Saints vs Newcastle - Postponed

[adrian lord]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is just not true. The league rules state the club need to supply “Supporting medical information to verify the status of each unavailable player, which will be reviewed by the League’s medical advisers”. 

The tame, well-paid club doctor will write the necessary letters. 

 

And he doesn't play ball, off with his head!

[HarvSFC]

1 hour ago, Teddeer said:

Most of the 'injured' would have made miraculous recoveries if they were told to play on Sunday. Seen it happen at other clubs. It's playing the system aka cheating.

Indeed. Which is why their local journalist reported this morning that some of the players who were injured earlier in the week were back in training today, as of course they have to get some preparation/training in before the match on Sunday, if it was going to go ahead. It is likely that the Premier League made the decision to postpone the match prior to the learning of Newcastle having players back available, who they had to bring back in today as it was pretty much last minute to get those players ready for Sunday, as they believed this morning that the match was going ahead as planned.

All about timing.

Edited 31 December, 2021 by HarvSFC

[Manuel]

Fuck it.  We'll just have to beat them at a time convenient to them.  

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Billy the Kidd said:

Id imagine the reschedule fixture will play in Jan or early Feb. It may not be as bad as some think on here with their new signings and stuff.

Yep, I actually think this postponement could be a blessing in disguise. The Saints players and management should be more psyched up than usual before the rearranged kick off and any new-look Newcastle team won't have had time to gel by end-Jan/early Feb. I also think it being a home mid-week evening game will also work in our favour. 

#GlassHalfFull

 

[Disco Stu]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Yep, I actually think this postponement could be a blessing in disguise. The Saints players and management should be more psyched up than usual before the rearranged kick off and any new-look Newcastle team won't have had time to gel by end-Jan/early Feb. I also think it being a home mid-week evening game will also work in our favour. 

#GlassHalfFull

 

Unless it's a Wednesday.

[trousers]

26 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Fans aren't valued in the modern game unfortunately. You and me both will be out of pocket.

They would be breaking consumer law if they didn't give a refund upon request so, no, you won't be out of pocket if you can't make a rearranged match. 

[eurosaint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is just not true. The league rules state the club need to supply “Supporting medical information to verify the status of each unavailable player, which will be reviewed by the League’s medical advisers”. 
 

Their website also states that not having 13 players is only 1 reason  applications are accepted, they state that games have also been postponed recently for other reasons including, 
 

“Where the status of a COVID-19 outbreak within a club’s squad remains unclear very close to a match. For example, where there remains a concern that not all COVID-19 infections have been identified and there is insufficient time to resolve that concern before kick-off.
- Where the club does not have sufficient time to safely prepare its players in the lead up to a match. For example, where the UK Health Security Agency has requested the closure of a training ground and suspension of group training following an outbreak during the preparation period ahead of a match.”

 

Just calling people cunts without know the full reasons for the postponement, without knowing what evidence has been presented and what checks were made is pretty ignorant imo. 

But of course this information is not available to the outside world !

No transparency means an even greater possibility of rules being manipulated !

No matter how much you defend it, it still stinks....

[RedWillie]

I'm sure we can let them know our feelings when the game gets played. 

[Chris cooper]

26 minutes ago, trousers said:

They would be breaking consumer law if they didn't give a refund upon request so, no, you won't be out of pocket if you can't make a rearranged match. 

You have to reply in writing for refund and each case will be looked at on its merit .. you’ll need proof you can’t make rearranged fixture is what my mate was told by ticket office 🤨

[trousers]

9 minutes ago, Chris cooper said:

You have to reply in writing for refund and each case will be looked at on its merit .. you’ll need proof you can’t make rearranged fixture is what my mate was told by ticket office 🤨

Based on my understanding of consumer law, that's utter nonsense.

Caveat: my understanding is based on studying consumer law back in the 80s, so could well be out of date, but the principles behind the Sale of Goods act and Trade Description act are pretty set in stone. 

