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

[pillred]

1 hour ago, S25loyal said:

I didn’t , I can’t remember the poster but there was one on here who was adamant we would be back to full crowds by now as his missus works at south mead and covid was gone etc. 

I genuinely believe we won’t see crowds at Ashton gate for a good couple of years. 

Well if that happens I can't see there being a Bristol City to watch in two years, how long do you think Steve Lansdown will be prepared to bankroll us and the bears?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Meanwhile in Germany...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8754851/German-football-fans-rejoice-return-Bundesliga-stadiums-time-Covid-19.html

Of course, if cases rise there then back behind closed doors most likely but and yes no alcohol, no away fans, no standing (Union Berlin seemed to get some dispensation as most of their ground standing), up to 20% capacity.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Super]

13 minutes ago, pillred said:

Wouldn't?? happen.

I meant getting crowds back in.

[downendcity]

51 minutes ago, pillred said:

Well if that happens I can't see there being a Bristol City to watch in two years, how long do you think Steve Lansdown will be prepared to bankroll us and the bears?

If this carries on for another 2 years I doubt there would be any other teams left for us to play,even if SL continued to bankroll the club! 

[TonyTonyTony]

22 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If this carries on for another 2 years I doubt there would be any other teams left for us to play,even if SL continued to bankroll the club! 

It is terrible. How many of the L2/L2/NL clubs are going to survive is beyond me. Maybe a solidarity fund from the PL clubs, but i cant see them doing it - they rather spunk 50M on players. If clubs do go to the wall, and the PL keep paying 200 grand a week and spending on transfers i will be disgusted. Football is our national game and must survive. The government wont help, so its either the fans / philanthropic owners or PL step in. 

[CyderInACan]

5 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

It is terrible. How many of the L2/L2/NL clubs are going to survive is beyond me. Maybe a solidarity fund from the PL clubs, but i cant see them doing it - they rather spunk 50M on players. If clubs do go to the wall, and the PL keep paying 200 grand a week and spending on transfers i will be disgusted. Football is our national game and must survive. The government wont help, so its either the fans / philanthropic owners or PL step in. 

Maybe there should be a solidarity levy on all transfer fees paid by Prem clubs - say 5% - that is redistributed throughout the leagues.

If the money-go-round in the Prem continues unabated that would be an absolute disgrace. 

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Meanwhile in Germany...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8754851/German-football-fans-rejoice-return-Bundesliga-stadiums-time-Covid-19.html

Of course, if cases rise there then back behind closed doors most likely but and yes no alcohol, no away fans, no standing (Union Berlin seemed to get some dispensation as most of their ground standing), up to 20% capacity.

Big difference.

They are run by professionals & respect qualifications (we used to mock Germans for their “Herr Docktor Professor” titles, well no more).

Whereas we are a ******* shambles, fancy a job running track & trace? Any relevant experience? Don’t be silly, I ****** up at TalkTalk but do know a lot about horses & am married to a Tory MP..

There is a link between competence & Covid deaths and we are the equivalent of the gas in the league tables..

Edited September 22, 2020 by GrahamC

[Loco Rojo]

This is hugely frustrating (and damaging to clubs/sport) but i understand why given the numbers are increasing. I agree it's the right thing to do, however the situation is made harder to accept when there are so many inconsistencies from the governments rules.

Unfortunately though we're in the middle of a pandemic and now in a second wave, so it would be crazy to encourage fans back in - even if in smaller numbers.

Clubs might be able to demonstrate they can sit fans apart in the stands but unfortunately people aren't robots and some just don't get it and are likely to move around to sit closer to each other (I doubt the club will pay marshal's to police it so therefore i don't beleive it can be managed safely). Add in getting to and from the seats where clearly some fans won't (or can't) socially distant and suddenly the ability for this to be done safely reduces even further to the point where actually this could make a situation worse.

Unfortunately there are too many people that have taken the piss since lockdown relaxed and the reality is this has contributed to making it worse for everyone (it's so frustrating for those that have been careful). Yes, I know the Government have made a shambles of this too but bloody hell, most people know what socially distance means and should take responsibility for their actions and not blame others. Unfortunately we live in a society now where people need to be handheld through life and it's always someone else's fault.

[downendcity]

25 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

It is terrible. How many of the L2/L2/NL clubs are going to survive is beyond me. Maybe a solidarity fund from the PL clubs, but i cant see them doing it - they rather spunk 50M on players. If clubs do go to the wall, and the PL keep paying 200 grand a week and spending on transfers i will be disgusted. Football is our national game and must survive. The government wont help, so its either the fans / philanthropic owners or PL step in. 

Perhaps we will end up with what PL owners have long wanted -  no relegation- as there won’t  be any other leagues to which clubs can be relegated or from which clubs can be promoted.

It will be like footballs' equivalent of the “closed shop” NFL. 

[Davefevs]

52 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

It is terrible. How many of the L2/L2/NL clubs are going to survive is beyond me. Maybe a solidarity fund from the PL clubs, but i cant see them doing it - they rather spunk 50M on players. If clubs do go to the wall, and the PL keep paying 200 grand a week and spending on transfers i will be disgusted. Football is our national game and must survive. The government wont help, so its either the fans / philanthropic owners or PL step in. 

