The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)

[Robin101]

I thought that testing capacity was over 100k but there currently wasn't the demand for it?

I disagree with the above posters. Football is coming back, whether we think that's morally acceptable or not. The UK gov has been making it clear that it wants professional football to return as a boost to the country. We'll be living alongside this virus for months if not years to come, so it's a decision of when football returns and not if. Yes, there's a risk - but there's a risk for everyone being asked to return to work around the country too. The government and sporting bodies clearly feel it's an acceptable level of risk.

As I say, we can debate whether we think mid-June is the right time but now that this ball is rolling I don't think it will stop.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Robin101

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, cityloyal473 said:

Yep, agree.

Now for those footballers (who I agree with BTW) concerned about health and safety, they are going to have a decision to make should they feel that they don't want to be involved.  If they feel it is not safe, then in my eyes it shouldn't be safe for them until there is a vaccine. With that being years away, they are potentially throwing themselves onto the scrapheap.  

This is where it gets really complex in that there are footballers who have had heart problems and then started playing again (forgotten exactly who at the moment) and there are likely to be footballers who are diabetic (I know Gary Mabbutt famously was and I imagine there must be other players one would think). There are other conditions on the "vulnerable but not shielding" list which would not preclude professional footballers so there are surely going to be players who are potentially at risk from COVID-19 to a greater degree than the general population. The implications of them being pressured to continue, or released from a club on the basis of having a health condition, get really complex legally and morally. 

[Dolman_Stand]

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

This is where it gets really complex in that there are footballers who have had heart problems and then started playing again (forgotten exactly who at the moment) and there are likely to be footballers who are diabetic (I know Gary Mabbutt famously was and I imagine there must be other players one would think). There are other conditions on the "vulnerable but not shielding" list which would not preclude professional footballers so there are surely going to be players who are potentially at risk from COVID-19 to a greater degree than the general population. The implications of them being pressured to continue, or released from a club on the basis of having a health condition, get really complex legally and morally. 

Or similarly say a player with no underlying health problems plays and contracts the illness even if they make a full recovery in the short term who know what the long term implications could be i.e. reduced lung capacity, leduction in immunity which could directly shorten their life expectancy (similar to asbestos exposure) how would this beviewed from an insurance / legal aspect? Or even worse if they contract the illness and either die or they pass it onto a family member and they die? What happens then, lawsuts flying left, right and centre I suspect.

For the players its a moral and financial dilemna particularly those in the last year or 18months of a contract as if they refuse to play they effectively will effectively be making themselves redundant and missing out on £m's over the next few years.

[Robin101]

13 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

Or similarly say a player with no underlying health problems plays and contracts the illness even if they make a full recovery in the short term who know what the long term implications could be i.e. reduced lung capacity, leduction in immunity which could directly shorten their life expectancy (similar to asbestos exposure) how would this beviewed from an insurance / legal aspect? Or even worse if they contract the illness and either die or they pass it onto a family member and they die? What happens then, lawsuts flying left, right and centre I suspect.

For the players its a moral and financial dilemna particularly those in the last year or 18months of a contract as if they refuse to play they effectively will effectively be making themselves redundant and missing out on £m's over the next few years.

This is no different to the rest of society though, no? Why would a player have any grounds to sue a football club if they became ill/family member became ill (as awful as that would be) anymore than a retail warehouse worker could sue their employer? It does get exceptionally complicated though I agree - what should happen to a vulnerable worker if they refuse to start working again? 

[MarcusX]

58 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

I thought that testing capacity was over 100k but there currently wasn't the demand for it?

I disagree with the above posters. Football is coming back, whether we think that's morally acceptable or not. The UK gov has been making it clear that it wants professional football to return as a boost to the country. We'll be living alongside this virus for months if not years to come, so it's a decision of when football returns and not if. Yes, there's a risk - but there's a risk for everyone being asked to return to work around the country too. The government and sporting bodies clearly feel it's an acceptable level of risk.