Edited 31 December, 2021 by trousers

[macca155]

45 minutes ago, Manuel said:

Fuck it.  We'll just have to beat them at a time convenient to them.  

Now thats the spirit

[trousers]

10 minutes ago, trousers said:

Based on my understanding of consumer law, that's utter nonsense.

Caveat: my understanding is based on studying consumer law back in the 80s, so could well be out of date, but the principles behind the Sale of Goods act and Trade Description act are pretty set in stone. 

Just done a quick search on consumer rights in this area and it's pretty clear that the consumer is legally entitled to a refund if, for whatever reason, they can't make a rescheduled date. This example goes back to 2008 but it's from the horse's mouth (the office of fair trading) and the underlying principles of law will still apply today: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/05/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-refunds-oft

 

(Apologies for the dull posts - even more so than usual - companies trying to pull the wool over consumers eyes is a big bugbear of mine!)

 

 

Edited 31 December, 2021 by trousers

[Teddeer]

Eddie Howe-Convenient must be feeling so smug at the moment. After watching Wilson and ASM go down against Man Utd the planning went into action to get the next games called off. They killed two birds with one stone - more time for their 'injured' to recover and time to dip into the transfer market. Goody two shoes Eddie is anything but. Stinks to high heaven this charade.

[Billy the Kidd]

29 minutes ago, trousers said:

Based on my understanding of consumer law, that's utter nonsense.

Caveat: my understanding is based on studying consumer law back in the 80s, so could well be out of date, but the principles behind the Sale of Goods act and Trade Description act are pretty set in stone. 

Wouldn’t these tickets be classed as online selling (distance selling) therefore in theory a better law for consumers and have more protection?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

Fighting the Germans in Bastogne?

During the Battle of the Bulge Bastogne, defended by the 101st Airborne Division, was never captured by the Germans, so they would not be there, and it was liberated on Dec 27th when Pattons armour broke through the German lines, so by the date of the Brentford game they would have been miles away.

The siege produced the following response to a request to surrender;

To the German Commander.

NUTS!

The American Commander

Edited 31 December, 2021 by badgerx16

[Vancouver Saint]

Sadly so predictable. Think the PL should carry the can for this one. Disappointing because we have momentum - and no game to watch on Sunday now.  Every PL club should be able to field 13 players and a goalie from the deep pools of players they have access to. If that means giving a few youth players their first chance to wear their first team colours so be it - that's great - look what Liverpool did in their Cup game against Villa was it?

I don't blame Newcastle for taking advantage of the lax rules - we'd have tried the same in reverse (but likely without their success). 

But the incentive should be to play the games not postpone them...if every club knew these were the rules up front (basically play or default), believe me - they'd have done more to make sure their players were all double-vaccinated early and kept as fit as possible to play.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

17 minutes ago, Teddeer said:

They killed two birds with one stone.

Newcastle FC would like to strongly deny that two birds were killed.

No two birds were even near the club that day, despite the video evidence.

No two birds chatted on the phone to any Prince during their visit to the club, which didn't happen.

It's been at least a few years since our last stoning.

I'd like to think Saints wouldn't have manipulated the system in this way to get the game called off. I'd like to think we're better than that.

[eurosaint]

Just read on Twitter that Newcastle are not prepared to give details of individual Covid cases ! 
I’m guessing that the ownership is worried about their ‘human rights’ 😄

[Chris cooper]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Based on my understanding of consumer law, that's utter nonsense.

Caveat: my understanding is based on studying consumer law back in the 80s, so could well be out of date, but the principles behind the Sale of Goods act and Trade Description act are pretty set in stone. 

Not dis-agreeing with you just telling you the clubs stance on it.

[Morse]

I can see this ending in court if the Saudi outfit stay up. Makes you wonder at the fvckwits at the PL. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

Fighting the Germans in Bastogne?

I do have a bit of a bulge as it happens.

