Sean Dyche

[LondonBristolian]

10 minutes ago, Simon79 said:

Let’s put it another way, if by doing this it speeded up the production or distribution of the vaccine ( which is what he’s suggesting) Would it be a good idea? Can anyone say no to that question? I appreciate what people probably more in the know than myself have said about vaccinated people still being carriers, but certainly not the most craziest of ideas if possible. COYR 

I think there is a lot of logic in doing everything possible to get everyone who will agree to be vaccinated as soon as possible (hopefully including children and pregnant women, who are the two groups where there still needs to be research done to guarantee safety).

I don't think footballers are anywhere near important enough to jump the queue and should wait their turn like anyone else but I do think there is an interesting question as to whether there are opportunities for football, live events, or other industries that are good at facilitating large numbers of people and have a vested interest in getting things up and running ASAP would be able to offer skills or resources to help speed up the vaccine process.

There is no reason at all why football should be ahead of anyone else in vaccination and, even when you get past vulnerable people, there are a Hell of a lot of people more critical than footballers (NHS workers, emergency service workers, police officers, supermarket workers, postal workers and, even beyond that people like cleaners and hairdressers whose jobs bring themselves in close contact with people). But I think there is a vested collective interest in getting everyone vaccinated, within their turn, as quickly as possible and maybe football and other industries could help with that. 

[BigTone]

9 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Please do correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that it wasn't known if the vaccine prevented transmission rather than it was known that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission?

Obviously, in practical terms, it doesn't make a difference in this case as you'd still need to assume someone vaccinated could transmit unless you knew otherwise but I keep seeing people stating that people who've had the vaccine can still transmit it whereas I thought it was hoped - and theoretically very possible - that the vaccine would prevent transmission but this was yet to be proven. 

My understanding is that you can still carry and transmit the virus despite being vaccinated. The vaccine stops yourself from falling sick with the virus.

[And Its Smith]

Those ruled by their heart will say nonsense. Those rules by their head will say good idea

Thats it 

[red panda]

Dyche's comments are absolute nonsense.  Money isn't the constraint on the vaccination programme (or a lot else) at the moment.  If they want to help the NHS, then they can donate some of their vast wealth without linking it to vaccinations.

What would make a difference would be if all professional footballers started obeying the ****ing lockdown rules, rather than continuing to behave like the spoilt little rich kids they are.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

Robbored actually has a point for once.

The OP even said "a few quotes".

In the video of it Dyche does say it shouldn't be a way for them to jump ahead.

I'm perhaps applying an overly simple logic, but Im guessing that fit and healthy 20 somethings, with no underlying health issues,  will be a long way down the list of priority, when it comes to dishing out the vaccine.

If that is the case, then anything football wants to do, along the lines that Dyche suggests, is ( or would be seen as) a way for footballers to "jump ahead" of the queue.

Of course, that does not include most of the City squad, as we know they have multiple underlying health issues that prevent them playing much of  a part in this season!

[LondonBristolian]

7 minutes ago, BigTone said:

My understanding is that you can still carry and transmit the virus despite being vaccinated. The vaccine stops yourself from falling sick with the virus.

You need to scrolldown a bit Gov.uk have got it as an unknown:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-guide-for-older-adults/covid-19-vaccination-guide-for-older-adults

This article puts it as an unknown too:

https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-vaccine-effective-prevent-spread-infection/

I've still not seen any research anywhere that shows you can transmit after vaccinated. I still think it is more that there is absence of evidence showing that you cannot trasnmit. 

[JamesBCFC]

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I'm perhaps applying an overly simple logic, but Im guessing that fit and healthy 20 somethings, with no underlying health issues,  will be a long way down the list of priority, when it comes to dishing out the vaccine.

If that is the case, then anything football wants to do, along the lines that Dyche suggests, is ( or would be seen as) a way for footballers to "jump ahead" of the queue.

