Ambiguous threats and a need for leadership: Our Sunderland AFC writers' verdict on a dramatic week at the Stadium of Light

It emerged on Tuesday evening that the club had seen a confirmed case, with the Echo now understanding that more positive tests have been returned in the camp ahead of the festive period.

The Black Cats’ next three league games – against Shrewsbury Town, Blackpool and Hull City – have all been called off, but their game against AFC WImbledon on Tuesday evening went ahead.

That was despite new head coach Lee Johnson being unable to call upon eight players due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The debate has raged on as to whether the Wearsiders were right to play that game, or whether a postponement should have been forced through – despite the ambiguous nature of the potential sanctions that could be forthcoming.

So what do our writers think? Here, Richard Mennear and Mark Donnelly offer their verdict on the week that was – and what could be done to prevent similar happening in the future:

RICHARD MENNEAR

Welcome to Wearside Lee Johnson.

What a couple of weeks it has been at the Stadium of Light.

And this week saw the Covid-19 outbreak at the Academy of Light, leading to the club's next three games being postponed.

It has shone a spotlight on Sunderland after it first emerged that eight players were going to miss the AFC Wimbledon game, one having tested positive and a further seven self-isolating.

The main question being, should that game have gone ahead?

There is a very strong argument to say that no, it should not have.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but neither party came out of the incident well, not the club and certainly not the EFL.

It is absolutely true the EFL should show more leadership on this issue and nine months into the pandemic there should at the very least be a clear protocol in place - set by the league bosses - as to when a game should be postponed, how many positive tests trigger a postponement.

The fact there isn't then puts the onus on the clubs to make the decision whether to postpone or not and then face an investigation and possible sanctions, which could even include points being deducted.

Several clubs are being investigated and you can bet that number will only increase with both Sunderland and Peterborough this week calling off their next three games, but as yet, there hasn't been a conclusion or precedent set in any of these investigations.

So clubs are making these decisions in the dark, without any real guidance as to what the repercussions could be.

The whole saga didn't reflect well on anyone.

Ultimately though, the health, wellbeing and safety of players and staff - a point stressed by CEO Jim Rodwell on Wednesday - must surely come first and when further positive cases were confirmed the decision to shut the club down was taken, with the training ground closed for 10 days and three games postponed.

Questions will continue to be asked, however, about why the AFC Wimbledon game went ahead at all.

A difficult situation for the club, granted, but if they had the choice again you suspect it would have been postponed as well.

MARK DONNELLY

Let’s not beat around the bush here – Sunderland’s game against AFC Wimbledon should have been postponed the second the positive case was returned early in the week.

This is a virus that can kill, that spreads easily and can be difficult to detect at times give a large proportion of people can be asymptomatic.

So how Tuesday’s evening’s game was allowed to continue is baffling and concerning.

Sunderland, of course, had the opportunity to postpone the game as per EFL rules. After discussions with the governing body, they decided to play.

They are not blameless in this and, with the benefit of hindsight, may wish to have gone about things differently.

But it’s the EFL complicated procedures and a lack of transparency on what happens when a game is postponed that somewhat forced Sunderland's hand.

The ambiguous threat of an ‘investigation – of which none have yet been completed and thus no precedent has been set – was all the EFL could offer when asked by those on Wearside what would happen were the fixture fulfilled.

You only have to look north of the border, where some investigations have ended in teams being awarded points, to see the potential sancioins that could have been on offer.

But given no English club is yet to be punished or cleared for postponing a fixture due to COVID-19, Sunderland had no way of knowing what would happen if the game were called off.

Would it be a slap on the wrists, or would they have to surrender the points?

Of course, the health and safety of those involved should come first – and clubs shouldn’t be placed into the difficult position of having to make those decisions.

That’s why the EFL need clearer guidance moving forward.

If a club returns even one positive test, a game should be called off. As long as they can provide evidence of a positive test, that should be enough for the EFL to draw a line under the circumstances and move on.

It can be as simple as that. And in times such as there, there is no need for over-complication.

A message from the Football Clubs Editor:

Our aim is to provide you with the best, most up-to-date and most informative Sunderland AFC coverage 365 days a year.

This depth of SAFC coverage costs, so to help us maintain the high-quality reporting that you are used to, please consider taking out a subscription to our new sports-only package here.

Your support is much appreciated. Richard Mennear, Football Clubs Editor