Admin, please multi-board.
Can someone - anyone - please explain the benefit of making the remaining PL games being played at ‘neutral’ grounds? Playing anywhere but in their own home ground must include travel, thus increasing the possibility of contact with others en route.
If this is an FA directive then it’s clear for the reason why: if the games can be played at Wembley, surprise, surprise, then that gives the FA the chance to make more money.
Also, this thingy called ‘neutral’. Who defines it? Who chooses it and on what criteria? Is/are it/they going to be equi-distant between the two clubs? Will it stop supporters going outside the grounds on the day of play? (Who can stop them? Imagine a couple of thousand well-meaning Reds turning up outside aground and shouting encouragement, a la YNWA to the team. Are the cozzers going to arrest the lot?)
Of the nine games left for the Reds to play, four were meant to be played at home. By playing at a neutral ground, the opposition having already derived some benefits from playing at their home ground on the reverse fixture, where’s the fairness as far as LFC is concerned?
Views?
Neutral grounds.
posted on 10/5/20
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 minute ago
'Of the nine games left for the Reds to play, four were meant to be played at home. By playing at a neutral ground... where’s the fairness as far as LFC is concerned?'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You missed out some of the OPs comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which had no bearing on the point he was, quite badly, making.
So with that in mind, what point are you trying to make?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP was making the point that in the reverse fixtures they had the advantage of playing at home, and then a neutral ground. Liverpool would have played an away game and then a neutral. So have been disadvantaged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that, manusince. I’m afraid the health and safety issue is lost on me; aren’t ALL PL grounds up to standards on this already?
Many thanks to one and all for your posts, I’ve yet to be convinced as to the legitimacy of playing at neutral grounds, or who picks them or why.
Any takers?
posted on 10/5/20
In 4 games. But in 5 games they will have the advantage for the same reason. 5 games is more than 4. Plus, Liverpool need 4 points to win the league, it isnt having any affect on their season so why bemoan it from their point of view? Villa have 6 home and 4 away games left and a far better home record than away. They will be disadvantaged way more than Liverpool.
posted on 10/5/20
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/5/20
comment by JimmyTheRed (U1682)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 minute ago
'Of the nine games left for the Reds to play, four were meant to be played at home. By playing at a neutral ground... where’s the fairness as far as LFC is concerned?'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You missed out some of the OPs comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which had no bearing on the point he was, quite badly, making.
So with that in mind, what point are you trying to make?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP was making the point that in the reverse fixtures they had the advantage of playing at home, and then a neutral ground. Liverpool would have played an away game and then a neutral. So have been disadvantaged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that, manusince. I’m afraid the health and safety issue is lost on me; aren’t ALL PL grounds up to standards on this already?
Many thanks to one and all for your posts, I’ve yet to be convinced as to the legitimacy of playing at neutral grounds, or who picks them or why.
Any takers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The neutral ground reasoning was to stop fans congregating outside the stadium. If Liverpool were at home and winning meant they clenched the league - even with social distancing in place you would get at least 5000 fans congregating outside anfield singing, chanting, wanting to catch a glimpse of the team.
The neutral ground was to try to stop that happening - however they wouldn’t be able to keep it secret and people would find out where their club are playing and could congregate anyway. Additionally, if it were Liverpool winning the league then loads of fans could still congregate outside of Anfield even if the game wasn’t there.
Overall it was a stupid idea and should be consigned to the same bin as the 39th game
posted on 10/5/20
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 1 minute ago
'Of the nine games left for the Reds to play, four were meant to be played at home. By playing at a neutral ground... where’s the fairness as far as LFC is concerned?'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You missed out some of the OPs comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which had no bearing on the point he was, quite badly, making.
So with that in mind, what point are you trying to make?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP was making the point that in the reverse fixtures they had the advantage of playing at home, and then a neutral ground. Liverpool would have played an away game and then a neutral. So have been disadvantaged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s the section of the OP again, in full...
‘Of the nine games left for the Reds to play, four were meant to be played at home. By playing at a neutral ground, the opposition having already derived some benefits from playing at their home ground on the reverse fixture, where’s the fairness as far as LFC is concerned?’
If you’ve reread it and still don’t get my point, please tell me... what is 9-4?
Now do you understand?
posted on 11/5/20
I presume that the OP question has been addressed regarding risks to public health and police resources
As to fairness Peopel either need to get on board or go bankrupt here. There is a danger that self interest will put us in a position in september where a new season cannot start.
The reality is there is a lot of FEAR in the public and in these footballers too.
Boris Johnson has commented that while we've lost of 30,000 people the projections were 500,000. I don't know if the original projections were wrong but we have ample evidence where some countries have not locked down but the very basic washing, sanitising, distancing, temperature taking and masks do work well.
I think its an awful death toll enough as it is. the reality is however the government won't keep people at home much longer and they ordered us all back to work if we can get there without public transport.
People are scared but the reality is theres a huge amount of people going about doing their work as normal who are looking at those who are scared and not really comprehending why. The mental position people are in is not healthy.
What we actually need is leadership all round. We need people to be outside showing how it works to put minds at ease.
All I am seeing from football is self interest and we can't excuses. I presume the next thing is arm twisting will occur and it'll become a mess like scottish football.
My opinion is that all shops need to look at what supermarket shave had to do and in the next 2 weeks prepare their facility and spacing to ensure 2 social distancing. if that means removing shelves it means remove shelves. the same goes for other industries.
posted on 11/5/20
comment by Kunta Kante (U1641)
posted 15 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Ban Wissaka (U5318)
posted 2 minutes ago
The point of neutral grounds is so that there can be a select number of grounds where health and safety procedures can by implemented to a high standard and monitored. I significantly reduces the cost and risk compared ti implementing this at 20 sites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a good point.
Also heard it’s because the men at the top gear fans congregating outside stadiums if played at normal venues. Not sure I quite buy that, unless the point of it being neutral included making the venue confidential until a few hours before the match lol. Because otherwise I think if fans are dedicated enough to congregate around a stadium in lockdown they’d be dedicated (for want of a better word) enough to travel to the neutral venue too if they knew where it was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who is prepared to go that far out of their way to act like a complete prikk and undermine the entire nation’s efforts to contain the virus is clearly of less than zero value to society and should just be shot.
posted on 11/5/20
This is about the police wnating minimum work. They have little enough to be doing now but just don't want the hassle.
They've been enjoying going about knokcing the ice creams out of kids hands and hassling sun bathers and want to continue at that
Its this simple. If johnson opens pubs in july it'd be absolutely ridiculous that football clubs could not play at home.
You only need cops about the stadium to run off the morons.
The funny thing is I'm sure nobody would care if the bottom 6 kept their gorunds and we all went there and played them.
the real issue is money. we all know it. The bottom clubs want no relegation to keep the money rolling in next season. once you let them off once then next year when we are in the same situation potentially they'll want it again.
Its extremely short sighted of the clubs involved but understandable.
posted on 11/5/20
An aside, but I cannot see how pubs are opening in July.
Don’t think we’ll see bars and clubs that don’t serve food with table service opening for a *long* while yet.
posted on 11/5/20
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
posted 41 minutes ago
An aside, but I cannot see how pubs are opening in July.
Don’t think we’ll see bars and clubs that don’t serve food with table service opening for a *long* while yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see it either but the government will push everything IMO its reckless imo but they won't pay the dole as it will be dole when the businesses furloughed fold.