Of course, that does not include most of the City squad, as we know they have multiple underlying health issues that prevent them playing much of  a part in this season!

Dyche said (and I wonder why OP left this quote out)

"Let me make it clear, there are people way in front of footballers [as a priority to be vaccinated]. I'm not remotely suggesting that should be put in front of the welfare of people who are very vulnerable.”

 

So unless Dyche was calling for the footballers to be vaccinated immediately then he isn't.

Obviously I cannot speak for Dyche, but I'd suggest his thoughts are to vaccinate the football players after those most vulnerable, whether that be health conditions or age, are done. 

There are other holes with the idea, such as where is the line drawn- Premier League only?- and the issue of the irresponsible football players who've been caught having parties, etc.

 

I'd also warn against assuming that just because they are professional athletes they have no underlying health issues. It is rare admittedly, but there have been multiple instances of players collapsing on football pitches, and Shawn McCoulsky I believe was found to have an underlying issue while he was here.

[BigTone]

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

You need to scrolldown a bit Gov.uk have got it as an unknown:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-guide-for-older-adults/covid-19-vaccination-guide-for-older-adults

This article puts it as an unknown too:

https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-vaccine-effective-prevent-spread-infection/

I've still not seen any research anywhere that shows you can transmit after vaccinated. I still think it is more that there is absence of evidence showing that you cannot trasnmit. 

Just finished reading 3 different articles on it and no one really knows either way but I do recall it being said when Pfizer released their vaccine that it was still possible to transmit.

It's all up in the air really as with the new mutations (especially the South African one,) no one one is 100% sure the vaccine will work either.

Anyone thinking that all will be back to normal by Spring really is up there with the birds. Health Minister Matt Hancock saying that this lockdown will be the last is overly confident bordering on the stupid.

.

[MarcusX]

 

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

It’s a fairly decent debatable point and not necessarily black and white.

As I understand it, PL clubs have c80 tests each available a week, and these are for 40 players/staff to be tested twice. The cost IIRC was c£100 per test, so let’s say £10k per week per club

Making an assumption of the vaccines going to the same 40 players/staff, that means Dyche is effectively suggesting that 800 vaccines are used if one shot/1600 if two shots. For consistency, and in line with the current approach, let’s say 1 shot.

The Government are targeting 13m people with one shot by mid feb. Therefore, the “plan” represents 0.006% of available vaccines.

If people get the vaccine now, they have 3 weeks before testing can reasonably stop.

This means if you jab footballers now then you theoretically stop testing at end of Jan.

Football then diverts the cost of testing to the NHS for a defined period (say 6 months). That’s £200k x 26 weeks = £5.2m

So, your sum is (even before ancillaries like tax etc are considered) is 0.006% of vaccines for c£5m. Noting that people like Hodgson won’t be queue jumping.

I probably come on the side of no, but I do think there’s an argument here

Why are the NHS paying for their tests, shouldn't they be paying for them privately? I thought that's what was happening but maybe not.

I think it would send out a poor message if footballers got vaccinated before some of the vulnerable no matter how it was come about. What would stop millionaires requesting a vaccine if they offered the NHS a large donation? It sets a precedent and an awful message to the public.

I think people need to remember football is not essential and as for "tax" I assume they mean from players salaries, last lockdown they kept being paid so that didnt stop. Where do you draw the line, only premier league? Only football? Someone suggested Olympians, I'd much rather see amateur athletes who have put their whole life into 1 or maybe 2 shots at making an Olympic games have their opportunity over a footballer.

Lastly, isn't there still some debate as to whether Covid can still be caught and passed on after vaccination? Therefore testing may still be required as well, else the spread can still happen to families and other contacts.

If football is concerned about the spread within the game I suggest they first look to the players to restrict their movements and accept the privilidged positions they are in which may require sacrifices and if that isn't enough then it has to stop until the virus is less prevelant.

Edit: Some of these things may have been addressed I hadn't finished reading so apologies if so.