[Badger]

53 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I'd like to think Saints wouldn't have manipulated the system in this way to get the game called off. I'd like to think we're better than that.

Saints wouldn’t have been able to pull this one as:

we’re not imaginative or devious enough, 

and if we did the EPL would have no sympathy and us to ‘get on with it’ , which we would.

 

[Badger]

17 minutes ago, Morse said:

I can see this ending in court if the Saudi outfit stay up. Makes you wonder at the fvckwits at the PL. 

who would take it to court, Burnley, Watford,us ? Not sure any of this group would have the nerve and spirit  to go that way. 
 

Our management hasn’t really appeared combative since Cortese left, and even in his case I suspect there was more talk than anything else  despite his own publicity.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, egg said:

According to their forum, these are the players out:

Injured:

Wilson (Calf)

ASM (Calf)

Lewis (Hamstring)

Hayden (Knee)

Fernandez (Calf)

Dummett (Body)

Fraser (Picked up a Knock Vs Man United)

Shelvey (Picked up a Knock Vs Man United)

COVID:

Clark

Ritchie

Darlow

Willock

Suspended:

Manquillo

Thanks for is. Only four Covid related absentees and we don’t know anything about their vaccination status.  All a bit feeble really.

[Whitey Grandad]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

Saints wouldn’t have been able to pull this one as:

we’re not imaginative or devious enough, 

and if we did the EPL would have no sympathy and us to ‘get on with it’ , which we would.

 

You’d need deep pockets to take them on in court.

[Badger]

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You’d need deep pockets to take them on in court.

You would, although I think Sheffield Utd started down this route some years ago after the Teviz episode.

 

[JRM]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is just not true. The league rules state the club need to supply “Supporting medical information to verify the status of each unavailable player, which will be reviewed by the League’s medical advisers”. 
 

Their website also states that not having 13 players is only 1 reason  applications are accepted, they state that games have also been postponed recently for other reasons including, 
 

“Where the status of a COVID-19 outbreak within a club’s squad remains unclear very close to a match. For example, where there remains a concern that not all COVID-19 infections have been identified and there is insufficient time to resolve that concern before kick-off.
- Where the club does not have sufficient time to safely prepare its players in the lead up to a match. For example, where the UK Health Security Agency has requested the closure of a training ground and suspension of group training following an outbreak during the preparation period ahead of a match.”

 

Just calling people cunts without know the full reasons for the postponement, without knowing what evidence has been presented and what checks were made is pretty ignorant imo. 

I think this poster has been compromised with Saudi money.

[hackedoff]

PL is warped,get used to it.

[Streaky]

Still don't understand why injured players leads to match postponements. Why can't they use u23s like we had to last season when man u smashed us. Complete bullshit, makes a mockery of the Premier league. How many of there's actually have covid or not been vaccinated and have to isolate.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, JRM said:

I think this poster has been compromised with Saudi money.

No, he thinks the Saudis are too liberal and progressive when it comes to women.

[Wade Garrett]

I would love it, love it, if Newcastle went down.

[saintmonkey1979]

I keep seeing about how we had to play the Utd match last season with that horrific injury list, but I can't remember hearing if we actually applied to have the match postponed or whether we did literally just get in with it, as it's all part and parcel of the game?

[austsaint]

3 hours ago, Streaky said:

Still don't understand why injured players leads to match postponements. Why can't they use u23s like we had to last season when man u smashed us. Complete bullshit, makes a mockery of the Premier league. How many of there's actually have covid or not been vaccinated and have to isolate.

It's got a stench to it; this decision.    Impossible not to be piss#d off with the Geordies and the governing body.

[StrangelyBrown]

It's cheating, but everyone else is at it so the question should be why don't we do the same???

