How much will Coronavirus (COVID-19) impact Aston Villa's season?

[old man villa fan]

I am not blinkered - I am stating the obvious.  If there is an opportunity to play behind closed doors, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be taken.  It is because football is all about money that this is the case.

Yes, sponsors MAY be able to get into the courtroom but ONLY if they cannot agree the refund (that they are lawfully entitled to) with an individual club.  If you want to have a read of the Frustration Act 1943, you will see that a party who loses out because of circumstances that are beyond either parties control is protected by statute.  Court action would be a very last resort and only applicable if an amicable solution cannot be reached.  You don't even know whether sponsors have paid in stage payments or all up front.

Players cannot move to other clubs because as we've discovered ourselves, the squad lists submitted in January cannot be altered/amended.

I think it is you who is blinkered pal.  You don't seem to have thought this through very well or researched it.

Try to think logically.

In your attempt to reinforce your opinion, you are stating the obvious.  However, you are ignoring the less obvious.  To my mind, that is a blinkered view.

Football sponsorship tends to be for a period of time and cannot be adjusted prorata so I do not understand how you can say they would be due a lawful refund.  It's not like the sponsor can give something back to get that refund.

It's interesting that you raise 'Frustration'.  It depends on the terms of the specific contract and whether it has been written out, or not.  What does the contract the PL have with TV companies say.  It is the obvious point that everybody has been ignoring.  The question that is not being asked.  Why!!

Missed the point again about what I was saying about players' contracts.  A player whose contract finishes on 30th June and is going to another club, will at the 30th June just say "see ya" and be off,  they cannot force him to extend his contract, especially if he has a pre-contract agreement.

I am not blinkered (pal!).  I am raising points that you are ignoring.  I am not trying to prove one way or another, so I do not have to research it.  I will leave that to the people that will make the decisions.  It is not that important to me as I am losing my love for football as I get older.  Even more so when I see people dying and losing their income through this virus and football is saying "we must carry on".

Whether it is football, politics or whatever, what annoys me is the media failing to ask questions that they know the answers will kill off their argument or continuation of their agenda to make money.   

[Villan82]

Can't believe anybody would think (even at the PL) that playing our "home" games at a neutral venue would be fair way of resolving the season.  It could only work if there were no relegations and if that is the case then what would be the point in risking loss of life?

I can't help but feel it's the Liverpool angle.

[Brassneck]

I’d suggest that even playing matches behind closed doors depends on a vaccine being available and effective for all the clubs and officials involved in the professional game.

We seem to be some way off that, at the moment.

Also, I can’t be the only person who hears a chorus of Behind Closed Doors by Charlie Rich every time the phrase comes into discussion.

I think I raised this earlier in the thread but what about players' insurance.  What if a player was to pick up the virus even though a game was played behind closed doors and was put out of the game for some time or, heaven forbid, died through it.  A player's insurance company would certainly be looking at that scenario and either would refuse to insure or force a new greater risk policy on the player.

Players would be tested prior to games.

In any case, how could you possibly prove that the virus was contracted whilst a player was participating in a match?

I think you missed the point.  What if an insurance company refused to insure the player.  Could you imagine a player's agent saying "It's ok Sergio, there's not much of a risk to you".  No, I can't, either.

No - I think you are missing the point.  You seem to be under some illusion that football will restart while the rest of the country is still in lock down.  If (and it's a big if) football is re-started, it will be at a point where the country has returned to some kind of normality.  Schools will be re-opened, factories re-opened, offices re-opened, shops re-opened and maybe even pubs re-opened.

That is why there has been no definitive decision as yet.  Nobody knows if and when it will be safe to get back to normal.  Nobody is suggesting that games will be played whilst it is still unsafe to do so.

You seem to be building silly things into your arguments like players moving to other clubs, sponsors suing clubs or agents refusing to let players play.  None are realistic and quite frankly are bordering on the ridiculous.

[Brassneck]

I am not blinkered - I am stating the obvious.  If there is an opportunity to play behind closed doors, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be taken.  It is because football is all about money that this is the case.

