Season Restart

[roversfan99]

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But how can they fully earn it if other clubs didnt want to unfurlough their players and restart the season for financial reasons? Why should teams miss out about playing so well all season until this pandemic hit and was in good form? 

That's cos they are only 23 teams in league 1 so you cant have played the number of games. Wycombe would have played Bury that weekend before the season stopped. 

I am not saying that they can have the opportunity to finish the job off of earning promotion or relegation. I am well aware that financially and logistically it is impossible to do so, you dont have to keep replying to every one of my post stating as such. I know and have acknowledged it and have never said that they should or can finish the season.

I am aware of why teams have games in hand, but why is irrelevant, they do and its one of many reasons I have listed above as to why you cant maintain fairness and integrity by extraoplating the results of an incomplete season. Therefore the only fair alternative is to scrap the season. Its harsh on all teams in terms of work they have done but ultimately none had finalised any achievements and PPG is flawed in so many ways as listed above.

[JHRover]

Every division should be treated the same and adopt the same approach. That's the idea behind The Football League. Member clubs big or small each have a share and a say.

If one division cannot conclude due to Covid then none should conclude. If 3 can conclude then they should pool their resources (vast) to ensure the rest can conclude.

If it was 1985 the whole lot would have gone. The only reason the top 2 are continuing is due to the obscene amount of money on offer that clubs are now utterly dependent on, meaning they have to do as instructed by the media companies or risk them pulling the plug on funding. 

Anyone who thinks the top 2 divisions are carrying on because they want to do the right thing, boost morale or whatever excuse they come out with needs to get a grip.

Sky want like football and they will make sure they get it to their captive audience sat at home with nothing else to do.

Good news for those who enjoy their football on TV but bad news for the league pyramid and its future.

A frankly laughable situation with different leagues doing all different things. It is a disgrace. Once again the governing bodies nowhere to be seen allowing clubs to make their own minds up on what happens.

 

[G Somerset Rover]

Mowbray trending on Twitter. I thought to myself ‘that is so Venkys’ timing wise. But alas it’s because John Barnes is having a pop saying he didn’t get as much time at Celtic as others with ‘just as bad records’. Roll on the bloody start of football, please.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Gavlar Somerset Rover!

[simongarnerisgod]

1 hour ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

Mowbray trending on Twitter. I thought to myself ‘that is so Venkys’ timing wise. But alas it’s because John Barnes is having a pop saying he didn’t get as much time at Celtic as others with ‘just as bad records’. Roll on the bloody start of football, please.

iv`e no doubt if celtic had let barnes carry on he`d have led them to the bottom half of the spl,an unbelievable fete?he could`nt even hack it at tranmere ffs,great player,terrible coach and shocking  pundit

[pjt]

If it was the cost of testing that stopped the League 1 and League 2 completing the season, maybe the EFL should have funded the tests rather than expecting the clubs to? PPG with relegation/promotion between  league 1 and the championship which are playing the outstanding games doesn't seem very fair.

 

[roversfan99]

Wigan have offered 3 options including refunds:

https://wiganathletic.com/news/2020/june/2019-20-Season-Cards-and-Match-Streaming/

Preston have also announced details on streaming but not sure theres an option for refunds.

Surely Rovers should announce soon. Very annoying that it cant be streamed on a tv.

[RevidgeBlue]

6 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

The option of completing the season may aswell be left out of the debate, clearly not an option.

It seems to have split people as to the fairest choice between PPG and scrapping a season. Here are the reasons why:

- None of the teams had fully earnt their promotions or relegations. 

- Things can change, if it had have been stopped a week or two before or after the situation would have been different. Things would have undoubtedly changed between now and the end of the season.

- Teams hadnt played the same amount of games. I appreciate that PPG factors that in but its crazy for example that Wycombes game in hand could have either put them level on points with 2nd or left them in 7th. Shows how flawed PPG is.