[Rob k]

40 minutes ago, red panda said:

Dyche's comments are absolute nonsense.  Money isn't the constraint on the vaccination programme (or a lot else) at the moment.  If they want to help the NHS, then they can donate some of their vast wealth without linking it to vaccinations.

What would make a difference would be if all professional footballers started obeying the ****ing lockdown rules, rather than continuing to behave like the spoilt little rich kids they are.

You make it out as if it’s just footballers that are disobeying the rules - It seems there are a hell of a lot more spoilt rich footballers around my way than i ever thought. 

[BigTone]

7 minutes ago, Rob k said:

You make it out as if it’s just footballers that are disobeying the rules - It seems there are a hell of a lot more spoilt rich footballers around my way than i ever thought. 

Agreed, it just that it's people like footballers that make the headlines and not Fred & Doris from No 25 who aren't newsworthy.

[Leveller]

There seems to be very little, if any, comment in this thread about footballers being encouraged or even required to get into close personal contact with a couple of dozen other people while at work. If we force them to work together, they have a valid claim to be vaccinated (as does anybody else who has to work in close contact with others).

This is one area where they are different from many others. I haven't heard of any objecting to playing or training because of the risks, but they would have a valid point.

It is also a valid point insofar as their social mixing is with the same people they work with. Of course they should stick to the same rules as other people when it comes to parties etc. However, if you look at it logically, if there are about thirty of them forced to mix on the pitch/bench, then it makes no sense to say those thirty can't have a drink or meal together, before or after.

There is a fair bit of hypocrisy from fans, it seems to me, who are happy for them to play matches but then call them spoilt brats for mixing together. If we expect them to stay safe, we can't expect them to train or play together.

[marmite]

IMO football shouldn't even be being played during the lockdown. Then the players can stay home like the rest of us and wait either for their turn for vaccine, or until restrictions are lifted. They break the rules at will anyway and pay their fines with loose change. The approach that football matters at this time is lost on me. Let the prima donnas sit in their mansions and empty their wine cellars while the rest of us suffer hardship. Yes I did read the whole article and yes he is asking for prefferential treatment. Just wait your turn!!!

[LondonBristolian]

38 minutes ago, Leveller said:

There seems to be very little, if any, comment in this thread about footballers being encouraged or even required to get into close personal contact with a couple of dozen other people while at work. If we force them to work together, they have a valid claim to be vaccinated (as does anybody else who has to work in close contact with others).

This is one area where they are different from many others. I haven't heard of any objecting to playing or training because of the risks, but they would have a valid point.

It is also a valid point insofar as their social mixing is with the same people they work with. Of course they should stick to the same rules as other people when it comes to parties etc. However, if you look at it logically, if there are about thirty of them forced to mix on the pitch/bench, then it makes no sense to say those thirty can't have a drink or meal together, before or after.

There is a fair bit of hypocrisy from fans, it seems to me, who are happy for them to play matches but then call them spoilt brats for mixing together. If we expect them to stay safe, we can't expect them to train or play together.

Sadly I think the last sentence there is the answer. The vast majority of other people who work in jobs where they are encouraged or required to be in close personal contact with people are currently furloughed. And nobody is pushing for hairdressers or bar staff, for example, to be bumped up the vaccine queue. And schools are shut so that teachers and pupils are not in close contact together. 

Football was cancelled during the first lockdown and, given how prevalent COVID is again, it probably should be this time too. I don't like it and I wish it wasn't the case but both the expenditure on the testing and the proposed expenditure on the vaccine are both essentially coming from making something sustainable that may not be sustainable in the current environment. I love football but I love gigs and festivals too, and I'm having to accept that gigs and festivals cannot currently take place. Others have made the point that their kids can't go to school yet football continues. I'm increasingly struggling for a reason to justify football to be continuing to be given preferential treatment outside the rules. It came back as the cases dropped but the increase of cases, and the number of positive tests at games, suggest those games themselves are putting people at risk of getting the virus. And, during a health crisis, the solution isn't to find ways to divert medical testing, vaccines and resources in order to allow it to continue but to treat football the same way other parts of society are being treated. 