Yes, sponsors MAY be able to get into the courtroom but ONLY if they cannot agree the refund (that they are lawfully entitled to) with an individual club.  If you want to have a read of the Frustration Act 1943, you will see that a party who loses out because of circumstances that are beyond either parties control is protected by statute.  Court action would be a very last resort and only applicable if an amicable solution cannot be reached.  You don't even know whether sponsors have paid in stage payments or all up front.

Players cannot move to other clubs because as we've discovered ourselves, the squad lists submitted in January cannot be altered/amended.

I think it is you who is blinkered pal.  You don't seem to have thought this through very well or researched it.

Try to think logically.

In your attempt to reinforce your opinion, you are stating the obvious.  However, you are ignoring the less obvious.  To my mind, that is a blinkered view.

Football sponsorship tends to be for a period of time and cannot be adjusted prorata so I do not understand how you can say they would be due a lawful refund.  It's not like the sponsor can give something back to get that refund.

It's interesting that you raise 'Frustration'.  It depends on the terms of the specific contract and whether it has been written out, or not.  What does the contract the PL have with TV companies say.  It is the obvious point that everybody has been ignoring.  The question that is not being asked.  Why!!

Missed the point again about what I was saying about players' contracts.  A player whose contract finishes on 30th June and is going to another club, will at the 30th June just say "see ya" and be off,  they cannot force him to extend his contract, especially if he has a pre-contract agreement.

I am not blinkered (pal!).  I am raising points that you are ignoring.  I am not trying to prove one way or another, so I do not have to research it.  I will leave that to the people that will make the decisions.  It is not that important to me as I am losing my love for football as I get older.  Even more so when I see people dying and losing their income through this virus and football is saying "we must carry on".

Whether it is football, politics or whatever, what annoys me is the media failing to ask questions that they know the answers will kill off their argument or continuation of their agenda to make money.

I'm sorry - This is just nonsense.

Frustration has nothing to do with specific terms of a contract.  Frustration occurs when a contract cannot be fulfilled because of unforeseen circumstances that are the fault of neither party.

The fact that you do not understand how a party is legally entitled to recover money paid in the event of frustration tells me that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[old man villa fan]

I am not blinkered - I am stating the obvious.  If there is an opportunity to play behind closed doors, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be taken.  It is because football is all about money that this is the case.

Yes, sponsors MAY be able to get into the courtroom but ONLY if they cannot agree the refund (that they are lawfully entitled to) with an individual club.  If you want to have a read of the Frustration Act 1943, you will see that a party who loses out because of circumstances that are beyond either parties control is protected by statute.  Court action would be a very last resort and only applicable if an amicable solution cannot be reached.  You don't even know whether sponsors have paid in stage payments or all up front.

Players cannot move to other clubs because as we've discovered ourselves, the squad lists submitted in January cannot be altered/amended.

I think it is you who is blinkered pal.  You don't seem to have thought this through very well or researched it.

Try to think logically.

In your attempt to reinforce your opinion, you are stating the obvious.  However, you are ignoring the less obvious.  To my mind, that is a blinkered view.

Football sponsorship tends to be for a period of time and cannot be adjusted prorata so I do not understand how you can say they would be due a lawful refund.  It's not like the sponsor can give something back to get that refund.

It's interesting that you raise 'Frustration'.  It depends on the terms of the specific contract and whether it has been written out, or not.  What does the contract the PL have with TV companies say.  It is the obvious point that everybody has been ignoring.  The question that is not being asked.  Why!!

Missed the point again about what I was saying about players' contracts.  A player whose contract finishes on 30th June and is going to another club, will at the 30th June just say "see ya" and be off,  they cannot force him to extend his contract, especially if he has a pre-contract agreement.

I am not blinkered (pal!).  I am raising points that you are ignoring.  I am not trying to prove one way or another, so I do not have to research it.  I will leave that to the people that will make the decisions.  It is not that important to me as I am losing my love for football as I get older.  Even more so when I see people dying and losing their income through this virus and football is saying "we must carry on".

Whether it is football, politics or whatever, what annoys me is the media failing to ask questions that they know the answers will kill off their argument or continuation of their agenda to make money.

I'm sorry - This is just nonsense.