- Teams have massively different difficulties in terms of teams faced. Teams have therefore accumulated points against varying difficulties of teams which is totally unfair. I know the Championship is being finished but you look at the average position of teams remaining fixtures, Millwall are 2 points off 6th place PNE but have a far more favourable run in.

- Teams have also got different numbers of home and away games left.

- You mention that whichever 3 teams are relegated from the Championship deserve it and will have fully earnt it. But the 3 promoted teams wont have done. How you can have such inconsistency when the EFL claims one of their primary objectives was consistency beggars belief.

I appreciate that hard work goes to waste but thats not reason enough to use a formula to extrapolate results in an unfair and flawed way. Thats literally the only reason to use PPG and it not a valid or strong reason to do so. The season was not completed therefore it for me is as simple as that.

As we've said a million times before this is an unprecedented situation and no one solution is completely fair or will keep everyone happy.

It all boils down to the fact as to whether it's fairer to scrap a season that's been 80 % completed already or use what has happened thus far to calculate finishing positions. I can't even begin to understand why anyone would think the first option is fairer but each to their own I suppose.

To answer one or two of your points:

- obviously things can change, but there's probably been times when a team has fallen into the bottom 3 for the first time on the final day of the season and on the face of it that doesn't really seem particularly fair either. It's just a different cut off point this season due to necessity.

- You can't relegate and promote based on bare positions when the season was stopped as some teams had played more games. PPG goes some way to addressing this.

-  whilst there might be a slight variation in run ins if you're in the bottom 3 after 37 or so games it's basically because you've been rubbish all season. It's not because all your hard games were weighted up front and the easier ones are yet to come.

- one of my main gripes is that teams in danger of being relegated Ifrom the top 2 leagues seem to want to complete their fixtures to secure their TV revenue and hopefully play their way out of trouble. Then if they're not good enough and that doesn't work they want to claim that any Clubs below them who haven't completed their fixtures (through no fault of their own) should not be promoted.

They want to have their cake and eat it.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by RevidgeBlue

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, pjt said:

If it was the cost of testing that stopped the League 1 and League 2 completing the season, maybe the EFL should have funded the tests rather than expecting the clubs to? PPG with relegation/promotion between  league 1 and the championship which are playing the outstanding games doesn't seem very fair.

 

I think the one thing you can criticise the EFL for is leaving the decision on whether they wanted to finish the season in the hands of the Clubs.

Realistically only the 3 Clubs currently in the relegation places and the ones in say 7th -11 th are going to want to carry on staging games BCD with stringent testing at a huge loss therefore if you only need a 51% majority the vote is a foregone conclusion.

That said if the EFL had ordered the Clubs to complete their fixtures (which would have been nice) it really would have been incumbent upon them to secure the funding and maybe that really wasnt available.

Or maybe they didn't try. Who knows.

Edited June 10, 2020 by RevidgeBlue

[roversfan99]

22 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

As we've said a million times before this is an unprecedented situation and no - one solution is completely fair or will keep everyone happy.

It all boils down to the fact as to whether it's fairer to scrap a season that's been 80 % completed already or use what has happened thus far to calculate finishing positions. I can't even begin to understand why anyone would think the first option is fairer but each to their own I suppose.

To answer one or two of your points:

- obviously things can change, but there's probably been times when a team has fallen into the bottom 3 for the first time on the final day of the season and on the face of it that doesn't really seem particularly fair either. It's just a different cut off point this season due to necessity.

- You can't relegate and promote based on bare positions when the season was stopped as some teams had played more games. PPG goes some way to addressing this.

-  whilst there might be a slight variation in run ins if you're in the bottom 3 after 37 or so games it's basically because you've been rubbish all season. It's not because all your hard games were weighted up front and the easier ones are yet to come.

- one of my main gripes is that teams in danger of being relegated Ifrom the top 2 leagues seem to want to complete their fixtures to secure their TV revenue and hopefully play their way out of trouble. Then if they're not good enough and that doesn't work they want to claim that any Clubs below them who haven't completed their fixtures (through no fault of their own) should not be promoted.

They want to have their cake and eat it.