Not having a go at you Triple-T, but why does everyone always suggest it’s the PL that should bail out the EFL clubs?

Why not the EFL itself, or the FA, or the PFA?

[The Humble Realist]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not having a go at you Triple-T, but why does everyone always suggest it’s the PL that should bail out the EFL clubs?

Why not the EFL itself, or the FA, or the PFA?

Because prem clubs are shelling out for bale , thiago, sancho, jota at the same time as the announcement today. 

Unfortunately it's a dog eat dog world so I wont hold my breath

 

Dark times ahead 

[phantom]

30 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Big difference.

They are run by professionals & respect qualifications (we used to mock Germans for their “Herr Docktor Professor” titles, well no more).

Whereas we are a ******* shambles, fancy a job running track & trace? Any relevant experience? Don’t be silly, I ****** up at TalkTalk but do know a lot about horses & am married to a Tory MP..

There is a link between competence & Covid deaths and we are the equivalent of the gas in the league tables..

I've no idea what was originally said in this post, but please keep political comments to the politics section

One thing that I will wait to see what happens with, it is the return of supporters from October that has been postponed.

It doesn't specify whether the current test events will cease. 

They are two massively different things

[Clevedon Red]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

Every bugger in the country knows the names of Harry Potter’s parents!!!

Was Lee Johnson one of them?

13 minutes ago, phantom said:

I've no idea what was originally said in this post, but please keep political comments to the politics section

One thing that I will wait to see what happens with, it is the return of supporters from October that has been postponed.

It doesn't specify whether the current test events will cease. 

They are two massively different things

Bath rugby have stopped their test event tonight and will play behind closed doors.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Clevedon Red

[redordead1]

10 minutes ago, phantom said:

I've no idea what was originally said in this post, but please keep political comments to the politics section

One thing that I will wait to see what happens with, it is the return of supporters from October that has been postponed.

It doesn't specify whether the current test events will cease. 

They are two massively different things

No offence, but it’s like you’re living in an alternative reality. What do you expect will happen to the test events?

Edited September 22, 2020 by redordead1

[Portland Bill]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not having a go at you Triple-T, but why does everyone always suggest it’s the PL that should bail out the EFL clubs?

Why not the EFL itself, or the FA, or the PFA?

I’m not up to date on money spent on transfers by every club, but Chelsea have spent an absolute fortune recently. It makes my blood boil that Chelsea and other Prem clubs are still spending fortunes, whilst teams further down the pyramid are really struggling. The Premier league is where all the cash is, they need to have a look at what they are doing, and the message they are sending out. 

[phantom]

7 minutes ago, redordead1 said:

No offence, but it’s like you’re living in an alternative reality. What do you expect will happen to the test events?

Do you honestly think test events won't occur at some point?

[elhombrecito]

STATEMENT: LEICESTER TIGERS PILOT FIXTURE

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND 2020

Bristol Bears regret to confirm that, following government advice, the Gallagher Premiership fixture versus Leicester Tigers will now be played behind closed doors. 

The round 21 game had been allocated as a test event to pilot the safe return of 1,000 spectators, adhering to strict social distancing measures. 

The club apologises for any inconvenience caused to those who claimed a ticket in the ballot and we thank our supporters for your continued patience and backing as we work tirelessly to see the safe return of crowds to Ashton Gate in the future.

[TonyTonyTony]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Not having a go at you Triple-T, but why does everyone always suggest it’s the PL that should bail out the EFL clubs?

Why not the EFL itself, or the FA, or the PFA?

I doubt the EFL / PFA have the money. I agree re the FA - they should step in but the PL is where the cash is. We are in unprecedented times - they should make a contribution to saving clubs going out of business - call it morality if you want

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, The Humble Realist said:

Because prem clubs are shelling out for bale , thiago, sancho, jota at the same time as the announcement today. 

Unfortunately it's a dog eat dog world so I wont hold my breath

 

Dark times ahead 

I’m not disagreeing, just asking why nobody points the finger at any other bodies for support.

37 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

I doubt the EFL / PFA have the money. I agree re the FA - they should step in but the PL is where the cash is. We are in unprecedented times - they should make a contribution to saving clubs going out of business - call it morality if you want

yes, agreed, PFA have about £5m....can’t find EFL money, but FA have circa £400m!

[Guest]

You won't be seeing any fans in stadiums until at least Autumn 2021. Not in any real number anyway. 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, Eastside Moonwalker said:

You won't be seeing any fans in stadiums until at least Autumn 2021. Not in any real number anyway. 

You forgot to start with "In my opinion"....

[MarcusX]

6 hours ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Also from today in North West area, semi pro and amateur sports aren’t allowed spectators.

I can see this causing unfairness across the levels. Teams vying for promotion/relegation into national leagues where half the teams have had crowds and income? Teams within the same league where some of them have income and others dont? Doesn't seem a fair scenario to me.

See Merthyr Town situation announced before this latest news. They've had to pull out of the league due to the latest restrictions in Wales meaning they were the only club at step 3 not allowed to play infront of their crowd.

 

 

6 hours ago, Chappers said:

I thought that for the first time, this Government might actually be sensible, and realise that restricted attendances at League One and below will be perfectly safe and manageable, and keep the clubs afloat. Championship may be a bit more difficult, but should be achievable, albeit with a low percentage.