[E.G.Red]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Sadly I think the last sentence there is the answer. The vast majority of other people who work in jobs where they are encouraged or required to be in close personal contact with people are currently furloughed. And nobody is pushing for hairdressers or bar staff, for example, to be bumped up the vaccine queue. And schools are shut so that teachers and pupils are not in close contact together. 

Football was cancelled during the first lockdown and, given how prevalent COVID is again, it probably should be this time too. I don't like it and I wish it wasn't the case but both the expenditure on the testing and the proposed expenditure on the vaccine are both essentially coming from making something sustainable that may not be sustainable in the current environment. I love football but I love gigs and festivals too, and I'm having to accept that gigs and festivals cannot currently take place. Others have made the point that their kids can't go to school yet football continues. I'm increasingly struggling for a reason to justify football to be continuing to be given preferential treatment outside the rules. It came back as the cases dropped but the increase of cases, and the number of positive tests at games, suggest those games themselves are putting people at risk of getting the virus. And, during a health crisis, the solution isn't to find ways to divert medical testing, vaccines and resources in order to allow it to continue but to treat football the same way other parts of society are being treated. 

I think the argument for football has been that it is for the mental health and well-being  of certain members of the public- usually but not exclusively men. Also as I understand it testing is being paid for by the PL and the PFA.

[LondonBristolian]

13 minutes ago, E.G.Red said:

I think the argument for football has been that it is for the mental health and well-being  of certain members of the public- usually but not exclusively men. Also as I understand it testing is being paid for by the PL and the PFA.

That's the argument that is made but, let's be honest, it's utter horseshit. Plenty of things that are important for the mental health and wellbeing of the public are currently cancelled due to safety concerns. I can see the argument for football going ahead if it is safe to do so but the number of outbreaks at different clubs (all of whom could be transmitting it to their families, ignoring that players are not vulnerable to death, serious illness or long COVID) suggests that football is not managing to control the virus.

I feel at the moment we have a timebomb where, whilst the individual risk to an otherwise healthy young individual is relatively low, enough footballers infected may well lead to a footballer getting long term or serious symptoms that could end their career or worse. Plus managers and coaches often aren't so young and healthy as players. Given football is not preventing infection, the only argument for it being "safe" is no footballer or manager has been hospitalised, admitted to ICU or had long COVID yet. That's only going to be true until it no longer is. 

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

There seems to be very little, if any, comment in this thread about footballers being encouraged or even required to get into close personal contact with a couple of dozen other people while at work. If we force them to work together, they have a valid claim to be vaccinated (as does anybody else who has to work in close contact with others).

This is one area where they are different from many others. I haven't heard of any objecting to playing or training because of the risks, but they would have a valid point.

It is also a valid point insofar as their social mixing is with the same people they work with. Of course they should stick to the same rules as other people when it comes to parties etc. However, if you look at it logically, if there are about thirty of them forced to mix on the pitch/bench, then it makes no sense to say those thirty can't have a drink or meal together, before or after.

There is a fair bit of hypocrisy from fans, it seems to me, who are happy for them to play matches but then call them spoilt brats for mixing together. If we expect them to stay safe, we can't expect them to train or play together.

Lots of people are still allowed to mix in their jobs but not to do so socially. 
Why should footballers be exempt. 
My daughter was in a school class ‘bubble’ with 27 other kids. She had a birthday party planned (pre-tiering) where 5 of her classmates were going to be allowed to attend with her. Once the tiering came in, that was cancelled. 
If my child can’t have a birthday party with 5 friends who are in the same class bubble, then why should any other folks be exempt from such rules. 