 

 

But the fixture list is pre agreed to play each team twice, home and away. Its not just a random cut off, its a pre agreed and consistent format that remains the same each year. It IS fair if a team is relegated after falling into the bottom 3 on the final day because at the END of a COMPLETED season in which every team has played each team home and away, at that point the league table doesnt lie. To make out as if where the season has stopped is just a different but equally valid cut off (admittedly due to necessity) is not an accurate repesentation. 

Apologies to the poster who posted it but there was a table posted yesterday showing the significantly variable differences in remaining fixture lists. Teams DO have advantages and disadvantages from their run in, and that is an unavoidable unfair advantage or disadvantage no matter how you try and dismiss it. It might be the point that makes the difference lost in a tough fixture against a top team when your rival was playing a poorer team that you was hoping to make up.

You seem to have adopted a mentality whereby if you were in a bad position when the league was without pre warning cut short, you deserve any punishment that comes to you. Its a very harsh way of looking at it, various factors come in to it, financial resources, injuries etc but ultimately until youve made it mathematically impossible not to be able to recover then you either deserve a chance if possible to save yourself, if that isnt possible which it isnt then you dont just deserve punishing anyway.

You are also only focusing on the teams who have missed out on promotions and not those who will suffer mathematically provoked relegations. If a club is willing to play out its season but obviously something it cannot control means a club in a lower division hasnt earnt their promotion, you cant blame them for that. I havent seen any clubs claiming that but I as a neutral think it would be unfair so even if a club is sticking up for their own self interest it is still a valid point.

I get that you dont want to waste the work that has gone into the games played to date and it is desperately unfortunate but it is not a reason to just force through an unavoidably flawed mathematically derived conclusion just to justify that football played.

[Stuart]

“80% of the season completed” is exactly the reason it should be null void.

Some clubs are going to be relegated with 20% of the season left to play!

This could cause financial ruin for them through no fault of their own. Conversely, any club who faces financial ruin because they don’t get promoted has really only themselves to blame.

There is nothing fair about a PPG finish and teams promoted or safe will vote against it. Only relegated teams and those who could make the play-offs would vote against which would almost certainly be less than half.

Finishing a season with a set of different rules isn’t the same season anyway. The current situation is about Liverpool and Leeds.

“Having your cake and eating it too” is calling the situation “unprecedented” and also saying “the show must go on”.

[roversfan99]

Rovers have released some information regarding the rest of the season:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2020/june/rovers-provide-further-update-on-streaming-service/

Essentially the solitary option is streaming the games BCD on your laptop. Refunds which other Championship teams have offered (both home and away strangely, I got a Barnsley refund as soon as the game was called off) and numerous STH's in a same household not getting value by sharing the same link or even those with no computer or internet access are basically expected to grin and bear it with a touch of guilt tripping/woe is me and a fancy hashtag thrown in for good measure.

I personally am ok watching the streams and do to an extent understand the need to preserve cash flow. But I think they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Quite a few people have no interest in BCD football streamed on a laptop. I suspect many would take up the streaming and I am content enough personally to do it but those who arent interested could be lost long term treating them like this not even offering them the option of a refund, even if it is a deferred one until next season if that is open to fans at some point.

I cant say I am surprised though.

[Hasta]

Let the carnage commence......

[Mattyblue]

Hang on? I thought the ticket office were working really hard to ensure YOU WILL GET A REFUND?

These quotes say that unlike most clubs there won’t be any refunds, instead going for the ‘are you committed?’, ‘stand with us’, guilt trip line. Anyone would think we were owned by the local butcher, not billionaires.

‘During this unprecedented period, we are urging Rovers fans to stand with us and show their support, as we work towards a successful end to the season and a brighter future for everyone connected to the club.