I just find it odd that I can’t watch Bath City safely in a socially distanced manner, in a crowd of <1,000, but could drink from 7am to 10pm in a Wetherspoons.

I'd hardly call it "perfectly" safe and manageable. No system that relies on the compliance of the general public will be perfectly safe.

At a time when the government are telling people they are socialising too much you can't then go and have crowds back at sporting events. It's not just the game it's the whole culture, in the pub before and after, mixing with other groups around the ground, some will travel to away games and try and get in/get tickets.

Not sure of the comparison with Spoons, if you're sat in a pub you should be sat at a table with your group only and not mixing with anyone else?

[Chappers]

49 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I can see this causing unfairness across the levels. Teams vying for promotion/relegation into national leagues where half the teams have had crowds and income? Teams within the same league where some of them have income and others dont? Doesn't seem a fair scenario to me.

See Merthyr Town situation announced before this latest news. They've had to pull out of the league due to the latest restrictions in Wales meaning they were the only club at step 3 not allowed to play infront of their crowd.

 

 

I'd hardly call it "perfectly" safe and manageable. No system that relies on the compliance of the general public will be perfectly safe.

At a time when the government are telling people they are socialising too much you can't then go and have crowds back at sporting events. It's not just the game it's the whole culture, in the pub before and after, mixing with other groups around the ground, some will travel to away games and try and get in/get tickets.

Not sure of the comparison with Spoons, if you're sat in a pub you should be sat at a table with your group only and not mixing with anyone else?

Think you’ve massively missed the point, you can’t have large crowds, but you have to look at L1, L2 and particularly, National League. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot have limited attendances at that level, a whole lot safer than sitting in a pub, no mask, and closer contact. And indoors where the virus spreads a lot more. 

Germany seems to manage well. 

[Super]

8 minutes ago, Chappers said:

Think you’ve massively missed the point, you can’t have large crowds, but you have to look at L1, L2 and particularly, National League. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot have limited attendances at that level, a whole lot safer than sitting in a pub, no mask, and closer contact. And indoors where the virus spreads a lot more. 

Germany seems to manage well. 

Germany probably have a testing system that works.

[Chappers]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Germany probably have a testing system that works.

I think what really annoyed me was Gove, stating that he had seen Arsenal fans, so knew all about football. The break point should be questioned, what level can be played safely, what crowd limit balances business v risk, what does the science say, could it be done with ST holders only? Actually try and make it happen, safely.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

You forgot to start with "In my opinion"....

In my opinion thank you 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting comment below the line on the BBC article.

Quote

Spoke with my local MP on a virtual town hall meeting the other day and he said forget about any fans in ground until the new year at the earliest.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Wrongagain]

4 hours ago, elhombrecito said:

STATEMENT: LEICESTER TIGERS PILOT FIXTURE

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND 2020

Bristol Bears regret to confirm that, following government advice, the Gallagher Premiership fixture versus Leicester Tigers will now be played behind closed doors. 

The round 21 game had been allocated as a test event to pilot the safe return of 1,000 spectators, adhering to strict social distancing measures. 

The club apologises for any inconvenience caused to those who claimed a ticket in the ballot and we thank our supporters for your continued patience and backing as we work tirelessly to see the safe return of crowds to Ashton Gate in the future.

And some say our owner favours egg chasers, now it turns out that a Johnson is in charge and has it in for us all! No favouritism at all! 

[man in the middle]

National league football season now suspended due to no crowds being able to attend& teams unable to afford to put on games. Something needs to bend or many clubs will go under:-(

[Mr Popodopolous]

Seems may not now be able to attend until end of March.

Would make sense given the claims of up to 6 months of these measures.

[t_b]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems may not now be able to attend until end of March.

Would make sense given the claims of up to 6 months of these measures.

They’ll be asking for early bird ST renewals before fans get back in...

[Dr Balls]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems may not now be able to attend until end of March.

Would make sense given the claims of up to 6 months of these measures.

This doesn’t surprise me given what’s going on in terms of the rise in cases nationally. By then we might have a vaccine, but there is the possibility that we could go a whole season without spectators. It also throws into doubt lots of events that have been postponed by a year in the hope of getting spectators or an audience.

[phantom]

Curious why the test event for Yeovil vs Bath went ahead tonight 

[MarcusX]

4 hours ago, Chappers said:

Think you’ve massively missed the point, you can’t have large crowds, but you have to look at L1, L2 and particularly, National League. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot have limited attendances at that level, a whole lot safer than sitting in a pub, no mask, and closer contact. And indoors where the virus spreads a lot more. 

Germany seems to manage well. 

I haven’t missed the point and I’ve noted reasons why, so it’s incorrect to say there is “absolute no” reason just because you don’t agree with them.

We’re tightening up on restrictions, it would completely go against the message to start letting hundreds or even thousands of people into sporting events.

[City Cat]

I've accepted that the home game against Fulham on March 7th was the start of a 12 month prison sentence and we're not getting released early for good behaviour....

[Chappers]

46 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I haven’t missed the point and I’ve noted reasons why, so it’s incorrect to say there is “absolute no” reason just because you don’t agree with them.

We’re tightening up on restrictions, it would completely go against the message to start letting hundreds or even thousands of people into sporting events.

