Should be a simple thing really. Question 1. Is the situation (deaths per day etc) low risk enough to consider having games in front of fans? Yes - Go ahead with precautions. No - Wait. Question 2. Is the situation low risk enough to consider having games behind closed doors? Yes - Go ahead with precautions. No - Wait. Delay and/or null and void where appropriate. Obviously the question all falls around what the guideline is in regards to low risk. Maybe under x amount of deaths and infections for x period of time. Maybe when far enough down the chart out of 5. Maybe when either of these are in place and players are willing to co-operate. But dont consider legalities and finances until these 2 questions are answered.

I can see how that may be the case from now in terms of new contracts but I dont see how players on current (especially long term) contracts "are going to have to accept" wage cuts, says who? How can that be enforced? Aside from a potential temporary drop whilst players are not requested to come into work, however if the Premier League (and Championship) do enforce that the season starts again in June against all logic then even that wont be happening as they will be back in training imminently. 5 years is a very specific and quite random duration to pick though, as I suspect (and hope) that it will be much before then that supporters can attend games. Its hard to have too much sympathy with Premier League clubs and their finances to be honest. Last summer saw a spend of £1.4bn incredibly. Surely the first thing to expect is that surely no transfer fees will be spent this summer. I dont get this insistence that promotions and relegations HAVE to be enforced regardless of how unfairly and in terms of risk to health how imorally they are decided upon. Ive yet to see a valid reason. I also understand the need for clarity amd transparency but not for a plan ie deciding on everything now. Null and void is the most sensible way to buy time in a very fluid and unprecedented time. A plan is not needed right now because we dont know the situation in say 2 months. At that point, deaths may have gone down significantly enough to start the new season at a normal start date and the teams can agree to open games up to fans if and when possible during the season with a blank canvas in terms of positions and before fixtures are arranged. If not, the season can be further delayed. For me, the sensible thing would be to cancel the European competitions including Euro 2020(or 2021) to allow the domestic calendar to be delayed even further anyway, buying more time.

None of your reasons are good enough to prompt a season being rushed through. Couldnt give a shite what Greg Clarke has said to be honest, I just know that there is no way that considering that (weekend lag affects weekend figures) that there were consistently 500-700 deaths a day last week, that football should be being played. End of. Players are publically coming out and saying as such too. Each time a player gets a positive reading a huge spanner is put in the works. Even if the League or teams pay for the testing themselves, to get games on, other vital resources will be used. Its not going to be fair whatever happens, there will be legal consequences whatever happens, and the clubs from League 1 below are totaly unaffected by the decision anyway, ie the most vulnerable because their season re-start isnt under consideration. All your hot air about player wages, that can be discussed, but it is NOT AS IMPORTANT AS HEALTH. If you also saw 500-700 daily deaths as good enough reason to not be able to play football in the next month or 2. And it was points per game v null and void and the former was deemed fairer, that would be absolutely crazy. I think you are just desperate to see football that you cannot look past the main fact staring in front of you.

The thing is though, there will be legal issues regardless of what happens. An equal number of teams will miss out on promotions and be relegated. Even if legalities were an important priority to the decision makers, which it cant be with health involved, then its a flawed reason anyway. You make a good point about the Champions League. It makes sense to skip a season of European competition barring a drastic and quite frankly unrealistic drop right across Europe. That then ties in nicely with the problem with not finishing the season in terms of continental competition.

If you are putting a desire to have promotions and relegations, an ill thought out desire to protect the future of football clubs or even the again flawed logic to prevent legal issues, then subconciously you are not putting health and safety first. Why does their HAVE to be promotion and relegation? There doesnt, end of. Is that ideal? Obviously not. Is it fair? No, but no way possible to complete a season is going to be fair now, thats something you are not grasping. I am not 100% sure if null and void is a possibility. Firstly, I am sure that the relevant men in suits will try desperately to cobble something together even if it is putting peoples health at risk and a heavily flawed and thus system. But with the potential of players testing positive or nor fully co-operating with the proposals, just because the men in suits want it financially, I am skeptical about how smoothly it will go. Lower league clubs are important yes. But my point is that it seems only the Premier League and maybe Championship will be potentially tried to complete anyway so the current proposals do not make a difference to the futures of lower league clubs so your point on that is illogical. Theres only one question that needs asking. Is the current death toll low enough to consider rushing through the season with time already of the essence? The answer is definitely not. All of your quite frankly flawed, illogical and ignorant points about financial and legal issues are irrelevant once you get a no on that.