Rovers would like to reassure supporters that the effects of the Coronavirus on our community are of the upmost concern to everyone at the club and we appreciate that fans and their families will have been presented with financial challenges as a result. We also appreciate your understanding of the financial issues the club have and are currently facing, as a result of being unable to host supporters inside Ewood Park. Refunding supporters would come at a significant financial cost to the club, at a time when our revenues have reduced to zero, and would have a serious detrimental effect on the club’s operations going forward. We therefore believe the best value solution for both supporters and the club is providing season ticket holders with free access to all of the remaining live streamed games. In order to safeguard the future of the club, we would ask supporters to stand with us and not request cash refunds, which will ensure the club remains on the strongest financial footing possible in order to work towards our collective goals as #OneRoversTogether.

 

I’ll watch the steams, and I personally wouldn’t have asked for a refund anyway. However, at least half of ST holders wont be interested in a stream, because they aren’t tech savvy, elderly or simply as they paid to watch live football in Ewood Park, not an internet stream.

Of course, social media will be alive with ‘great move Rovers’, ‘get behind the club’, ‘can’t believe anybody would ask for a refund’ (many of them who won’t even be ST holders)

But in the real world, many ST holders will be bemused and if they expect anywhere near 9,000 people to renew next season (or whenever fans are allowed back) in the midst of a global depression with a fanbase out of the habit of attending, without any discount to acknowledge the loyalty and good faith of the fanbase who have ‘stood together’ with the club, then they are in line for a rude awakening, as history tells us Rovers fans show their dissatisfaction by quietly withdrawing their wallets at renewal time.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Mattyblue

[JHRover]

An entirely predictable approach by Rovers which has been inevitable since the season was curtailed.

It will be interesting to see how many simply accept it and how many take it further and demand their money back. I'm not sure on the legalities of it as the terms and conditions and customer charter dont appear to address circumstances in which paid fans are unable to be given access to the ground.

There is clearly something unfair and wrong when those who bought single match tickets can claim a replacement for a future fixture whilst no such benefits for loyal season ticket holders.

I thought season ticket holders got the benefits and best value? Seemingly not.

They havent even answered their own questions. No answer to what happens if you don't have internet or computer despite them asking the question.

Very disappointed with this approach. I suspect our Championship rivals will put us to shame. There will inevitably be a backlash. It might not be an avalanche of people with pitchforks demanding money but instead a sharp decline in future renewals. Reap what you sow

I could buy into the community spirit stuff if I could see sacrifices being made by the very well paid players, coaches or executives. I don't see that though.

[Guest]

I'd like to issue a public apology to @Paul. The clubs most recent statement IS a complete abandonment of the supporters, I'm completely disgusted by it and I think you most definitely now have every right to be angry. 

Amazed at the response they've given here.

[roversfan99]

The thing is, how much would a refund be for a season ticket holder, say it works out at around £60. How many season ticket holders do we have? About 10k, maybe slightly less, so the maximum refund there is 600k. And it goes without saying that it wouldnt end close to that figure, I would be amazed if it got close to half of that.

It does rankle a little more when this week the latest accounts were submitted and directors remuneration more than doubled, increasing by £288k. I suspect that amount will be more than the amount that they would have been expected to refund had the option been available.

Even if it was a deferred refund, ie it wouldnt immediately harm the cash flow, that would make sense because it could be offset against a future season ticket purchase. As it is, there may be a few for whom there will be no season ticket purchase in the future so its a terrible and short sighted move by the club.

@Mattyblue great post and bang on with the guilt tripping, and also the fact that im sure many will come out the woodwork on social media desperately trying to defend the club, as you say many of whom wont be ST holders so wont be personally effected. I also will watch the streams but it doesnt mean that the club hasnt made a massive own goal here. The damage done will be seen in seasons to come.

[roversfan99]

Another much more random point regarding ifollow, why are match passes cheaper for those out of the country?

[arbitro]

I knew they would play the skint card and try and garner sympathy. Don't we have wealthy owners?

If they offered different solutions like Derby did I would have probably just let them have my cash but the Hobsons Choice they have offered is unacceptable to me.

[rigger]

21 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Hang on? I thought the ticket office were working really hard to ensure YOU WILL GET A REFUND?