I’ve just lost the point of your argument, how it relates to small attendances at a fairly low level (Saving clubs), and why that’s so wrong when more risky activities are permitted. The science I read suggests that virus infection outdoors is low risk, and social distancing at Twerton Park is hardly difficult.

[Portland Bill]

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

[Kid in the Riot]

11 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

I was at Welton v Sherborne, crowd of approx 150. Easy to see how the virus could spread in this environment unfortunately. 

Interesting the one thing you haven't mentioned is whether temperatures were being checked on entry and details taken of every spectator I.e. test and trace? 

[Portland Bill]

4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I was at Welton v Sherborne, crowd of approx 150. Easy to see how the virus could spread in this environment unfortunately. 

Interesting the one thing you haven't mentioned is whether temperatures were being checked on entry and details taken of every spectator I.e. test and trace? 

Temperatures weren’t being taken tonight, which surprised me, as this has happened at other games I have gone to.

Every game I have watched so far this season ( approx 8 ) have done track and trace. 

[Dr Balls]

14 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

It’s fairly easy to spread 353 people around a football pitch, with groups staying at least 2 metres apart, especially if there are no stands and seats to deal with. You could spread 1000 people easily around Ashton Gate, if everyone acted appropriately and all 4 stands were used. The problem is not in the ground itself which is outside, so less risky. It’s getting people to and from, not congregating indoors un the concourses as they enter and leave.

However in the current circumstances, the big issue is that it cuts against everything else that we are being required to do, which is really to stop mixing with each other, because as long as there are potentially infectious asymptomatic people meeting other people, the risk of spreading rapidly remains high.

The bottom line is that unlike Germany, Italy and even Greece, we have never managed to get testing sorted in this country and that’s why we are where are now. Instead of investing in and building on what we had in hospitals, universities and in local authority public health departments, this Tory government outsourced it to Serco, a company renowned for its high profile public contract failures, in which they get the money but we don’t get the service. NHS Test and Trace is a lie because it’s not NHS, it’s a private company making a big profit and failing us in the process. Just because you stick an NHS label on it doesn’t make it so.

[Chairman Mao]

6 hours ago, Super said:

Germany probably have a testing system that works.

They have a government that works as well. At national and local levels.

[Pezo]

14 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

I went as well, clearly works in smaller crowds. The logic of stopping something like that but saying it's ok to sit in the pub for 12 hours getting shitfaced is beyond me.

Were talking about something that reached 4k+ new cases and killed 11 people yesterday and were impinging on people's freedom because of that, since when has the ends of saving everyone justified the means of taking away people's freedom's. Have I completely missed the point? I think the government need to explain this a lot better. 

[Dr Balls]

1 minute ago, Pezo said:

I went as well, clearly works in smaller crowds. The logic of stopping something like that but saying it's ok to sit in the pub for 12 hours getting shitfaced is beyond me.

Were talking about something that reached 4k+ new cases and killed 11 people yesterday and were impinging on people's freedom because of that, since when has the ends of saving everyone justified the means of taking away people's freedom's. Have I completely missed the point? I think the government need to explain this a lot better. 

We are not where we were in March as it’s 4000 testing positive in the community and in hospital, compared to 5000 just in hospital. However the testing is an underestimate of all the cases, because a significant proportion have minimal symptoms, so may not realise they are infected. However as positive cases rise, hospital admissions have started going up again pretty quickly (in the Rhondda they went from 2 positive in hospital and none in intensive care to 35 cases and 4 in intensive care in 2 days last week!) followed ultimately by deaths. And many in the NHS are worried that combined with a usual winter surge, the addition of even a smaller wave than we had in March and April will completely overwhelm the hospital system. That’s why there are new restrictions.

If we had brought some of this in at the end of February, we might not have needed the full lockdown for so long and may also have saved many thousands of lives. In the South West, we were just fortunate that the original lockdown came in when the prevalence was low at around 1% of the population infected at that time, and it never got much higher. In London it was around 5% and quickly it peaked close to 10%, which is why things were so bad there. And even then, the fact that we got off relatively lightly by comparison, still doesn’t make up for those who have lost loved ones to this disease, including some of our own supporters and ST holders.

[allyolly]

43 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

It’s fairly easy to spread 353 people around a football pitch, with groups staying at least 2 metres apart, especially if there are no stands and seats to deal with. You could spread 1000 people easily around Ashton Gate, if everyone acted appropriately and all 4 stands were used. The problem is not in the ground itself which is outside, so less risky. It’s getting people to and from, not congregating indoors un the concourses as they enter and leave.

However in the current circumstances, the big issue is that it cuts against everything else that we are being required to do, which is really to stop mixing with each other, because as long as there are potentially infectious asymptomatic people meeting other people, the risk of spreading rapidly remains high.

The bottom line is that unlike Germany, Italy and even Greece, we have never managed to get testing sorted in this country and that’s why we are where are now. Instead of investing in and building on what we had in hospitals, universities and in local authority public health departments, this Tory government outsourced it to Serco, a company renowned for its high profile public contract failures, in which they get the money but we don’t get the service. NHS Test and Trace is a lie because it’s not NHS, it’s a private company making a big profit and failing us in the process. Just because you stick an NHS label on it doesn’t make it so.