I dont think anyone doubts the fact that he had talent but conversly I think that he is overrated simply because he came from Barcelona and of course had the ability for occasional brilliance. He did a few things that were undoubtedly brilliant but didnt do enough to justify a place every week especially in a free role. When he scored it was usually a great goal but he would go 7 or 8 games doing absolutely nothing and whilst that sort of player will not necessarily be defensively the best he could be a particular liability at times. Im not sure he was as integral in other teams defensive tactics as you imply either. Looking from afar quickly at his career since, he has been at a decent level but again has never had a particularly impressive season in front of goal. Different player but Rhodes played under different managers and his output was consistently brilliant.

It doesnt have to be as black and white as that. The numbers are still far too high to risk finishing THIS season, and besides, the clubs most at risk would be clubs further down the pyramid where the Leagues will not resume anyway. The debate is about finishing this season, with bollocks like points per game brought in making things all inconsistent and various things affecting the scepticism anyway. But ultimately, the only priority is health and there are still too many deaths each day to justify rushing through the season. Null and void, then start from 20/21. Rather than rush through a quarter of a season whilst the numbers of deaths are still so high and the risk is still so high. Wait a couple of months when hopefully the numbers will have come down significantly. Where players are potentially going to be much less afraid. (Todd Cantwell, Sergio Aguero, Tyrone Mings and Danny Rose have all publically expressed doubts recently) With Premier League players (as well as Bundesliga 2, Serie A and La Liga players which for me all should also not finish their season) its just not feasible unless money is more important than health. Logistically, the side of it like legalities and financial which are far secondary to health and safety, it also is much easier. Teams dont have a conflict of interest in terms of their current league positions, its a level playing field. Plain and simple, health before business. That is clearly not a motto you abide by.

I would agree that there may have to be some sort of compromise in terms of wages. Maybe an option whereby their wage will be paid in full if they play and only receive a certain % if they would not like to risk it. In terms of gate receipts, they wont be coming in regardless so it may actually be financially beneficial for clubs if players do not play if that is the case dependant on the level of the cut. The main part amidst all this though is that surely the integrity is massively compromised even further if players quite understandably can choose whether they would like to play or not. It is ok the PM saying that football can go ahead, but that is the tip of the iceberg really. You have player welfare and co-operation, the morality of taking up so many tests even if privately funded, and the impact upon any positive test results which surely are inevitable and the potential cancellations that will follow. Just seems like too many hurdles to overcome to me. As you say regarding your comparison to people in warehouses, something which you do wonder as to whether it should have continued during the lockdown prior to yesterdays incredibly flawed speech from the PM, there is no direct comparison in terms of ability to maintain social distancing. Also, with certain procedures put into place, these other businesses can feasibly continue, whereas regardless of the decision in terms of football, a major aspect of potential revenue will be off the cards for a long while yet.

You have to appreciate that the wealth of footballers doesnt change the fact that they are people just like anyone else and are entitled like anyone else to have fears and concerns about the health, safety and wellbeing of themselves and their families. Ultimately you mention ordinary people having to work as normal, it has obviously not been as normal and they have been working because they are considered to be key workers.

It was always inevitable that some players would test positive. Already a game called off in Bundesliga 2 and surely some serious jeapordy as to whether the leagues can restart.

With a new season you have essentially a blank canvas and a level playing field. Aswell as this there is also the potential for consistency in terms of not just completing certain leagues, and of course in terms of advantages regarding fixtures etc, they havent even been drawn yet. The main driving force behind what course of action is best to take in terms of the 19/20 season will not be player welfare, health and safety or even the fairest way, it will be the way that benefits each individual club in terms of their current position. If a team is 24th, they would want to null and void the season. Take Liverpool, Leeds or West Brom, they would surely want to finish the season or even award it on PPG or similar. The team third in League 1 would certainly be happy with the proposal to only finish the Premiership and Championship, whereas 4th, 5th and 6th would be dead against it. There is also the additional issue of time in terms of trying to complete the 19/20 season quickly considering we would have had our last game at Luton last Sunday. And obviously the fact that next season can allow a couple of months to constantly monitor the situation without the same time pressure. It may well be that the whole of next season has to be behind closed doors to maintain integrity, but surely there would also be more scope for an agreement in terms of a willingness to open the doors to stadiums as soon as is possible in terms of health and safety PRIOR to fixtures being arranged. There are also various other issues that may cause further unfairness and lack of integrity that have been suggested or may be compromised, potential for VAR to be impossible, potential need for extra subs etc.