These quotes say that unlike most clubs there won’t be any refunds, instead going for the ‘are you committed?’, ‘stand with us’, guilt trip line. Anyone would think we were owned by the local butcher, not billionaires.

‘During this unprecedented period, we are urging Rovers fans to stand with us and show their support, as we work towards a successful end to the season and a brighter future for everyone connected to the club.

Rovers would like to reassure supporters that the effects of the Coronavirus on our community are of the upmost concern to everyone at the club and we appreciate that fans and their families will have been presented with financial challenges as a result. We also appreciate your understanding of the financial issues the club have and are currently facing, as a result of being unable to host supporters inside Ewood Park. Refunding supporters would come at a significant financial cost to the club, at a time when our revenues have reduced to zero, and would have a serious detrimental effect on the club’s operations going forward. We therefore believe the best value solution for both supporters and the club is providing season ticket holders with free access to all of the remaining live streamed games. In order to safeguard the future of the club, we would ask supporters to stand with us and not request cash refunds, which will ensure the club remains on the strongest financial footing possible in order to work towards our collective goals as #OneRoversTogether.

 

I’ll watch the steams, and I personally wouldn’t have asked for a refund anyway. However, at least half of ST holders wont be interested in a stream, because they aren’t tech savvy, elderly or simply as they paid to watch live football in Ewood Park, not an internet stream.

Of course, social media will be alive with ‘great move Rovers’, ‘get behind the club’, ‘can’t believe anybody would ask for a refund’ (many of them who won’t even be ST holders)

But in the real world, many ST holders will be bemused and if they expect anywhere near 9,000 people to renew next season (or whenever fans are allowed back) in the midst of a global depression with a fanbase out of the habit of attending, without any discount to acknowledge the loyalty and good faith of the fanbase who have ‘stood together’ with the club, then they are in line for a rude awakening.

 

I would say, how many buy season tickets will largely depend on price. Until that is known it is all speculation.

[chaddyrovers]

very surprise that Rovers haven't offer refunds to supporters who don't want watch the game on stream. Poor action by the club. Even if it was discount for a season ticket next season or as Roversfan99 has said a deferral refund. 

Does any anybody on here have a ifollow pass already before this crisis? Can they say how good the stream is and will it cope with extra demand?

 

[laughatthedingles]

I don’t see the problem in it.

Well done to the club for sorting all this out and the clear communication! I won’t be asking for any refunds, they’ve always been more than fair, 9 remaining games free = £90 worth, that’s more then my 4 remaining tickets, on average they are around £15 a game, that’s £60, I’m £30 in profit. Another way to look at it, I had a ticket for 4 games that can no longer happen. I now have a ticket for the only way to watch all 9!

Also I know by saying they’ll reflect our support with next season’s season ticket prices means they’ll make sure they’re as reasonable as always! Come on you blues, let’s get in those play offs!

They will refund if people want but they won’t get full value of the £90 you spend on iFollow so it’s a win win. Would cost them £500k+ to refund everyone, they may recoup way less than half that on iFollow buys and the same people would moan they aren’t spending money in the summer!

[Mattyblue]

£90? £40 you mean, as you don’t buy a ST for away games. 

’Reasonable as always next season’, So no loyalty discount for ST holders next season for waiving nearly a quarter of a season they’ve paid for, then?

Edited June 11, 2020 by Mattyblue

[laughatthedingles]

Just now, Mattyblue said:

£90? £40 you mean, as you don’t buy a ST for away games. 

’Reasonable as always?’ So no loyalty discount for ST holders next season for waiving nearly a quarter of a season they’ve paid for, then?

They’re giving you access to ALL games, away included 

[Mattyblue]

I know they are, but ST holders pay for home games, so it doesn’t matter if a refund wouldn’t match £90. 
 

[laughatthedingles]

Always find the season tickets holders wanting extra stuff odd. You get a ticket because you want to see all the games. Your ‘bonus’ for that is your ticket is guaranteed and you get around 9 games free if worked out compared to someone buying each game. Surely that’s enough?

 

those buying game by game spend nearly double!