You couldn’t make it up could you. This government is full of mixed messages. An open air 27,000 capacity stadium is not safe with say a 20% crowd but a pub after being open for 10hrs with no obvious ventilation is??

I get the travel thing and crowd control before and after but there are ways of managing that in a controlled way to minimise transmission. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by allyolly

[Son of Fred]

3 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels

Your sleep walking.....

[Baba Yaga]

I have watched French football highlights and they have allowed 5,000 fans into all top flight games, some of their stadiums only hold around 15,000 and fans can be quite close at times. Compare that to our approach and the difference is quite stark, I hope this doesn't destroy the lower leagues but how can you operate when there is practically no income for the next 6 months and even after that you just don't know what will happen?

In olden times people used to support Chariot Racing teams like people now support Football but that completely died out over time. Crazy comparison but maybe one day football will be the same. 

[Portland Bill]

4 hours ago, Robert the bruce said:

Your sleep walking.....

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

[Monkeh]

11 hours ago, phantom said:

Curious why the test event for Yeovil vs Bath went ahead tonight 

Because the new restrictions don't come in until thursday

[Tipps69]

18 hours ago, TonyTonyTony said:

I doubt the EFL / PFA have the money. I agree re the FA - they should step in but the PL is where the cash is. We are in unprecedented times - they should make a contribution to saving clubs going out of business - call it morality if you want

I think there were plans originally in place for this to happen (during the initial outbreak) but the Premier League wanted some agreements put in place & things never proceeded.

Now personally, I can understand that & if I was an organisation that was in a position to control such things, I would want some say on who gets the handouts & how that money should be spent. I don’t believe clubs should be given a handout to help with running costs to then turn around & suddenly spend money on new signings, so if someone takes a handout, it should be specified that it has to go on covering debts, wages & daily running costs but clubs that have been poorly run in the recent past aren’t entitled to the bail out either, so the likes of Charlton, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackpool, Sunderland, Birmingham & I’m sure there are others (Derby & Sheffield Wednesday?) wouldn’t be entitled to handouts as the mess they find themselves in has nothing to do with the pandemic & everything to do with their owners (and previous owners) incompetence.

Also, the clubs that have seen fit to be able to spend to improve their squads while all this financial uncertainty has been going on, shouldn’t be entitled to anything, if they haven’t had the foresight to realise that something serious is happening with the financial aspect of the sport, then they don’t deserve the money & I’d include us within that! We have seen fit as an organisation to make staff members redundant yet we have still seen fit to spend money to improve our squad, we aren’t in such a bad financial position that we need the help that others clearly do & I’d also include the likes of Forest, Birmingham (again), Derby (again), Norwich, Watford, Stoke, QPR, Swansea, Cardiff, Brentford, Middlesborough, Bournemouth & Sheffield Wednesday (again) in that list just off the top of my head.

If clubs have signed free transfers & / or loans to help themselves out then that’s acceptable (in my opinion) but spending millions on new players & then expecting someone else to pay for them to carry on trading isn’t acceptable, 95% of us (at least) probably knew it was unlikely that supporters would be allowed back into stadiums & we’ve been warned about a second wave of the pandemic hitting since the original pandemic eased a little, so if clubs haven’t heeded that warning, that’s their own incompetence & they don’t deserve the help that could be on offer.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

I think there were plans originally in place for this to happen (during the initial outbreak) but the Premier League wanted some agreements put in place & things never proceeded.

Now personally, I can understand that & if I was an organisation that was in a position to control such things, I would want some say on who gets the handouts & how that money should be spent. I don’t believe clubs should be given a handout to help with running costs to then turn around & suddenly spend money on new signings, so if someone takes a handout, it should be specified that it has to go on covering debts, wages & daily running costs but clubs that have been poorly run in the recent past aren’t entitled to the bail out either, so the likes of Charlton, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackpool, Sunderland, Birmingham & I’m sure there are others (Derby & Sheffield Wednesday?) wouldn’t be entitled to handouts as the mess they find themselves in has nothing to do with the pandemic & everything to do with their owners (and previous owners) incompetence.

Also, the clubs that have seen fit to be able to spend to improve their squads while all this financial uncertainty has been going on, shouldn’t be entitled to anything, if they haven’t had the foresight to realise that something serious is happening with the financial aspect of the sport, then they don’t deserve the money & I’d include us within that! We have seen fit as an organisation to make staff members redundant yet we have still seen fit to spend money to improve our squad, we aren’t in such a bad financial position that we need the help that others clearly do & I’d also include the likes of Forest, Birmingham (again), Derby (again), Norwich, Watford, Stoke, QPR, Swansea, Cardiff, Brentford, Middlesborough, Bournemouth & Sheffield Wednesday (again) in that list just off the top of my head.

If clubs have signed free transfers & / or loans to help themselves out then that’s acceptable (in my opinion) but spending millions on new players & then expecting someone else to pay for them to carry on trading isn’t acceptable, 95% of us (at least) probably knew it was unlikely that supporters would be allowed back into stadiums & we’ve been warned about a second wave of the pandemic hitting since the original pandemic eased a little, so if clubs haven’t heeded that warning, that’s their own incompetence & they don’t deserve the help that could be on offer.

Good post.

For me, there is a lot of moaning from owners that FFP doesn’t allow them to buy there way to success, e.g. they can only cover losses.  Well this is the perfect opportunity for them to cover bigger losses!