[East Kent Saint]

9 hours ago, trousers said:

Just done a quick search on consumer rights in this area and it's pretty clear that the consumer is legally entitled to a refund if, for whatever reason, they can't make a rescheduled date. This example goes back to 2008 but it's from the horse's mouth (the office of fair trading) and the underlying principles of law will still apply today: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/05/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-refunds-oft

 

(Apologies for the dull posts - even more so than usual - companies trying to pull the wool over consumers eyes is a big bugbear of mine!)

 

 

The law is one thing , getting your money out of the barstewards is another , see airlines for advice !!!

[John D]

8 hours ago, JRM said:

I think this poster has been compromised with Saudi money.

Given his prehistoric views on women this makes sense!

[badgerx16]

7 hours ago, StrangelyBrown said:

It's cheating, but everyone else is at it so the question should be why don't we do the same???

Because we actually do use the U23s, so will always have enough players to meet the PL criteria, ( unfortunately ).

[rooney]

The look of the smell under Howe's nose is growing.

[Miltonaggro]

Used to have a lot of time for Newcastle supporters but many seem to have lost their heads since being bought out by the Saudis - whining and delusion almost reaching Liverpool or Spurs standards. Best response is for Saints to convincingly take three points off them and I think we will, a small contribution towards sending them down for some much needed self-reflection. 

[Doctoroncall]

10 hours ago, saintmonkey1979 said:

I keep seeing about how we had to play the Utd match last season with that horrific injury list, but I can't remember hearing if we actually applied to have the match postponed or whether we did literally just get in with it, as it's all part and parcel of the game?

A new rule was added this season with regard to players unavailability for matches due to Covid Omicron variant:  

When making an application, clubs must provide the Board with the following details, together with clear reasons why they believe the match should be postponed:

- Players and staff who have returned a positive COVID-19 test, their vaccination status and, if known, the source of their infections
- Players and staff who are self-isolating
- Players who are unavailable to play through injury or illness
- Players listed on the club’s squad list who are still available to play in the match, including appropriately experienced Under-21 players (which includes Under-21 players who have played for the club, another Premier League or EFL club, or an overseas club in the current season)
- Supporting medical information to verify the status of each unavailable player, which will be reviewed by the League’s medical advisers

more here on what the PL will consider:

1) The impact of COVID-19 infections on a club’s squad, as well as injuries, illness and those isolating, and the number of players available on the squad list and any Under-21 players with appropriate experience. Where a club cannot field 13 outfield players and a goalkeeper either from its squad list or its appropriately experienced Under-21 players, the match will be postponed.
2) The status of any COVID-19 outbreak within a club, including the number of individuals affected, the sequence and source of infections and their proximity to the match in question.
3) A club’s ability to safely prepare its players in the lead-up to a match.
4) Medical advice as to whether there is any unacceptable risk to the health and safety of players and staff by playing the match.
5) Any advice from UK Health Security Agency and other public bodies.
6) Any other exceptional circumstances.
 

farcical as clubs will use this to their own advantage  

 

[Teddeer]

As I understand it every Premier League club tests their players on a daily basis before letting them enter the training facilities. Newcastle would be doing the same and Sean Dyche stated this is the way things are done at Burnley. Accepting that players can catch Covid from family, friends etc it is still hard to believe the numbers that are going down like flies at certain clubs and, at the most convenient of times. The Premier League needs to keep an eye on this and think about tweaking the rules they put in place or else this could develop into a farce - that's if it's not already reached that stage.

