Coronavirus and football.

[Andy_Faber]

I imagine that’ll be the case whichever solution is found, Andy.

As Jurgen Klopp suggested...’football is the most important of the least important things’...it can’t be that difficult to achieve a fair conclusion, but imo ‘voiding’ the season with so much of it done would be the most unfair.

Although I'm sure we would agree that football isn't a fraction as important as life and death, and on that basis (and especially after coming across an LUFC thread on facebook yesterday) there would certainly be some elements of the unfairness i could live with

[MadAmster]

What rules? Where exactly is this stipulated in the PL or EFL rules? My understanding is that it isn't because it was never envisaged.

I still think the season will be completed, there are various contracts with Tv companies etc. Even if that means starting it in August and starting next season after a couple of weeks break. Thats not impractical and not beyond the wit of intelligent human beings to organise!

Ha anybody actually read the EFL rules with regard to uncompleted matches? I know that there is a clause that voids all results of a team if they fail to complete the season. I am unaware of a clause that covers the entire competition not getting completed. I have had a quick look on the EFL site and didn't find such a clause. Does anybody else on here KNOW of such a clause?

[ramAnag]

Ha anybody actually read the EFL rules with regard to uncompleted matches? I know that there is a clause that voids all results of a team if they fail to complete the season. I am unaware of a clause that covers the entire competition not getting completed. I have had a quick look on the EFL site and didn't find such a clause. Does anybody else on here KNOW of such a clause?

Spot on...I am sure there is no such clause.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Let us assume that there is no "meltdown clause", so in absence of such, reference has to be made to the individual "any club failing to complete its fixtures has its results voided" rule, as its all there is.

Apply it 72 times (I reference just the EFL here) and that is the issue resolved. I'm not sure what PL rules say as it really does not interest me.

It's the only rule that gets close to an answer 😏

Following this through, are all 72 teams then kicked out of the league and have to apply for reelection. Teams beginning with the letters "Not" need not apply.

[swaledale]

Let us assume that there is no "meltdown clause", so in absence of such, reference has to be made to the individual "any club failing to complete its fixtures has its results voided" rule, as its all there is.

Apply it 72 times (I reference just the EFL here) and that is the issue resolved. I'm not sure what PL rules say as it really does not interest me.

It's the only rule that gets close to an answer ��

Following this through, are all 72 teams then kicked out of the league and have to apply for reelection. Teams beginning with the letters "Not" need not apply.

Which would result in my learned friends being engaged so the EFL will have to agree with clubs the way forward and a vote taken on it.

[MadAmster]

Which would result in my learned friends being engaged so the EFL will have to agree with clubs the way forward and a vote taken on it.

Even a vote wouldn't guarantee that no club would be sufficiently unhappy to engage a learned friend and go to court anyway.

[swaledale]

True, but its harder to take legal action against a decision that has been taken in line with the administrative processes of the league to which a club has signed up to.

[Geoff Parkstone]

And the PL constitution only requires 14 clubs to agree.... with perhaps 19 having nothing to lose, maybe 16 if the teams in current CL voted against.

Think of the prize money the PL would save! Give it to the NHS instead

[Ram59]

Let us assume that there is no "meltdown clause", so in absence of such, reference has to be made to the individual "any club failing to complete its fixtures has its results voided" rule, as its all there is.

Apply it 72 times (I reference just the EFL here) and that is the issue resolved. I'm not sure what PL rules say as it really does not interest me.

It's the only rule that gets close to an answer 😏

Following this through, are all 72 teams then kicked out of the league and have to apply for reelection. Teams beginning with the letters "Not" need not apply.

This is what I've been saying all along. Ideally the season should be finished, even if behind closed doors, but any other situation is going to result in some teams being unhappy and in regards to Premier membership, prepared to go to court over it. The only chance of the EFL avoiding this, is if they can manipulate any current rules which are in place. The above rule if applied literally, would result in all results being quashed.

[ramAnag]

Let us assume that there is no "meltdown clause", so in absence of such, reference has to be made to the individual "any club failing to complete its fixtures has its results voided" rule, as its all there is.

Apply it 72 times (I reference just the EFL here) and that is the issue resolved. I'm not sure what PL rules say as it really does not interest me.

It's the only rule that gets close to an answer ��

Following this through, are all 72 teams then kicked out of the league and have to apply for reelection. Teams beginning with the letters "Not" need not apply.

Surely following that logic, and that of Ram 59 below, it makes more sense to void the 180 (approximately in the Prem only) matches that haven’t been played rather than the (approximately) 580 that have?

Moreover it would mean that those matches that have been played have been ‘meaningful’ as opposed to irrelevant which would open up another can of worms as regards refunds and player stats etc.

Truth is there is no appropriate rule because the EFL, quite reasonably, doesn’t look as far as plague, famine, declaration of war or nuclear holocaust interrupting the season, so let’s just be sensible and fair.