[MarcusX]

9 hours ago, Chappers said:

I’ve just lost the point of your argument, how it relates to small attendances at a fairly low level (Saving clubs), and why that’s so wrong when more risky activities are permitted. The science I read suggests that virus infection outdoors is low risk, and social distancing at Twerton Park is hardly difficult.

Sorry if I was unclear

2 points really, we're telling the country we're socialising too much. Further restrictions have been put in place and there's rumours (Scotland have already done it) that next step will be no mixing of households. It would somewhat confuse or dilute this message if you then had people attending sports events. There are families of 5 who can't go and see both grandparents at the same time. I'm not saying I dont want to see fans back in but I'm looking at the bigger picture and the message. Same as when football stopped and Cheltenham went ahead for example - it was mixed messages.

Second point is that for a lot of people match day isn't just the game, it's the whole day. People are more likely to meet up before the game, maybe in pubs, maybe at home or maybe just hanging around outside the ground mixing with each other and possibly again after. It's not just the moment inside the ground where fans are split evenly around a huge ground - it's the getting in, the facilities available once inside and how that works. I would assume that although it's a significant amount of money, just getting fans in at reduced numbers isn't enough. They'd need to be buying food and drink etc too? Will that be possible? It could be that trials are done and it's proved this can all work safely but I questioned your comment that it was "perfectly safe" and "absolutely no reason not to". There's no evidence it's "perfectly" safe yet and there are reasons not to, even if you dont agree with it.

A third point, or perhaps 2a what happens when the weather turns? Twerton Park for example has a lot of open ends, people wont stand out in the rain while it seems like it will work to spread people around the ground in practicality they will congregate under cover. I'm thinking of other grounds at that level e.g. Chippenham where there's a relatively small stand and then only one goal and one side of the pitch covered. Will capacity be reduced based on weather? I havent seen any guidelines so genuine question.

Dont get me wrong, I really want to attend football matches. Point 1 is my biggest concern though, if we're really facing a potential second wave and the government wants people to buy-in to what they are trying to achieve then I don't see how crowds can return to football and other sporting events.

[MarcusX]

9 hours ago, Pezo said:

I went as well, clearly works in smaller crowds. The logic of stopping something like that but saying it's ok to sit in the pub for 12 hours getting shitfaced is beyond me.

Were talking about something that reached 4k+ new cases and killed 11 people yesterday and were impinging on people's freedom because of that, since when has the ends of saving everyone justified the means of taking away people's freedom's. Have I completely missed the point? I think the government need to explain this a lot better. 

I know there's a separate thread but this needs to be addressed when people say these things. A day later and it's 5k cases and 37 deaths, tripled in a day. This isn't even about how many people are dying today it's about stopping that number before it gets out of control. Also consider that there's a lag between when people get it and when they die, so we're talking about 5k cases today and how many deaths that may look like in 3 weeks time  -not hard to comprehend how they make look if the numbers have tripled in 24 hours.

Do I also have to mention the dangers of 5k people out in public with this virus, many asymptomatic and who they may pass it on to? If we carried on as we were with people taking the piss and meeting in large groups, holding house parties and such like, 1 person soon spreads to 20, and those 20 soon spread to their friends and family. It needed to be addressed now before it got out of hand because if it didn't people were only going to get more relaxed with their actions.

8 hours ago, allyolly said:

You couldn’t make it up could you. This government is full of mixed messages. An open air 27,000 capacity stadium is not safe with say a 20% crowd but a pub after being open for 10hrs with no obvious ventilation is??

I get the travel thing and crowd control before and after but there are ways of managing that in a controlled way to minimise transmission. 

Pubs and indoor spaces shouldn't be opening without proper ventilation, it's part of the guidance of them opening.

 

[Back of the net]

1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

Totally agree.  However, not everyone is as responsible as you.

If everyone did as asked and took social distancing seriously we would be experiencing lots more of what we enjoy. 

It's not the match itself; clubs will manage this properly, it's the fact that you can't trust some people to act responsibly before and after the game.   If it was me I'd let fans in but on the provision that 1) all pubs nearby are shut and 2) all nearby parking restrictions are lifted (where safe) so it's easy for everyone who can drive, to drive to the game.  For example we could use the park and ride at long ashton so people can walk to the ground.

[MarcusX]

3 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

I have watched French football highlights and they have allowed 5,000 fans into all top flight games, some of their stadiums only hold around 15,000 and fans can be quite close at times. Compare that to our approach and the difference is quite stark, I hope this doesn't destroy the lower leagues but how can you operate when there is practically no income for the next 6 months and even after that you just don't know what will happen?

In olden times people used to support Chariot Racing teams like people now support Football but that completely died out over time. Crazy comparison but maybe one day football will be the same. 

France are interesting. They've gone from 1k cases a day to several days of 13k cases a day in a month. That's double their worst day on March 31st. They've got the most active cases in Europe though their deaths are still relatively low at this point, will be interesting to see how that tracks over the next couple of weeks. Could the increase in cases be linked to crowds returning? Either way I'm not sure if they are someone we should be looking to emulate right now.

Also for balance, Nice played behind closed doors on Sunday against PSG despite intially hoping for 5k fans and last week Marseille only had 1k instead of 5k so it's not looking as hopeful everywhere in France.

