Anthony Knockaert wants season to end now amid Covid fears
(https://www.theargus.co.uk/resources/images/10164500.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)
He believes the Premier League and EFL should follow what has happened in his native France.
Knockaert's current club Fulham are on course for the play-offs and could even grab a top-two spot with wins over Leeds and West Brom if play resumes.
But he has revealed he is scared of catching Covid-19 and passing it on.
He has called for players to have a say in whether football returns in the coming weeks. And he insists he would currently ube against playing.
The winger said: "I think every player will be different in these situations.
"Personally, I don't think it would be the best decision to keep playing in the sense that we, the players, are going to be taking a risk.
"We all have family at home. I'm 28, I have children, I have a family who I can see from time to time.
"That scares you. I realise that, if I catch the virus, I could very easily give it to those close to me and that can be very dangerous.
"I think more about things like that.
"There are players who think more about the sport and are very keen to go back and will forget the virus and are ready to take risks.
"Right now, if I had to return to the league and return to work, I would give it my all. But, if I could give my opinion, I would be against it because I think this is also a risk for us, the players.
"We are humans. We can catch it as well.
"I have seen three leagues cancelled. Belgium, France and the Netherlands, for me, have taken the right decision.
"Now we will see what other countries do.
"Germany are starting again soon and I see that as a bit absurd, a bit dangerous for society and for the players.
"For me the best in this case is that players have the right to speak and say what they want.
"The government and the leagues will take decisions but in all that you have the players.
"It's absurd not to take into account the opinions of the players."
Albion technical director Dan Ashworth has confirmed the club are alive to and listening to concerns individual players have about returning to training sessions and matches.
Knockaert was speaking via video link to presenter, and Albion fan, Darren Tulett in an interview for beIN Sport in France.
He added: "I think a lot of players agree with me. It's scary. I'm scared of catching the virus when I go shopping and I'm not just thinking of me.
"If I catch it, I am young and in good health and can come through it.
"But I could pass it on to people close to me who are more vulnerable.
"The day that happens, we will have it on our conscience for the rest of our lives and it's the same with football."
https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/18437477.anthony-knockaert-wants-season-end-now-amid-covid-fears/
Sensible.
I really want to see us play the last nine games of the season and hopefully be promoted to the premier league. IÂ think that with modern communications and by playing games behind closed doors it should be possible to safely achieve this.
At the same time I see exactly where Knok.is coming from and would not dream of opposing what he says.
I might be wrong, but didn't he jet off on holiday the second the league was suspended
Quote from: fulhamben on May 09, 2020, 03:38:35 PM
I might be wrong, but didn't he jet off on holiday the second the league was suspended
If that is the case then it not going to be easy for him to get back and be ready to play as the rumour is that a 14 day quarantine may soon be in place at airports.
Quote from: filham on May 09, 2020, 05:08:32 PM
Quote from: fulhamben on May 09, 2020, 03:38:35 PM
I might be wrong, but didn't he jet off on holiday the second the league was suspended
If that is the case then it not going to be easy for him to get back and be ready to play as the rumour is that a 14 day quarantine may soon be in place at airports.
The bit in French says he talks about him being in lockdown in the UK.....so if he took a holiday he must have come back.
Got absolutely no sympathy for this. Millions of people have continued to work through the lockdown and millions more will be going back to work in a few weeks. Most of them will be much older and/or more vulnerable than these healthy young footballers like Knockaert.
Tbh this has just reinforced my view that he's a bit of a ponce really.
I also hope any footballers protesting about having to play at least agree that, if they don't play, they should be on zero pay, backdated from the last match in March and lasting until they play again.
But this is a real tricky subject. At some stage the economy has to get going again and people will have to go back to work. It is important to take workers views into consideration, but they have to be reasonable. Those who have been in lockdown will undoubtedly face some form of risk of catching COVID - there will be no such thing as a totally safe environment ... for anyone. But where do you draw the line? And at what stage can an employer say, well, your view is fine, but I can't afford it. I can't afford to pay you not to work, the government cannot afford it any more, and the business (for those that have survived) needs some one to do the work. Very tricky. And at the extreme footballers could argue that they will not be safe until COVID is totally eradicated.
But did bus drivers get a choice? Refuse workers, construction workers, shop workers? Even my daughter who works as a chemist in the agricultural business is obliged to go into work. She was not given a choice.