As I say, we can debate whether we think mid-June is the right time but now that this ball is rolling I don't think it will stop.

We had to send 50k tests to the US because they couldnt be processed in British labs, I dont think the capacity is there at all whilst the demand certainly is.

73% of a yougov poll said football wouldnt boost their morale so thats more bollocks from Boris. I agree its a case of when, obviously it will return at SOME point, but I cant see how it can be summer unless numbers of cases drop dramatically IMO. People returning to work is a necessity and its only those that can distance that are going back. Plenty that involve physical contact arent. 

How do you test footballers? lock them up til the end of the season between games? Else they need to be tested before every training session and every game, because they could go home after a game and catch it from their partner (or their kids who might be back at school).

 

[MarcusX]

8 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

This is no different to the rest of society though, no? Why would a player have any grounds to sue a football club if they became ill/family member became ill (as awful as that would be) anymore than a retail warehouse worker could sue their employer? It does get exceptionally complicated though I agree - what should happen to a vulnerable worker if they refuse to start working again? 

Because workers in a warehouse probably have many policies in place to ensure social distancing. Dont forget going back to work isnt a free for all now, its under strict 2m distance guidelines (or should be) and if it isnt they'd definitely have a case to answer.

Footballers dont have that same protection, its a contact sport they have to come within 2m distance of their opponents.

[Dolman_Stand]

9 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

This is no different to the rest of society though, no? Why would a player have any grounds to sue a football club if they became ill/family member became ill (as awful as that would be) anymore than a retail warehouse worker could sue their employer? It does get exceptionally complicated though I agree - what should happen to a vulnerable worker if they refuse to start working again? 

AT present companies are having to introduce changes to the workplace to allow social distancing to be adhered to so a warehouse worker should in theory be in no more danger at work than they are when exercising, going to the supermarket etc, the difference with football is that it is a contact sport (allegedly) and therefore impossible to socially distance whilst playing.

[LondonBristolian]

15 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

This is no different to the rest of society though, no? Why would a player have any grounds to sue a football club if they became ill/family member became ill (as awful as that would be) anymore than a retail warehouse worker could sue their employer? It does get exceptionally complicated though I agree - what should happen to a vulnerable worker if they refuse to start working again? 

These are all important questions. Ultimately companies outside of football are being asked to re-open and being given guidance that is pretty flexible and open to interpretation. The answer is that, if any employer fails to take "reasonable" steps, they may well be open to being sued by employees if things go wrong. The massive question is what is interpreted as "reasonable". Similar with vulnerable workers. Under UK Health and Safety legislation, anyone is entitled to refuse to work if they "reasonably" believe it is not safe for them to do so. Ultimately, if it got that far, a court would have to decide if their concerns were reasonable. If a ruling was made, that would set a precedent for other similar cases but, until it is, I can see employees and employers alike being afraid to push things to that point because it is not at all clear what a court would decide. 

[Dolman_Stand]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

These are all important questions. Ultimately companies outside of football are being asked to re-open and being given guidance that is pretty flexible and open to interpretation. The answer is that, if any employer fails to take "reasonable" steps, they may well be open to being sued by employees if things go wrong. The massive question is what is interpreted as "reasonable". Similar with vulnerable workers. Under UK Health and Safety legislation, anyone is entitled to refuse to work if they "reasonably" believe it is not safe for them to do so. Ultimately, if it got that far, a court would have to decide if their concerns were reasonable. If a ruling was made, that would set a precedent for other similar cases but, until it is, I can see employees and employers alike being afraid to push things to that point because it is not at all clear what a court would decide. 

Agreed and everybody still has a reponsibility to adhere to the social distancing requirements which employers would definately lean on and try to prove that the individual has breached should it ever get that far.

[Super]

1 hour ago, Robin101 said:

I thought that testing capacity was over 100k but there currently wasn't the demand for it?