38 minutes ago, E.G.Red said:

I think the argument for football has been that it is for the mental health and well-being  of certain members of the public- usually but not exclusively men. Also as I understand it testing is being paid for by the PL and the PFA.

It’s a bollox argument. 
The mental health of children is being severely impacted by school closures. 
We’re currently storing up a whoooolllle world of mental health illnesses in 10-15 years time. 
I suppose there’s one positive - there’ll be plenty of employment opportunity for mental health counsellors. 
 

As for Dyche’s comments. I don’t care what it’s costing football nor what funds can be diverted. Ok, he’s happy for the ‘vulnerable’ to go first. Then what? If they vaccinate footballers before teachers I’ll be even more ******* livid with football as I already am. There’s millions of people who should be ahead of footballers in the queue. 
So to Dyche - shut the **** up and wait your ******* turn. 
Here’s an idea. If you want to route the testing costs to the NHS, just do it anyway. Stop testing the players now - it doesn’t seem to make any difference whatsoever if they test positive anyway, it just carries on as normal. 
 

So go on then football - stop testing, keep playing anyway, and send the NHS the money. 
 

As I’ve mentioned before : football can go **** itself 

[LondonBristolian]

37 minutes ago, Harry said:

Lots of people are still allowed to mix in their jobs but not to do so socially. 
Why should footballers be exempt. 
My daughter was in a school class ‘bubble’ with 27 other kids. She had a birthday party planned (pre-tiering) where 5 of her classmates were going to be allowed to attend with her. Once the tiering came in, that was cancelled. 
If my child can’t have a birthday party with 5 friends who are in the same class bubble, then why should any other folks be exempt from such rules. 

It’s a bollox argument. 
The mental health of children is being severely impacted by school closures. 
We’re currently storing up a whoooolllle world of mental health illnesses in 10-15 years time. 
I suppose there’s one positive - there’ll be plenty of employment opportunity for mental health counsellors. 
 

As for Dyche’s comments. I don’t care what it’s costing football nor what funds can be diverted. Ok, he’s happy for the ‘vulnerable’ to go first. Then what? If they vaccinate footballers before teachers I’ll be even more ******* livid with football as I already am. There’s millions of people who should be ahead of footballers in the queue. 
So to Dyche - shut the **** up and wait your ******* turn. 
Here’s an idea. If you want to route the testing costs to the NHS, just do it anyway. Stop testing the players now - it doesn’t seem to make any difference whatsoever if they test positive anyway, it just carries on as normal. 
 

So go on then football - stop testing, keep playing anyway, and send the NHS the money. 
 

As I’ve mentioned before : football can go **** itself 

I think where Dyche can particularly shut the **** up is the use of Marcus Rashford as being evidence that keeping football going is an inherently good thing.

1) Being on lockdown wouldn't mean Marcus Rashford no longer had a social media platform

2) Being on lockdown wouldn't mean everyone suddenly forgot who Marcus Rashford was.

3) What Marcus Rashford has done is fantastic but it's not really something football as a whole can take credit for. If, say, an estate agent made a substantial contribution to charity then it would be a fantastic gesture on the part of that estate agent but nobody would use it as evidence of all the good that estate agents do for the world. 

[WolfOfWestStreet]

You can tell who heard him speak and those who read the (selected) soundbites provided by the poster, angled towards making Dyche look selfish. 

The hyperbole here is hilarious. 

His argument is absolutely sound imo.

 

[BigTone]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Lots of people are still allowed to mix in their jobs but not to do so socially. 
Why should footballers be exempt. 
My daughter was in a school class ‘bubble’ with 27 other kids. She had a birthday party planned (pre-tiering) where 5 of her classmates were going to be allowed to attend with her. Once the tiering came in, that was cancelled. 
If my child can’t have a birthday party with 5 friends who are in the same class bubble, then why should any other folks be exempt from such rules. 

It’s a bollox argument. 
The mental health of children is being severely impacted by school closures. 
We’re currently storing up a whoooolllle world of mental health illnesses in 10-15 years time. 
I suppose there’s one positive - there’ll be plenty of employment opportunity for mental health counsellors. 
 