But yes, football is different in that social distancing in games will not be possible (maybe we'll see less contact at corners?) .. but extensive testing could reduce the risk considerably. The key questions are; at what stage is the risk acceptable? who takes the decision? and what happens to those that disagree?
There should also be legal certainty because not only do you want to keep your staff safe, you would not want claims citing negligence in the illness or, worst case, death of a footballer.
Quote from: fulhamben on May 09, 2020, 03:38:35 PM
I might be wrong, but didn't he jet off on holiday the second the league was suspended
Probably, he has been missing most of the season, not sure he would be picked for the remaining games (if they are played), I wouldn´t pick him!!
I would think that testing would give you zero risk.
If all the players on the pitch don't have it, then how can they give it to each other, even from flying sweat, snot, blood etc.
Always the chance a player could catch it between testing and the game , if there was any time lapse, but a very small chance if they keep them isolated.
Quote from: Statto on May 09, 2020, 06:02:01 PM
Got absolutely no sympathy for this. Millions of people have continued to work through the lockdown and millions more will be going back to work in a few weeks. Most of them will be much older and/or more vulnerable than these healthy young footballers like Knockaert.
Tbh this has just reinforced my view that he's a bit of a ponce really.
I also hope any footballers protesting about having to play at least agree that, if they don't play, they should be on zero pay, backdated from the last match in March and lasting until they play again.
What you've missed there is the people going back to work,a lot will be doing their jobs still at social distancing where possible.
The last time I watched football it was a contact sport,tackling,jumping up for headers together and so.
Everyday now players are coming out with the same thoughts, and they're all saying playing all the games behind closed doors will make it a farce.
Null n Void season.
Start off with same set of fixtures next season.
People's lives more important than kicking a ball,and that's coming from me,someone missing it like hell.
Quote from: RaySmith on May 09, 2020, 06:57:25 PM
I would think that testing would give you zero risk.
If all the players on the pitch don't have it, then how can they give it to each other, even from flying sweat, snot, blood etc.
Always the chance a player could catch it between testing and the game , if there was any time lapse, but a very small chance if they keep them isolated.
Not 100% guarnteed that it could be picked up from staff at the grounds,off of a surface or whatever.
I'd be interested to hear an expert's opinion as to which of these situations carries a higher risk of death...
Situation A, an obese 50 year old spending 9am to 5pm, 8 hours, sharing a small, poorly ventilated office with a handful of other people, whose desks are 2m away from him. None of the other people have been tested so there's no way of knowing if they have the virus.
Situation B, a fit 25 year old spending 90 minutes running around in the open air with other lads. He'll probably spend a few minutes in very close proximity to many of the other players, but they've all tested negative for coronavirus on the morning of the game (as have all the coaches, ground staff, physio etc).
Not going to get into an argument about it with you,for the simple reason you can't be polite, and started your reply with"Interested to hear an Experts Opinion".
Which is a sarcastic dig at me.
I'm no expert just gave my opinion.
Bye now.
Quote from: Statto on May 09, 2020, 07:46:13 PM
Situation B, a fit 25 year old spending 90 minutes running around in the open air with other lads. He'll probably spend a few minutes in very close proximity to many of the other players, but they've all tested negative for coronavirus on the morning of the game (as have all the coaches, ground staff, physio etc).
For this to happen there would need to be a new form of testing which is not only much quicker to derive results from but also more reliable. There are many reports of false positives, false negatives, and of test reliability ranging from anywhere between 60% - 95%. At present there is too high a likelihood of at least one matchday staff receiving an incorrect result either way, and there would only be a small window of time in-which to double check.
Personally I am a bit divided on this. Football is a contact sport and there will be risks, no question. So I understand players who are concerned about restarting even behind closed doors.
On the other hand the vast majority of players continue to accept their huge salaries month in, month out. If they don't want to play donate 90% to charity. That would gain my respect.
Quote from: MikeTheCubed on May 09, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Statto on May 09, 2020, 07:46:13 PM
Situation B, a fit 25 year old spending 90 minutes running around in the open air with other lads. He'll probably spend a few minutes in very close proximity to many of the other players, but they've all tested negative for coronavirus on the morning of the game (as have all the coaches, ground staff, physio etc).
For this to happen there would need to be a new form of testing which is not only much quicker to derive results from but also more reliable. There are many reports of false positives, false negatives, and of test reliability ranging from anywhere between 60% - 95%. At present there is too high a likelihood of at least one matchday staff receiving an incorrect result either way, and there would only be a small window of time in-which to double check.
