Wasnt their primary objection playing at neutral grounds? Seems transparent, the real reason is obviously the hope for a cancelled season and no relegation.
Thing is..its a bit of a gambit..as I imagine that if they get their way on that..they ll be the first to clamor for the new season to go ahead as normal in August.
It makes some semblance of sense. While you could dismiss the concerns by saying if you're playing behind closed doors anyway, what difference does it make what grounds you stage the match at, on the other hand by playing with no fans in the first place, you're putting a club like Brighton who has played an unbalanced schedule up until this point and was scheduled to be at home 5 of their last 9 matches, at a competitive disadvantage. West Ham as well was scheduled to play two of their relegation rivals at home.
It does make a difference. And there's no good answer.
I also don't really understand the neutral venue plan as an idea. I'm assuming clubs wouldn't finish out their schedule at a single ground, so if you're already forcing travel on clubs, what's the difference? Or is it just about staging support staff in a limited number of grounds?