I disagree with the above posters. Football is coming back, whether we think that's morally acceptable or not. The UK gov has been making it clear that it wants professional football to return as a boost to the country. We'll be living alongside this virus for months if not years to come, so it's a decision of when football returns and not if. Yes, there's a risk - but there's a risk for everyone being asked to return to work around the country too. The government and sporting bodies clearly feel it's an acceptable level of risk.

As I say, we can debate whether we think mid-June is the right time but now that this ball is rolling I don't think it will stop.

The big difference is that in most jobs you can socially distance. 

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, Robin101 said:

I thought that testing capacity was over 100k but there currently wasn't the demand for it?
 

From what I can tell, the issue isn't demand but the ability to access the tests. A lot of the tests are drive through so impossible to access if you cannot drive and people who cannot drive also have logistical challenges getting to testing locations and may be fearful of risking public transport - especially given they are likely to being tested because they believe they could be infectious.

Furthermore initially - not sure what it is like now - it was incredibly difficult to book tests so people have been unable to get the slots that are available. The issue is logistics rather than a lack of demand. 

[OldlandReddies]

3 hours ago, daored said:

Add in 300 people in the ground , players , staff , media etc

If the clubs get their way and refuse to play at neutral grounds , how do they travel to away games , do they stay over ? Are we then testing hotel staff  etc? If the players go home after a game do we test their families?

Completely after it is naive to think that fans won’t gather to watch games , celebrate winning the league , getting promoted etc. IF football comes back , we will see games of a ‘kick about’ in local parks etc- 1000 people have died in the last two day’s - it is far too soon to be considering this.

Sorry to be a killjoy but if football clubs are able to source these number of tests and test resource - these should be used for NHS staff not tested , care workers , bus drivers , supermarket workers , refuse collectors , post men & women , nursery staff , school teachers and any other key workers - if they’ve all be tested happy days let the football commence 

No way will they test key workers who don't have symptoms. If one tests positive then whole teams of key workers will have to isolate. They won't risk that or else there will be no one left !

[BS4 on Tour...]

4 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Would love to see this, but I just cant see it being safe. Currently being discussed on GMB

Firstly how can we justify testing every footballer when frontline staff still arent getting tests/results quickly enough? Our capacity for testing has dropped since we hit that debatable 100k target. 60k people tested on 11th May...

Apologies for going off topic slightly, but I thought capacity for testing hadn’t dropped but the number of people being tested had. In other words, we could test around 100k people each day but we can’t force 100k people to come forward and ask to be tested every day.

[LondonBristolian]

3 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Apologies for going off topic slightly, but I thought capacity for testing hadn’t dropped but the number of people being tested had. In other words, we could test around 100k people each day but we can’t force 100k people to come forward and ask to be tested every day.

See my post a couple above your one. The capacity is there to test people but the logistics to get people to those tests is not. The issue is not people not coming forward and asking but people being unable to get to the tests that are available. 

[cityloyal473]

2 hours ago, Dolman_Stand said:

Agreed although this then becomes a contentious issue for the clubs paying their wages especially if some do and some don't

If players don't play then they don't get paid.  Everyone is at risk of the virus and will be expected to go back to work, with social distancing and risk mitigation factors at play, and get on with it.  Footballers will be in one of the most sterile environments going and will have less to worry about then Joe Blow jumping onto a bus with 50 other people to travel to an office with 50 other people.  If footballers cannot live with this then they need a career change to something that poses them no risk, like a webcam operation.

Everyone is going to have to learn to live with this; it isn't going away. We cannot stay locked up forever and life goes on. 

[milo1111]

20 hours ago, marcofisher said:

Save their skins by refunding tickets for games that will not be played with fans? Did you read the article?

Sorry, I assumed the reference was for the story re: Norwich saying there should be no relegation. My bad. 