As for Dyche’s comments. I don’t care what it’s costing football nor what funds can be diverted. Ok, he’s happy for the ‘vulnerable’ to go first. Then what? If they vaccinate footballers before teachers I’ll be even more ******* livid with football as I already am. There’s millions of people who should be ahead of footballers in the queue. 
So to Dyche - shut the **** up and wait your ******* turn. 
Here’s an idea. If you want to route the testing costs to the NHS, just do it anyway. Stop testing the players now - it doesn’t seem to make any difference whatsoever if they test positive anyway, it just carries on as normal. 
 

So go on then football - stop testing, keep playing anyway, and send the NHS the money. 
 

As I’ve mentioned before : football can go **** itself 

Careful Harry, I'm tending to agree with you again.

What people like Dyche need to understand is there is a world outside of football. Plenty of businesses who pay corporation tax and their employees who pay income tax are going to the wall. Others need to take priority for vaccinations.

Interesting to note that hospital admissions for people aged 19 - 30 is increasing rapidly so fit footballer or not they are at risk. Age also doesn't define transmission of the virus so this notion that it only affects oldies like me is just bollox.

Sorry, I'm waffling on here but just don't think playing a game should take any priority and those involved should wait their turn.

[Harry]

4 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

You can tell who heard him speak and those who read the (selected) soundbites provided by the poster, angled towards making Dyche look selfish. 

The hyperbole here is hilarious. 

His argument is absolutely sound imo.

 

It’s not a sound argument. 
There are absolutely no circumstances in which premier league footballers ought to be vaccinated ahead of anyone else. 
No matter what the cost. 
If it meant even 1 persons life was lost as a result of even a day’s delay, then it’s not a sound argument. 

Anyway - the current testing is being done privately. It’ll only be a matter of time before there’s enough vaccination supply that it’ll also be available privately. Let them wait til then and they can purchase as many shots as they want. 

[WolfOfWestStreet]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

It’s not a sound argument. 
There are absolutely no circumstances in which premier league footballers ought to be vaccinated ahead of anyone else. 
No matter what the cost. 
If it meant even 1 persons life was lost as a result of even a day’s delay, then it’s not a sound argument. 

Anyway - the current testing is being done privately. It’ll only be a matter of time before there’s enough vaccination supply that it’ll also be available privately. Let them wait til then and they can purchase as many shots as they want. 

I'd put them in the category of key workers, so as a non key worker myself they should have one before I get one. 

He never once said players should get them before any vulnerable people. 

Once you vaccinate the vulnerable, you vaccinate the key workers, and so on ... dont think that's particularly unreasonable 

[BigTone]

5 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

I'd put them in the category of key workers, so as a non key worker myself they should have one before I get one. 

He never once said players should get them before any vulnerable people. 

Once you vaccinate the vulnerable, you vaccinate the key workers, and so on ... dont think that's particularly unreasonable 

Maybe I'm confused here but how is a footballer any more a key worker than Doris who works in the chip shop. If anything they should be at the bottom of the list.

[Harry]

8 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

I'd put them in the category of key workers, so as a non key worker myself they should have one before I get one. 

He never once said players should get them before any vulnerable people. 

Once you vaccinate the vulnerable, you vaccinate the key workers, and so on ... dont think that's particularly unreasonable 

I know he never said for it to be done ahead of the vulnerable. That’s why I said in my post “once the vulnerable are done, then what?”  
 

I must say, you’re the first person I’ve heard describe footballers as key workers. 
Sorry bud, I’m usually in agreement with a lot of what you post, but I can never agree with that. 
 