Frustration has nothing to do with specific terms of a contract.  Frustration occurs when a contract cannot be fulfilled because of unforeseen circumstances that are the fault of neither party.

The fact that you do not understand how a party is legally entitled to recover money paid in the event of frustration tells me that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

A bespoke contract can be made up as the two parties agree (with some limitations).  Clauses from standard forms of contract can be struck out if both parties agree.  I work in the construction industry and as you can imagine at this point in time everybody is going through their contracts with a fine-tooth comb to see what it says about force majeure and whether parties have acted correctly to follow the 'frustration' route.  So, yes, I do understand.

[Brassneck]

As I stated previously, frustration is now regulated by an Act of Parliment.  It has nothing to do with the terms of a contract unless you are suggesting that parties would waive the right of protection from frustration by specifically entering a clause?  Again, this is just ridiculous.  The Act protects both parties equally, ie the payer and the payee.  The only grey area is that expenses are allowed to be recovered. 

[paul_e]

A lot of arguments to be made here but the important one is the issue of player contracts. It is an absolute minefield. Many players (across the world) will have signed pre-contracts to start with a new club on July 1st, those contracts can't be ignored so the idea of enforced temporary contracts is in shaky ground to start with but that's just the beginning of the problem. The way squad registrations works means plenty of teams, if they allow those players to move on, will be left with weakened squads, even if they have replacements coming in those players can't be added to the squads unless the league agree to allow new squads to be submitted. However allowing that is a change to the rules of the competition whilst it's in progress which runs the risk of legal challenges. What would there be to stop teams from signing free transfer players onto pre-contracts as a means of artifically improving their squad, some of those deals could even be short term until the games are played out. This is all purely on the back of player contracts and you're already into potentially huge changes to the operation of the league.

As I've said before if the season can't finish by the end on June I don't see how they can ensure a fair resolution. If they try do push this through I'd be very interested to see what they offer to clubs to enable it. Other than Liverpool who benefits from finishing the season from this point? I can't see anyone in the bottom 6 agreeing to it, I doubt many of the midtable teams will care much either way and I don't see much benefit to Man City or Leicester. The only counter arguments are money related so again this comes down to an argument between finances and integrity

[old man villa fan]

As I stated previously, frustration is now regulated by an Act of Parliment.  It has nothing to do with the terms of a contract unless you are suggesting that parties would waive the right of protection from frustration by specifically entering a clause?  Again, this is just ridiculous.  The Act protects both parties equally, ie the payer and the payee.  The only grey area is that expenses are allowed to be recovered. 

Frustration in contractual terms does not just happen.  You have to demonstrate that you have followed the contract to do all things that contractually you can before you can claim frustration as a way of terminating a contract.  If a contract is terminated through 'frustration', it is as if the contract was never in existence.

I am getting frustrated by your attitude of being 'the heavy' in use of words.  Commonplace in social media but could be construed as bullying elsewhere.  I'll leave you to continue your discussions with others.  I will continue to watch and read with what little interest I still have.

[Brassneck]

As I stated previously, frustration is now regulated by an Act of Parliment.  It has nothing to do with the terms of a contract unless you are suggesting that parties would waive the right of protection from frustration by specifically entering a clause?  Again, this is just ridiculous.  The Act protects both parties equally, ie the payer and the payee.  The only grey area is that expenses are allowed to be recovered. 

Frustration in contractual terms does not just happen.  You have to demonstrate that you have followed the contract to do all things that contractually you can before you can claim frustration as a way of terminating a contract.  If a contract is terminated through 'frustration', it is as if the contract was never in existence.

I am getting frustrated by your attitude of being 'the heavy' in use of words.  Commonplace in social media but could be construed as bullying elsewhere.  I'll leave you to continue your discussions with others.  I will continue to watch and read with what little interest I still have.

But here's the thing - Nobody is claiming frustration.  Every party is trying their utmost best to ensure that frustration does not occur.  Then you get people like you jumping in, calling those more knowledgeable than yourself "blinkered", whilst posting nonsense.

Do you not think that it is because of the potential of frustration that parties are still looking at ways to ensure contracts are fulfilled?