Those tests exist. This is testing whether someone currently has the virus, not the antibodies tests, which seem to have been much more controversial. Admittedly I've no idea whether/how the FA will get access to thousands of those tests when the national priority is obviously testing NHS staff, care home staff et al. But from what I've read theyre not proposing to restart football until that's resolved, ie until they have access to fast, accurate testing.
I mean we should utilise the NHS people to sit there at football games up and down the country to wait on a player potentially being injured. Or they can be helping the many people up and down the country that require help at this time.
Clubs have their own medical staff and doctors they can use.
Why do we need NHS staff in case of injury at games, when we didn't have that before?
Quote from: RaySmith on May 10, 2020, 02:28:40 AM
Clubs have their own medical staff and doctors they can use.
Why do we need NHS staff in case of injury at games, when we didn't have that before?
incase of a bad injury. Or a underlying health issue. Would Muamba still be with us today if the nhs hadn't been on hand to take over from the club doctor
Although it doesn't state what type of test was conducted, it is alleged that a
fruit has tested positive for COVID-19:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania/president-queries-tanzania-coronavirus-kits-after-goat-test-idUSKBN22F0KF (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania/president-queries-tanzania-coronavirus-kits-after-goat-test-idUSKBN22F0KF)
QuoteThe president said he had instructed Tanzanian security forces to check the quality of the kits. They had randomly obtained several non-human samples, including from a pawpaw, a goat and a sheep, but had assigned them human names and ages.
These samples were then submitted to Tanzania's laboratory to test for the coronavirus, with the lab technicians left deliberately unaware of their origins.
Samples from the pawpaw and the goat tested positive for COVID-19, the president said, adding this meant it was likely that some people were being tested positive when in fact they were not infected by the coronavirus.
Quote from: Statto on May 09, 2020, 06:02:01 PM
Got absolutely no sympathy for this. Millions of people have continued to work through the lockdown and millions more will be going back to work in a few weeks. Most of them will be much older and/or more vulnerable than these healthy young footballers like Knockaert.
Tbh this has just reinforced my view that he's a bit of a ponce really.
I also hope any footballers protesting about having to play at least agree that, if they don't play, they should be on zero pay, backdated from the last match in March and lasting until they play again.
I think people are getting the problem back the front. When people suggests isolating the players with their families on some island or country club in an almost perfect quarantine, it appears they don't want to be separated from friends and family. But if football players want to stay home to be with friends and family socialising, then they will catch and spread the illness especially among team mates.
To give players all three of a) freedom, b) safety and c) an income is impossible. Players can pick any two and it's easy to meet their needs. Freedom and Safety is easy as long as they agree not to get paid. Freedom and Income is easy as long as they are prepared to risk catching the illiness.
I suggest choosing safety and income, then sacfrice freedom. The EPL needs to find a few six-star resort and lock players away in "the world most luxury jail" otherwise they will not get a 100% safe league. If players don't want to take their families to some eight-star resort prison "Luxury Escape to Victory" that's fine they can just come themselves or they can not get paid.
Quote from: Mince n Tatties on May 09, 2020, 07:05:47 PM
Quote from: Statto on May 09, 2020, 06:02:01 PM
Got absolutely no sympathy for this. Millions of people have continued to work through the lockdown and millions more will be going back to work in a few weeks. Most of them will be much older and/or more vulnerable than these healthy young footballers like Knockaert.
Tbh this has just reinforced my view that he's a bit of a ponce really.
I also hope any footballers protesting about having to play at least agree that, if they don't play, they should be on zero pay, backdated from the last match in March and lasting until they play again.
What you've missed there is the people going back to work,a lot will be doing their jobs still at social distancing where possible.
The last time I watched football it was a contact sport,tackling,jumping up for headers together and so.
Everyday now players are coming out with the same thoughts, and they're all saying playing all the games behind closed doors will make it a farce.
Null n Void season.
Start off with same set of fixtures next season.
People's lives more important than kicking a ball,and that's coming from me,someone missing it like hell.
we don't always agree but your spot on - time to call quits on this season and do what is right.
Whilst the thought of football with no fans goes completely against the grain, what is the alternative if no cure or vaccine is found? Abandon football for a year or longer? No problem for me but the game itself will collapse. The tv money will dry up and football will be a different entity when it is completely safe to play. Scores of lower league clubs will cease to exist in their current setup and have to be re-formed.