Another issue of potentially losing fairness and sporting integrity is a potential lack of VAR. If a decision goes against someone that would have been amended and corrected by VAR it is not fair. You cant have it for part but not all of a season.

Again potential legal issues are not the primary concern but the teams that go down or that dont get promoted will im sure suggest that it wasnt fair and that the integrity wasnt maintained playing behind closed doors at neutral stadiums and likewise the teams in 4th 5th and 6th in League 1 who are not promoted even though they occupied play off places and were in just as good as position as 3rd will I am sure issue legal proceedings. To think that finishing the season (well just the 2 top leagues) will remove any legal implications is naive and foolish. Playing behind closed doors especially if any players are unable to play due to having the virus or are unwilling to play will cause problems. NEITHER DECISION WILL BE TOTALLY FAIR! Another potential legal issue. You get more than the usual 3 subs. What happens if a 4th sub comes on and scores a winner? Is that fair? In your head, if the men in suits decide that the football will go ahead then it is all good to go no questions asked. With the potential for players to test positive and be unavailable or simply refuse to play that isnt the case. You keep using the words systems and procedures as if that is all that is needed, and as if they will 100% eliminate the risk within a contact sport and also ensure that everyone will be willing to play. This line about boosting the nations morale is a load of bollocks too. Footballers are not robots exempt from the virus or able to be wheeled out at the governments request to risk themselves and their families without having their own say.

My stance is very much that health should come before legal issues. But you dont seem to be able to grasp that there will be legal consequences NO MATTER HOW THE SEASON IS FINISHED/NOT FINISHED. Brighton are a good example, say they finish the season behind closed doors, and Brighton go down, they have more "home" games left and have publically stated that they feel that "sporting integrity" will have been compromised. Both finishing the season and not finishing the season will bring with it teams that feel cheated, legal proceedings and sporting integrity compromised, so such matters shouldnt be considered. Is it necessarily fair to put teams in Europe based on last season? No. But it is it fair to have teams promoted based on their season so far, which is not completed from League 1? Again, no. BOTH null and voiding AND finishing the season has a series of negative consequences, potential legal issues and neither maintain sporting integrity. To use that as a reason either way is not a credible reason. Your last paragraph makes little sense. Surely if it goes well in Germany, it can work in Italy? Even though 3 players in the same team have the virus! I personally believe that your understandable desperation to watch some football is making you only see issues in the prospect of nulling and voiding the season, even when there are very similar issues that are thrown up if you do complete the season behind closed doors. And you are under-appreciating the issue of player safety and of player willingness and co-operation by prioritising your one sided points regarding legal and financial issues above them.

I dont understand this focus on potential legal cases. If the season is finished behind closed doors, there will be legal cases. If the season is declared null and void, there will be legal cases. Whoever misses out will enforce legal proceedings. It shouldnt be an issue anyway, the legalities are not a reason to base a decision on in such a situation. You cannot maintain any sort of integrity by finishing the top league or top 2 leagues, but having a situation where some teams are relegated having played a full season and replaced by teams who havent been able to get promoted justifiably. Absolutely farcical. If its null and voided across the board then at least theres consistency. Essentially the 2019/2020 season is wiped from the record books, there is no need to rush teams to finish half arsed seasons, with potentially reluctant or unwilling players risking their health imminently, the season re starts after all clubs have had discussions over the summer regarding mutually agreed terms in regards to a potentially partially behind closed doors season. The leagues in which teams are in and continental qualification just is based on last season. Not ideal, but no way is ideal. Also, with games behind closed doors assuming the season is to be finished, income is massively restricted. The primary expense to a football club is player wages, which at the moment are reduced. Surely they would revert back to 100% if they were playing games again? I see that Fiorentina has had 6 new cases including 3 players and Torino also have a new one. This sort of thing will surely not be a one off.

My point is that I don't believe that any sort of plan or structure can prevent the high risk of the virus being spread playing a contact sport. I also believe that a predictable and understandable less than 100% willingness on the players behalf will further jeopardise the integrity and potentially stop any plans coming to fruition.