1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

No I’m not. Ive watched nearly ten games this season with crowds, and have come into close contact with no one. I’m in the open air, always at least 2 metres from anyone else, what is the problem ?

I go to work everyday with 60 other people and come closer to my fellow workers than I have at these football matches. I go shopping at a supermarket and come closer to people than I do at football matches. 

Stay sensible is my motto, if you aren’t able to, then that’s your choice. 

 

It's good that you're sensible. Unfortunately it's been shown that a lot of people can't, it's not just a case of "your choice" if you aren't sensible. They aren't putting just themselves at risk, they are putting everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

I think it's great you've been able to go to football, and as you say you've kept your distance so while the option is there I'm not saying you shouldn't go, you absolutely should but looking at it from a bigger picture I just can't see how we can open up further whilst telling the country they need to restrict their socialising.

[CyderInACan]

2 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

If clubs have signed free transfers & / or loans to help themselves out then that’s acceptable (in my opinion)

Even that is open to debate TBH 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Pubs and indoor spaces shouldn't be opening without proper ventilation, it's part of the guidance of them opening.

That is not true @MarcusX, as someone who has been involved heavily in the reopening of a bar, the guideline was just to increase circulation if possible

The is no guideline to say a venue can't open "without proper ventilation"

[Baba Yaga]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

France are interesting. They've gone from 1k cases a day to several days of 13k cases a day in a month. That's double their worst day on March 31st. They've got the most active cases in Europe though their deaths are still relatively low at this point, will be interesting to see how that tracks over the next couple of weeks. Could the increase in cases be linked to crowds returning? Either way I'm not sure if they are someone we should be looking to emulate right now.

Also for balance, Nice played behind closed doors on Sunday against PSG despite intially hoping for 5k fans and last week Marseille only had 1k instead of 5k so it's not looking as hopeful everywhere in France.

It's good that you're sensible. Unfortunately it's been shown that a lot of people can't, it's not just a case of "your choice" if you aren't sensible. They aren't putting just themselves at risk, they are putting everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

I think it's great you've been able to go to football, and as you say you've kept your distance so while the option is there I'm not saying you shouldn't go, you absolutely should but looking at it from a bigger picture I just can't see how we can open up further whilst telling the country they need to restrict their socialising.

Thanks for clarifying I assumed that Nice and Marseille fans were just in the same stand as the cameras to be honest.

[Tipps69]

3 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Even that is open to debate TBH 

Yeah, I was really aiming that at clubs that need players to just put a team out, not for the likes of us where we are possibly spending £25k p/w on the likes of Mawson’s wages. Maybe I should of put that bit a bit clearer?

[MarcusX]

17 minutes ago, phantom said:

That is not true @MarcusX, as someone who has been involved heavily in the reopening of a bar, the guideline was just to increase circulation if possible

The is no guideline to say a venue can't open "without proper ventilation"

Fair enough I've misunderstood and sounds like you'll know better. I did some reading and most articles said they should but perhaps as you say there's no actual rule

[pillred]

1 hour ago, Back of the net said:

Totally agree.  However, not everyone is as responsible as you.

If everyone did as asked and took social distancing seriously we would be experiencing lots more of what we enjoy. 

It's not the match itself; clubs will manage this properly, it's the fact that you can't trust some people to act responsibly before and after the game.   If it was me I'd let fans in but on the provision that 1) all pubs nearby are shut and 2) all nearby parking restrictions are lifted (where safe) so it's easy for everyone who can drive, to drive to the game.  For example we could use the park and ride at long ashton so people can walk to the ground.

Far to sensible I'm afraid that's why it wont happen, unfortunately.

[downendcity]

11 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

I was at Taunton v Wantage tonight in the fa cup, a crowd of 353, ( they are allowed a maximum of 600) no issues at all, people social distancing and plenty of stewards policing this.

As long as people are sensible, I really can’t see why grounds cannot be open for fans at all levels with 20% of the capacity allowed to watch. 

Therein, sadly, lies the problem.

If people had been sensible from the outset and followed the guidelines we would not be in this position. From the outset it was pretty clear that this virus was deadly and virulent, but could only be transmitted if we let it through our own actions. Wash hands, and keep social distancing were the initial guidelines, but even when lockdown ended too many seemed to have a problem interpreting those simple rules. More recently, wearing a mask in a shop  and observing social distancing has proved equally taxing for far too many people - how many people think having the elastic over your ears constitutes wearing a mask, not whether it overs the nose and mouth?

Mrs Downend says it is only a minority that are not following the rules, but with this virus  it is the actions of that minority that are causing the problem that affects the majority. Only the other day there was a report of a guy returning from a foreign holiday who not only failed to observe quarantine on his return, but went on a pub crawl with his mates with who knows how many new infections resulting. 

I've read comments where people are quoted as saying that if they want to take the risk, then why shouldn't they be allowed so to do. The reason is that they are not just risking themselves, but every other person they come into contact with, most of whom are not prepared to take the same degree of risk.

I suspect that football at all levels, but especially lower down the pyramid, would have been able to organise and police a safe return for limited numbers of fans. That they are not yet allowed to do so is down to the selfish actions of a minority of the population that have been unable, or unwilling, to excercise any personal responsibility over the last few months.