Quote from: fulhamben on May 09, 2020, 03:38:35 PM
I might be wrong, but didn't he jet off on holiday the second the league was suspended
He jetted off to Dubai as soon as football stopped.
If true that is appalling.
I work in the emergency services, and I have been very busy, but I am fortunate enough not to be in a first response role or similar role which requires me to be in face to face contact too often with the public. However, many of my colleagues do have to come into close contact on every shift with the public (e.g. arresting offenders) and are at greater risk than most people of catching coronavirus. I think Knockaert's views about going back to work are representative of many people - which are sadly unrealistic. I understand the fear, following weeks of government hammering home the message about staying home to avoid catching/spreading the virus and saving lives, and the fear for their families. However people are going to have to be a bit more stoic and accept that coronavirus is another risk to be added to the risks of everyday living, but unlikely to be fatal to them or their families. Of course, any of us could be exceedingly unlucky and die as a result of catching it. It will never (or at best not for years) be "totally safe" to go back to work, to go back to school or to go out at all. However, we can not exist as a society for months or years in the present state, and at some stage, people will have to face up to and deal with the risks. Of course, this doesn't mean abandoning all precautionary measures and ruthlessly abandoning shielding of the especially vulnerable, but it does mean taking steps back towards a worthwhile kind of living. And it is here (coming to the original point and Knockaert) that I think footballers have an exemplary role. Matthew Syed has written cogently on this in The Times and on Twitter, and has spoken on the radio this evening stating that "there's a risk to life from football just as there's a risk to all who go into work. But if this can be kept small, there are good reasons to restart. Life without risk is impossible unless you sustain lockdown indefinitely - which would be even riskier". Further more, he writes "is it worth restarting the Premier League if there is a risk that a footballer, or perhaps a member of the coaching or ground staff, dies as a result? Should a mere game be allowed to jeopardise a person's existence, potentially devastating their kids, their partner, their broader families? I think the answer to this question, which I heard asked on the radio last week, asked almost as a way of shutting down meaningful debate, has a cogent answer: yes." Controversial stuff, but he is brave and right to make the case.
It isn't easy, and I understand people's fears, but Knockaert has to be a pioneer. With the care around resuming football matches at the top level, he will face much less risk than most workers returning (and much less than than many including food growers, pickers and distributors who have had to keep working to keep us alive). Eventually, teachers, engineers, retail, etc.etc. will have to go back to work - we can't live for a year or more in a paralysed world.
Good post Plodder, you make a lot of sense.
But I think players should have a choice about whether they play or not.
But I think there should be enough players prepared to play when/if it comes to it, which I really hope it does, especially outside the stars of the Prem perhaps.
80% of the population will contract this virus.
Only those with underlying health issues are at major risk.
The idea of lockdown is to slow the spread, not stop it. This virus will be around forever,like the flu is. So unless we suggest suspending all sport until the entire world has an effective vaccine (which will never happen) I don't really understand what Knockaert wants. Or what he actually knows about Covid19 but I can assure you its not a lot.
Also before people start asking for sources, I am an A&E Nurse and this information is common knowledge amongst emergency medicine staff.
If you having savings or your income hasn't been affected, your views on returning to work will be entirely different from someone who has no savings and needs an income to live on. The latter will take, what they feel is an educated guess and return to work. The former can afford to sit and wait and see.
I'd love to be in the first group but like most, am in the second. I respect his view though.
I think going back to football could cost fulham a lot of money. If Fulham go back to playing matches, they have to compile with 352 safety regulations in order to protect players and if they break any regulations will have to compensate players for damages incurred. In other words, if any player gets covid-19 and Fulham compile with 351 of the 352 regulations (ie. not all), then the player will be paid out until one would have reasonably expected his career to end. For example, if Mitro get covid-19 and he comes back overweight so unable to score, we will be paying his current wages until 34 years old regardless of why his career ended early. A similar problem will occur if Christie, Ream, Mawson, MLM, KMac, Stefjo and/or Knockaert get covid-19 but never start another championship game regardless of the real reason.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on May 19, 2020, 08:27:49 AM
I think going back to football could cost fulham a lot of money. If Fulham go back to playing matches, they have to compile with 352 safety regulations in order to protect players and if they break any regulations will have to compensate players for damages incurred. In other words, if any player gets covid-19 and Fulham compile with 351 of the 352 regulations (ie. not all), then the player will be paid out until one would have reasonably expected his career to end. For example, if Mitro get covid-19 and he comes back overweight so unable to score, we will be paying his current wages until 34 years old regardless of why his career ended early. A similar problem will occur if Christie, Ream, Mawson, MLM, KMac, Stefjo and/or Knockaert get covid-19 but never start another championship game regardless of the real reason.