[eurosaint]

1 hour ago, Doctoroncall said:

A new rule was added this season with regard to players unavailability for matches due to Covid Omicron variant:  

When making an application, clubs must provide the Board with the following details, together with clear reasons why they believe the match should be postponed:

- Players and staff who have returned a positive COVID-19 test, their vaccination status and, if known, the source of their infections
- Players and staff who are self-isolating
- Players who are unavailable to play through injury or illness
- Players listed on the club’s squad list who are still available to play in the match, including appropriately experienced Under-21 players (which includes Under-21 players who have played for the club, another Premier League or EFL club, or an overseas club in the current season)
- Supporting medical information to verify the status of each unavailable player, which will be reviewed by the League’s medical advisers

more here on what the PL will consider:

1) The impact of COVID-19 infections on a club’s squad, as well as injuries, illness and those isolating, and the number of players available on the squad list and any Under-21 players with appropriate experience. Where a club cannot field 13 outfield players and a goalkeeper either from its squad list or its appropriately experienced Under-21 players, the match will be postponed.
2) The status of any COVID-19 outbreak within a club, including the number of individuals affected, the sequence and source of infections and their proximity to the match in question.
3) A club’s ability to safely prepare its players in the lead-up to a match.
4) Medical advice as to whether there is any unacceptable risk to the health and safety of players and staff by playing the match.
5) Any advice from UK Health Security Agency and other public bodies.
6) Any other exceptional circumstances.
 

farcical as clubs will use this to their own advantage  

 

Based on that, they could cancel every match where there is an application !

A total joke which will set lots more precedents leading to all sorts of disharmony !

[Lord Duckhunter]

16 hours ago, Morse said:

I can see this ending in court if the Saudi outfit stay up.

The  way things are going there’s going to be 30 odd games postponed, good luck with proving this one was any different than any other. 

[MAY-Z]

Here is what is happening in the big bash cricket. 
 

Teams have base squads of 18-20, Melbourne have 10 positive tests yet still want to play and are drafting in players from local leagues to make sure the game can go on, what an attitude difference 

 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/ashes-2022-justin-langer-future-contract-australia-vs-england-cricket-australia-nick-hockley-pat-cummins/news-story/8ae934e9e2bedbea337ed539b5eca54d

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, MAY-Z said:

Here is what is happening in the big bash cricket. 
 

Teams have base squads of 18-20, Melbourne have 10 positive tests yet still want to play and are drafting in players from local leagues to make sure the game can go on, what an attitude difference 

 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/ashes-2022-justin-langer-future-contract-australia-vs-england-cricket-australia-nick-hockley-pat-cummins/news-story/8ae934e9e2bedbea337ed539b5eca54d

Did they postpone a load of games before doing that, or was that rule in place from the start? The league made a rod for their own back by postponing games a couple of weeks ago. Had they said then that teams had to play regardless of numbers, then they could insist Newcastle do this time. The sure fire way to a court case is allowing Brentford to postpone, but not allowing Newcastle to. 

[MAY-Z]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Did they postpone a load of games before doing that, or was that rule in place from the start? The league made a rod for their own back by postponing games a couple of weeks ago. Had they said then that teams had to play regardless of numbers, then they could insist Newcastle do this time. The sure fire way to a court case is allowing Brentford to postpone, but not allowing Newcastle to. 

Yesterdays Sydney thunder was the first match this had become an issue, and it was so everything possible to keep going. There was no rule in place it was just see what happens when it happens

 

this Melbourne stars match is the biggest test as this has over half the squad out

[JRM]

2 hours ago, Miltonaggro said:

Used to have a lot of time for Newcastle supporters but many seem to have lost their heads since being bought out by the Saudis - whining and delusion almost reaching Liverpool or Spurs standards. Best response is for Saints to convincingly take three points off them and I think we will, a small contribution towards sending them down for some much needed self-reflection. 

Not sure if intentional but this bit made me laugh , that's the Saudis for you. 

[hasper57saint]

One thing stands out a mile here. Saudi Gold will influence the PL parasites much more effectively than we fans. 

HAPPY NEW YEARS to all Fellow Saints.

[Charlie Wayman]

We certainly didn't have this on-off nonsense last year. Shut it all down for a month or two and then start again.

How is this learning to live with Covid?

[The Cat]

If you supported a Championship club you'd be praying Newcastle stay up. No way would you be wanting to put up with their gloating, arrogant fans next season while they cruise to the title by 20 points.