You seem to be now arguing the exact opposite from when you first posted.  You first stated that clubs could be sued if they tried to finish the season - Now you are claiming that they need to do everything possible to finish the season.  Perhaps it's for the best that you leave the discussion.

[mr underhill]

well, that view could equally apply to you.

[Damo70]

If we say for example it could well be June at the earliest we start playing games again how many players the world over will be out of contract at that point?

[ChicagoLion]

There is a chain of contractual Liabilities that will not necessarily be contractually linked.
Here are the various links in the chain.
Players
Sponsors
Agents
Clubs
Agents
Sponsors
Local. Associations PL EFL
Sponsors
Tv Companies
International Football Associations
Sponsors
Tv Companies
Different sponsors can appear at different levels, there are Multiple Domestic and International TV contracts.
I may have missed some out here and have not taken into account normal business operating considerations. Subscribers Debenture Holders or Season Ticket Holders.
All of the parties are dependent upon the others.
This is extremely complex and there will not be enough revenue to satisfy the contractual obligations all the way down the food chain and pretty much everybody will lose out. So it is a question of who takes the hit and how this apportioned.
It is also worth considering that these contracts were drawn up in the pre Crisis world.
They are unlikely to be sustainable in the new world order because pretty much every one will have been severely impacted financially.

[PeterWithesShin]

Tottenham have reversed their decision to use the government's furlough scheme for some non-playing staff during the coronavirus crisis following criticism from supporters.

On 31 March, the club announced 550 employees would take a 20% pay cut in an attempt "to protect jobs".

But on Monday, a Spurs statement said non-playing staff will receive "100% of their pay for April and May".

Only board members will now take salary reductions, the statement added.

That includes chairman Daniel Levy, who earned £7m last year.

Levy said: "We regret any concern caused during an anxious time and hope the work our supporters will see us doing in the coming weeks, as our stadium takes on a whole new purpose, will make them proud of their club.

Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Club (THST) - which had on Friday urged the club to "do the right thing" and reverse the decision, saying "mass supporter opinion against these decisions had solidified" - thanked directors "for finding an alternative way forward".

"This is the first step, but a big step, in restoring relations between fans and the club," the group added.

Spurs' statement on Monday said: "With no clarity on when football might resume, and under what conditions, we shall continue to keep this under ongoing review.

"We are acutely aware that many supporters were against the decision we made regarding furloughing staff who could not carry out their jobs from home.

"This once again underlines that we bear different pressures to other businesses, many of whom have and will continue to apply for support from the scheme as the government intended."

The Premier League club added they would continue to consult with stakeholders and the THST, "who share our desire to protect jobs".

Spurs also announced they will become the first club in the Premier League to provide equipment at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium for drive-through Covid-19 testing for NHS staff and their families.

Newcastle United, Bournemouth and Norwich City are among the Premier League clubs to announce they will furlough some non-playing staff.

Leaders Liverpool have already reversed their decision to place some non-playing staff on temporary leave and apologised to fans following a fierce backlash.

[Mister E]

... As I've said before if the season can't finish by the end on June I don't see how they can ensure a fair resolution. If they try do push this through I'd be very interested to see what they offer to clubs to enable it. Other than Liverpool who benefits from finishing the season from this point? I can't see anyone in the bottom 6 agreeing to it, I doubt many of the midtable teams will care much either way and I don't see much benefit to Man City or Leicester. The only counter arguments are money related so again this comes down to an argument between finances and integrity

Define fair - it all depends on your perspective and your interests in the matter.

[old man villa fan]

... As I've said before if the season can't finish by the end on June I don't see how they can ensure a fair resolution. If they try do push this through I'd be very interested to see what they offer to clubs to enable it. Other than Liverpool who benefits from finishing the season from this point? I can't see anyone in the bottom 6 agreeing to it, I doubt many of the midtable teams will care much either way and I don't see much benefit to Man City or Leicester. The only counter arguments are money related so again this comes down to an argument between finances and integrity

Define fair - it all depends on your perspective and your interests in the matter.

I would have thought it refers to the first paragraph and the comment on out of contract players.