I am sorry, but this is surely at best a complete misinterpretation of the truth. There is 0 % chance that the above in reality is anywhere close to how you present it.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on May 19, 2020, 08:27:49 AM
I think going back to football could cost fulham a lot of money. If Fulham go back to playing matches, they have to compile with 352 safety regulations in order to protect players and if they break any regulations will have to compensate players for damages incurred. In other words, if any player gets covid-19 and Fulham compile with 351 of the 352 regulations (ie. not all), then the player will be paid out until one would have reasonably expected his career to end. For example, if Mitro get covid-19 and he comes back overweight so unable to score, we will be paying his current wages until 34 years old regardless of why his career ended early. A similar problem will occur if Christie, Ream, Mawson, MLM, KMac, Stefjo and/or Knockaert get covid-19 but never start another championship game regardless of the real reason.
Hmmm, bad news for Fulham but potentially very good news for me. I live in London so there's probably about a 1 in 5 chance I've already had the virus. I feel fine, but if it turns out I've had it, can I say I'm unable to work ever again, blame my employer, and claim for loss of earnings until I'm 68?
Lets be clear, the PL is coming back mainly for the TV money and the Championship is not far behind in this instance.
This money is being chased only so the clubs can put it in the pockets of the players.
I guess everyone has the right to refuse to go back to work but would any player who chooses not to return be honest enough to accept he will not be paid?
For me if He doesn't wish to play then send him back to Brighton as he's only on loan.
Quote from: bill taylors apprentice on May 19, 2020, 10:31:28 AM
I guess everyone has the right to refuse to go back to work but would any player who chooses not to return be honest enough to accept he will not be paid?
The press and all involved have been annoyingly silent on this point. I see Deeney has now refused to go back to training. He says his child has "had breathing difficulties" and if he means his child has a significant respiratory illness then I can certainly sympathise with that. But clearly he should also be coming out and saying he's not claiming any wages for so long as he stays out.
Quote from: Statto on May 19, 2020, 12:04:57 PM
Quote from: bill taylors apprentice on May 19, 2020, 10:31:28 AM
I guess everyone has the right to refuse to go back to work but would any player who chooses not to return be honest enough to accept he will not be paid?
The press and all involved have been annoyingly silent on this point. I see Deeney has now refused to go back to training. He says his child has "had breathing difficulties" and if he means his child has a significant respiratory illness then I can certainly sympathise with that. But clearly he should also be coming out and saying he's not claiming any wages for so long as he stays out.
Completely agree. If training in groups is being allowed by authorities then you have to participate otherwise you are not honoring your contract, and I assume that would be crystal clear from a contractual point of view. The same with playing games once (if) that is allowed. Clubs may of course opt to let players stay at home with pay if they so chose of course.
Most footballers of his age are so wealthy they don't have to earn another penny as long as they live.
They are able to make these statements and have choices, many others do not.
He is outspoken and does not always do himself any favours. I suggest Fulham say goodbye now.
If I were able to choose any profession in which to practice right now, it would be as an employment law solicitor. £££££££££s ahead.
Once a plan for the Championship is resolved and assuming it involves matches in July, what to do about loan players seems likely to become an issue. I suspect that many loan agreements have a set termination date of 30 June, in which case the players are legally out of the door on 1 July. Absolutely no idea how it will be played out - some obvious possible courses of action and some perhaps less obvious ones. Will the league permit an emergency loan transfer window being one of them. It's not just loans, there will be new free agents around on 1 July. As a flight of fancy, imagine if our chairman were to decide an out of contract Jan Vertongen is just the defensive partner Michael Hector needs to bolster our promotion bid. Would certainly be an upgrade.
Like his heart on the pitch, but Fulham need a better version of him on the RW.  Good dribbling skill...but wasn't enough of a threat in the attack and he needed to be a better partner to Mitro.
Thanks for the loan Brighton. 082.gif
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on May 21, 2020, 06:02:06 AM
Like his heart on the pitch, but Fulham need a better version of him on the RW.  Good dribbling skill...but wasn't enough of a threat in the attack and he needed to be a better partner to Mitro.
Knockaert has three goals and four assists, which makes him a solid squad player not an automatic starter, so we shouldn't pay more than £5 million.
