier League would be liable to pay £762m if the season is not finished.

Playing behind closed doors sounds attractive all of a sudden.

I expect this to start early June.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030435)

They won't be able to if social distancing is still in force

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030435)

They won't be able to if social distancing is still in force

Originally Posted by johnathome (Post 36030443)

I thought all the players were to be isolated for 2 weeks before the eventual start date?

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36030446)

It's an absolute mess mate, there will be no football this summer!

Originally Posted by alwaysabear (Post 36030757)

I'm with you, I cannot see how any football can be played this summer.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36030800)

If there isn't a lot of football clubs will go to the wall.

I read that a lot of Premier League clubs have purchased testing kits in preparation for testing players prior to a resumption behind closed doors to fulfil their TV contract obligations.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36030801)

The bigger clubs will survive it as its the smaller clubs further down the football pyramid who could go to the wall.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 36037000)

.........The good news for rugby fans is that all 8 games will be available on Sky Sports Mix so no need to unpause your subscription just yet.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 36037000)

Live football returns this weekend on Freesports. They have picked up the rights to show 2 games per week from the Polish top flight.

https://www.freesat.co.uk/how-to-watch-live-football/

---------- Post added at 21:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------

Live snooker set to return to TV a week today on ITV4.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-21/...es-up-snooker/

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:06 ----------

Australian NRL returns to Sky Sports this Thursday. Sky will be showing 8 fixtures live over 4 days. The good news for rugby fans is that all 8 games will be available on Sky Sports Mix so no need to unpause your subscription just yet.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36037031)

Do you mean to say virgin customers who have paused their subs aren't still getting the channels like Sky customers are?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36037185)

Sky to un-pause Sky Sports subscriptions in mid June.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport...esume-18314270

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 36037446)

Interesting that BBC Alba has live Bundesliga - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jxm9

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36037447)

Women's