[milo1111]

2 minutes ago, cityloyal473 said:

If players don't play then they don't get paid.  Everyone is at risk of the virus and will be expected to go back to work, with social distancing and risk mitigation factors at play, and get on with it.  Footballers will be in one of the most sterile environments going and will have less to worry about then Joe Blow jumping onto a bus with 50 other people to travel to an office with 50 other people.  If footballers cannot live with this then they need a career change to something that poses them no risk, like a webcam operation.

Everyone is going to have to learn to live with this; it isn't going away. We cannot stay locked up forever and life goes on. 

Footballers are quite within their rights to say they dont want to play. Ive genuinely no problem with that. I reckon they should be placed on furlough if they dont want to though. Getting the £2.5 k or whatever it is a month might change one or two minds.This whole thing is going to get quite unsavory as its all about money for most of the stakeholders. If there is no relegation then what is the point, complete farce.

[Kid in the Riot]

Big derby to kick things off on Saturday:

[054123]

I appreciate I’m on a forum about a club I dearly love, but does anyone else feel like I do, in that I really couldn’t give a **** about this season.

If the new season starts in August, fine. If not, I don’t really care.

Edited May 14, 2020 by 054123

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Apologies for going off topic slightly, but I thought capacity for testing hadn’t dropped but the number of people being tested had. In other words, we could test around 100k people each day but we can’t force 100k people to come forward and ask to be tested every day.

 

2 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

See my post a couple above your one. The capacity is there to test people but the logistics to get people to those tests is not. The issue is not people not coming forward and asking but people being unable to get to the tests that are available. 

Utopia capacity is circa 120k I believe.  Say there are 100 testing centres all with capacity for 1000 per day (just for the maths purposes), plus say 20k being posted, totals 120k.  They might post 20k every day, but getting 1000 people through each centre every day is not likely, meaning capacity should probably be set at a lower figure.  You’ve then got to get the tests processed.  That also seems to be an issue, hence why 50k got sent to the US.  I have no probs with this, just be transparent that the labs are overwhelmed.

In an ideal world, they would be better metrics (the current set are not “world leading” as alleged).  You’d see granularity such as:

• no of tested posted out / no of posted tests returned / no of tests returned processed by lab / no of positive / no of negative results (from all of this you’d see success rates, lag from post, lag from lab)
• no of tests at tests centres / no of tests processed by lab / no of positive / no of negative
• ditto at hospital
• ditto at care home
• all of the above broken down by number / people / date

Presently the data presented to us mere mortals is unintelligible.  Today 120k tests / 70k people are not necessarily linked.

Imho it’s data being presented to mask what is really going on, to avoid real scrutiny and therefore accountability.  We’ve no idea how many postal tests have been returned for example.  If that’s public apathy to return it, then call out the public, not the government. If it’s because the lab is full, then call that out, or at least explain.

As a Business Analysis the common requirements given to me by the business are - “I want lots of MI”.  That’s why we have what we have today, because nobody has asked, what do we want to measure, how often, who wants it, for what purpose, etc etc.

[OldlandReddies]

2 hours ago, 054123 said:

I appreciate I’m on a forum about a club I dearly love, but does anyone else feel like I do, in that I really couldn’t give a **** about this season.

If the new season starts in August, fine. If not, I don’t really care.

Can't agree. Football starting up will be a massive boost to the well being of many thousands. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

Utopia capacity is circa 120k I believe.  Say there are 100 testing centres all with capacity for 1000 per day (just for the maths purposes), plus say 20k being posted, totals 120k.  They might post 20k every day, but getting 1000 people through each centre every day is not likely, meaning capacity should probably be set at a lower figure.  You’ve then got to get the tests processed.  That also seems to be an issue, hence why 50k got sent to the US.  I have no probs with this, just be transparent that the labs are overwhelmed.

In an ideal world, they would be better metrics (the current set are not “world leading” as alleged).  You’d see granularity such as:

• no of tested posted out / no of posted tests returned / no of tests returned processed by lab / no of positive / no of negative results (from all of this you’d see success rates, lag from post, lag from lab)
• no of tests at tests centres / no of tests processed by lab / no of positive / no of negative
• ditto at hospital
• ditto at care home
• all of the above broken down by number / people / date

Presently the data presented to us mere mortals is unintelligible.  Today 120k tests / 70k people are not necessarily linked.