The clubs cant make players play against their will, its easy for some blokes in suits whether at the FA or in government to discuss it and allow it when its not them playing. If a decent enough amount of players dont want to, and if its true that players from 9 of 20 teams have shown reservations, then quite simply how can it go on?

You can never escape the fact that they will be playing a contact sport and are at risk of contracting the virus, regardless of precautions, safeguards and discussions theres only so much you can do. If players are unwilling which I can totally understand then it shouldnt and wont go ahead.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/11566057/project-restart-nine-clubs-players-opt-out-coronavirus/amp/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=sunsporttwitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true Surely it cant go ahead.

Bringing in minor measures seem fairly pointless when you consider that they are playing a contact sport.

But even if the German government has given their approval, there are so many questions to be answered as Blue blood mentions here, and things that could crop up (quite likely) such as players contracting the virus before the first game, what rules are in place ie does one player testing positive cause a cancellation, or do a certain number have to get it, its just a minefield. Players from the position of a very limited training period after a break, playing in masks in an empty stadium, lets say one of the players in the league as a minimum contracts the virus too between now and the season, I dont see how both the competitve edge and as Blue blood mentions the sporting integrity can be maintained, players knowing they are at risk of catching the virus and taking it home putting their family in danger. Another thing that I am not sure that has been considered is the opinions of the players. In England quite rightly a lot of media focus has turned to the welfare of the players with silly ideas like moving to Australia to play, shortening halves etc, there is no way that I can accept that every single player either here or in Germany is 100% happy and content to return to playing so soon. You mention the Championship chaddy, youve still the same problem regarding relegation to and promotion from League 1, makes no sense. I miss being able to watch and play football and would love to see it as soon as possible but I just cannot fathom how considering its nature and the nature of the virus, how its return can be considered enough of a priority to overcome the risks and the issues that it brings up.

I remain unconvinced that the German league will go ahead as planned, would a player testing positive cause that fixture or indeed the whole league to be called off? Are the players 100% willing to co-operate and play, presuming that many are fearful for their health? I appreciate that Germany is a totally different country that seems to have controlled things better than here for example but I am dubious at the moment. And if it does go ahead, in front of empty stadiums presumably with masks on and with an element of fear, surely the competitive edge will be somewhat lost. We will see.

Ultimately this question should be well down the list of priorities but its a fair one. If the season is null and void it essentially doesnt exist, no promotions, no relegations, start next season with the same teams in the same divisions. Its unfortunate, but its the only way, in terms of health, safety and even logistically. Going to Australia for example, you have the feelings of the players as you are banking on 100% co-operation, you are assuming that there is 0% risk in Australia, and even if that got finished there, you wouldnt be able to do the Championship too so it wouldnt resolve promotion/relegation. The last day of our season would have been yesterday, to put into context of the logistical nightmare that would ensue even if it was safe now. Legal reasons are NOT a reason to make a certain decision, as not only are they certainly down the list in terms of importance, but they are unavoidable however the season is ended/not ended. An equal amount of teams will feel hard done by no matter what. The FA should show some leadership and null and void the season now. You have teams coming in doing half arsed training sessions knowing full well that the date of the supposed restart is not feasible, but potentially increasing the risk. I think Mowbray said as much yesterday. That way, they can still stay somewhat in shape individually from home without increasing any risk, and there is a good couple of months whereby no further decision has to be rushed, and without the desperation to finish the 19/20 season hanging over like a cloud. The prize money can be agreed, ideally in a way whereby the Premier League money can trickle down effectively to keep lower clubs afloat, and distributed as soon as possible, another thing which will be delayed by trying to finish the season. The issue obviously wont go away before the start of next season, but we dont know the exact date when fans can attend games, even assuming that it will be safe before the end of next season. There is obviously plenty of time hopefully for clubs to come to an agreement whereby before the fixtures are arranged, games will be played behind closed doors until (and if) its safe to allow fans in. It is not essential but that would hopefully remove any legal ramifications from teams feeling they are disadvantaged, whilst not increasing the amount of time that supporters can not attend, and of course the financial issues that would be caused. I do appreciate and empathise with your desperation to get the football back but it just doesnt seem possible any time soon, and some clarity and a firm and immediate decision to null and void the season would be a big step in the right direction.