I’ve just had a thought about football, and it’s continuing to play. How many medical staff are being wasted at these games! I assume there’s a requirement for a certain number of St John’s to be present. A club Doctor. Varying additional medical personnel. 
All of these people could surely be helping out somewhere else in this extreme circumstance we now find ourselves in. 
If football wants to help, quit playing and let these medically qualified persons go out and do some good - whether that’s being able to administer vaccinations, or carry out tests, or help their local hospital with non-covid patients or other ‘routine’ stuff etc etc. 

Apparently London is on its knees. Yet there’ll be numerous football matches taking place in London this weekend, each probably with 4 St John’s, numerous Dr’s and other medically trained people. There’s probably hundreds of trained professionals who’ll be at a number of pointless football matches when they could be out there supporting the services that are at breaking point.  
 

Seems utterly ridiculous to me, to be playing football at this time. 
 

So if Dyche wants to help - call your game off this weekend and send all of your medical staff to the local hospital to help out. 

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I think he meant well.

But I think footballers will continue being tested anyway.

Means well, but out of touch with the real world, naive imho.  Stuck in the bubble that is football.

[daored]

@JamesBCFCthe quotes I gave at the start were quotes I saw. I don’t have an agenda against Dyche or his comments, felt it was an interesting debate. As we’ve seen some agree, some disagree. It’s an emotive subject and I think @Harrymakes a strong point about whether club medical staff could be used to support the NHS if football ceased? Agree it seems strange where we have hospitals overrun in parts of the country but professional sport is being played - what happens if a player breaks a leg tomorrow at a game in London?
 

@WolfOfWestStreet unsure why you class progressional footballers as key workers 

[BigTone]

1 minute ago, daored said:

 

@WolfOfWestStreet unsure why you class progressional footballers as key workers 

Frankly, it disturbs me that someone would consider they are.

[Simon79]

22 minutes ago, Harry said:

I know he never said for it to be done ahead of the vulnerable. That’s why I said in my post “once the vulnerable are done, then what?”  
 

I must say, you’re the first person I’ve heard describe footballers as key workers. 
Sorry bud, I’m usually in agreement with a lot of what you post, but I can never agree with that. 
 

I’ve just had a thought about football, and it’s continuing to play. How many medical staff are being wasted at these games! I assume there’s a requirement for a certain number of St John’s to be present. A club Doctor. Varying additional medical personnel. 
All of these people could surely be helping out somewhere else in this extreme circumstance we now find ourselves in. 
If football wants to help, quit playing and let these medically qualified persons go out and do some good - whether that’s being able to administer vaccinations, or carry out tests, or help their local hospital with non-covid patients or other ‘routine’ stuff etc etc. 

Apparently London is on its knees. Yet there’ll be numerous football matches taking place in London this weekend, each probably with 4 St John’s, numerous Dr’s and other medically trained people. There’s probably hundreds of trained professionals who’ll be at a number of pointless football matches when they could be out there supporting the services that are at breaking point.  
 

Seems utterly ridiculous to me, to be playing football at this time. 
 

So if Dyche wants to help - call your game off this weekend and send all of your medical staff to the local hospital to help out. 

Now I was sticking up for Dyche in some ways earlier in this thread. I could certainly see some logic to his point, but actually, I think this is the best post i’ve read by far on this topic ( granted I’ve skimmed through a few! ). I can’t say I’d miss the football either. COYR 

[kiwicolin]

Simple answer.  NO

[BigTone]

23 minutes ago, daored said:

@JamesBCFCthe quotes I gave at the start were quotes I saw. I don’t have an agenda against Dyche or his comments, felt it was an interesting debate. As we’ve seen some agree, some disagree. It’s an emotive subject and I think @Harrymakes a strong point about whether club medical staff could be used to support the NHS if football ceased? Agree it seems strange where we have hospitals overrun in parts of the country but professional sport is being played - what happens if a player breaks a leg tomorrow at a game in London?
 

@WolfOfWestStreet unsure why you class progressional footballers as key workers 

A question as I don't see very much reference to it. Is Ashton Gate still being used as a vaccination centre by the Army ?