Imho it’s data being presented to mask what is really going on, to avoid real scrutiny and therefore accountability.  We’ve no idea how many postal tests have been returned for example.  If that’s public apathy to return it, then call out the public, not the government. If it’s because the lab is full, then call that out, or at least explain.

As a Business Analysis the common requirements given to me by the business are - “I want lots of MI”.  That’s why we have what we have today, because nobody has asked, what do we want to measure, how often, who wants it, for what purpose, etc etc.

Ditto, for antibody tests too

[Loco Rojo]

15 minutes ago, OldlandReddies said:

Can't agree. Football starting up will be a massive boost to the well being of many thousands. 

I get it, I do. The idea of football on a Saturday afternoon for some is their escape, a chance to socialise and a reminder of happy times. Football restarting might be a boost to peoples well being BUT it won't be the same and if I was one of those thousands who thought restarting this season is more beneficial to my well being over the risk it poses to those involved (let's face it, it could kill them) then I'm sorry but i'd need to take a serious look at myself. Sorry, but at this current time, with the restrictions still in place, how the hell can they restart football and risk lives for the sake of well being. 

Personally I don't think it has nothing to do with well being or the nations morale - it's to do with MONEY, end off and it's a disgrace that the football authorities and Governement would suggest otherwise.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, 1964w said:

Club working on refund and club credit options

Leeds United would like to reassure Season Ticket Holders and those who have purchased tickets for individual games (including hospitality customers) that we are working on refund and club credit options for our remaining Championship fixtures along with our Centenary game following announcements from the Government this week.

 

We thank supporters for their patience on this matter, the club will contact all those affected as soon as details are confirmed.

 

My bank account keeps increasing 

Credit where it's due- again. One of the first to defer wages and I think it was full wages and then this.

One of the earliest- possibly the earliest in this respect? Not sure they're legally obliged to refund remaining 5 games but maybe it's more varied, ranges of options etc.

[054123]

36 minutes ago, OldlandReddies said:

Can't agree. Football starting up will be a massive boost to the well being of many thousands. 

That’s fair enough. 
 

I really couldn’t care at present.

[BCFC Grim]

36 minutes ago, OldlandReddies said:

Can't agree. Football starting up will be a massive boost to the well being of many thousands. 

I'd be amazed if some half hearted games behind closed doors will be that much of a boost to be honest. I'd struggle to get the enthusiasm to watch them full stop.

[Vincent Vega]

1 minute ago, BCFC Grim said:

I'd be amazed if some half hearted games behind closed doors will be that much of a boost to be honest. I'd struggle to get the enthusiasm to watch them full stop.

It won't will it . Not being able to go is the single biggest factor for me too.

[lenred]

1 hour ago, Vincent Vega said:

It won't will it . Not being able to go is the single biggest factor for me too.

Not sure if anyone saw the Olympiakos v Wolves game just before lockdown but it really was awful, so sterile.  Maybe it’ll be different with more familiar names on show and with promotion and relegation to play for (and fantasy football!) as opposed to a nothing Europa game,  but I’m with you. It’s the ‘event’ of game day I miss at the moment as opposed to the actual games themselves.  

[1964w]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Credit where it's due- again. One of the first to defer wages and I think it was full wages and then this.

One of the earliest- possibly the earliest in this respect? Not sure they're legally obliged to refund remaining 5 games but maybe it's more varied, ranges of options etc.

For the first time in decades we have a owner who respects the fans 

[The Humble Realist]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/footballleagueworld.co.uk/isnt-going-to-happen-dont-do-it-many-sunderland-fans-react-to-off-pitch-update/amp/

 

They may have 24,000 season ticket holders but this shows how corrupt football is really. Game needs an overhaul