Bet Everton didn’t have any .. there’s no positives around this club at the momentApparently there were 42 positives in the Premier League in the last round of testing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bet Everton didn’t have any .. there’s no positives around this club at the momentApparently there were 42 positives in the Premier League in the last round of testing.
Apparently there were 42 positives in the Premier League in the last round of testing.
And none from Man U who have postponed their game vs Brentford. I wonder if there will be the same media pile on that we got? Unlikely.Sounds like about 40 of them were your lot if you’ve had to cancel games.
And none from Man U who have postponed their game vs Brentford. I wonder if there will be the same media pile on that we got? Unlikely.
I take it you think everybody is against you lot? Poor youCity last year got away with it and got a nice rest during the hectic festive period, closed the training ground for 24 hours then the full squad was back training like nothing happened.
United doing the exact same thing.
Arsenal 1st game of the season had a outbreak and had to play a weakened team against Brentford.
Aston Villa two weeks after the Man City "outbreak" were told to play kids in the fa cup tie.
Seems Richard Masters bows down to the Mancs every whim.
Who was that team that was supposed to play City when the "outbreak" happened, i'm cannot remember now, the said club asked for clarification from the PL and from Man City and didn't get a answer.I take it you think everybody is against you lot? Poor you
But it was your club wasn’t it mate?Who was that team that was supposed to play City when the "outbreak" happened, i'm cannot remember now, the said club asked for clarification from the PL and from Man City and didn't get a answer.
Maybe you can help me Mate?
Yeah I agree. It was more tongue in cheek to be honest, given our current plight!Unlikely for the same reasons as the last time. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is enormous, failing to finish the season means having to give it back, and to make matters worse teams are generally in much weaker financial shape than they were before the pandemic.
The dynamic of overcommitting funds not yet earned, followed by an unexpected setback, is often what ends a long boom cycle for any business. Clubs are not going to make matters worse for themselves on that front if at all possible. City, Chelsea and perhaps United and Newcastle might cynically support such a position to hamstring the opposition, but there would be way too much pushback from the rest of the clubs for that position to have a hope of carrying unless the government shuts them down.
ThisApparently. Can't be long before football is behind closed doors again.
Gone on then tell me? And you believe Twitter, well done you. I saw on twitter 'it was Chelsea' , should I believe that?Who was that team that was supposed to play City when the "outbreak" happened, i'm cannot remember now, the said club asked for clarification from the PL and from Man City and didn't get a answer.
Maybe you can help me Mate?
Also i'm seeing on Twitter that United have 20 first teamers who got negative tests.
If I had to guess, a (shorter) suspension of play followed by returning to behind closed doors seems like a good bet. The TV money is so big these days that sacrificing the gate in order to retain TV revenue is the smart play for virtually every top division club. Those clubs can subsist for a good long while on partial gate over the course of a season.Yeah I agree. It was more tongue in cheek to be honest, given our current plight!
I wouldn’t be overly surprised if there was to be another break ala 19/20* though, or at the very least a reduction in capacities