 

 

 

[CyderInACan]

Meanwhile in Brasil . . . 

With 4.5 million cases and more than 138,000 fatalities from Covid-19, Brazil is the second worst-hit country in the world in terms of deaths. On Tuesday it recorded 33,536 infections and 836 deaths.

Despite this Brazil's government has said football stadiums can open their doors to fans - at 30% capacity at first but that could increase. In Rio de Janeiro's Maracanã stadium that would mean 25,000 people in the stands.

City authorities can veto the decision - Belo Horizonte has already said it won't be bringing fans back in yet, according to Brazilian media reports.

And clubs are struggling to keep their players virus-free. One league match last month was cancelled minutes before kick-off when members of one team tested positive. And on Tuesday Flamengo were due to play in a Copa Libertadores tie, but seven players and two staff tested positive before the match

[Super]

2 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Meanwhile in Brasil . . . 

With 4.5 million cases and more than 138,000 fatalities from Covid-19, Brazil is the second worst-hit country in the world in terms of deaths. On Tuesday it recorded 33,536 infections and 836 deaths.

Despite this Brazil's government has said football stadiums can open their doors to fans - at 30% capacity at first but that could increase. In Rio de Janeiro's Maracanã stadium that would mean 25,000 people in the stands.

City authorities can veto the decision - Belo Horizonte has already said it won't be bringing fans back in yet, according to Brazilian media reports.

And clubs are struggling to keep their players virus-free. One league match last month was cancelled minutes before kick-off when members of one team tested positive. And on Tuesday Flamengo were due to play in a Copa Libertadores tie, but seven players and two staff tested positive before the match

I would advise everyone to do the complete opposite to what Brazil do.

[Davefevs]

41 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Therein, sadly, lies the problem.

If people had been sensible from the outset

That appears to put it all back on “people”.  Many people were sensible well before our effing idiot of a PM took action.  He was still shaking hands with hospital patients, holding face to face briefings, telling everyone it was all ok.  Then allowing events to go ahead like Cheltenham.  The Irish took it seriously and cancelled their national day.  I was taking my kids out of school, cancelling family and friends meet-ups we had planned.  Our PM was giving people one last piss-up.  He was too slow and too indecisive.

and followed the guidelines we would not be in this position. From the outset it was pretty clear that this virus was deadly and virulent, but could only be transmitted if we let it through our own actions.

yet we we continually told it was nothing!  To the uneducated, the blinkered, the brainwashed and those who don’t give a toss, it was a “carry on as normal” message.  

Wash hands, and keep social distancing were the initial guidelines, but even when lockdown ended too many seemed to have a problem interpreting those simple rules.

not helped by people in positions of responsibility flouting the rules.

and business owners seeing their businesses struggle whilst friends of the government are profiteering, tantamount to money laundering.

no wonder a small element if the people rebel.

More recently, wearing a mask in a shop  and observing social distancing has proved equally taxing for far too many people - how many people think having the elastic over your ears constitutes wearing a mask, not whether it overs the nose and mouth?

Mrs Downend says it is only a minority that are not following the rules, but with this virus  it is the actions of that minority that are causing the problem that affects the majority. Only the other day there was a report of a guy returning from a foreign holiday who not only failed to observe quarantine on his return, but went on a pub crawl with his mates with who knows how many new infections resulting.

no argument with this....but we now live in a selfish society.  I’ll leave that there.

I've read comments where people are quoted as saying that if they want to take the risk, then why shouldn't they be allowed so to do. The reason is that they are not just risking themselves, but every other person they come into contact with, most of whom are not prepared to take the same degree of risk.

I suspect that football at all levels, but especially lower down the pyramid, would have been able to organise and police a safe return for limited numbers of fans. That they are not yet allowed to do so is down to the selfish actions of a minority of the population that have been unable, or unwilling, to excercise any personal responsibility over the last few months.

I suspect so too, but unfortunately the priorities of easing lockdown in places like pubs was done too quickly, to allow a safe easing of other things like schools.  The lip service of “our kids education is vital” versus “go to the pub” tells me everything.

With better plans, clear criteria, rather than continued moving if the goalposts, poignant in this discussion, we could have a better evaluation of the risks of outdoor entertainment versus indoor.  Instead we have a blunt tool, because the government tried to look after their mates.

 

 

 

Rant above

Edited September 23, 2020 by Davefevs

[TonyTonyTony]

You can't blame them for asking for a handout - the NL/L1/L2 clubs are in the shite big time, but i agree the help should some from within football. There is enough money sloshing about. 

[Davefevs]

Too complicated an argument with too many dynamics to formulate a full response.

But, why would a football club in the entertainment and hospitality sector be treated differently to another business in that sector, whose trade has been restrained by the government?

Agree with Triple-T above that football could help itself also.

The government’s range of financial support packages were ill-conceived imho, and now they are about to end things like CJRS (Furloughing).  It won’t be just football clubs “bleating” once October hits!

[Furious Custard]

Agree that the government should not bail out any clubs. And I think there is a zero percent chance they will. Some clubs are starting to get desperate and I think that this is the beginning of the end for many which is sad. But life goes on, its only football.

I also disagree that players should have to foot the bill. Regardless of the amount they earn. Its up to the leagues to support the clubs. 

There is a 200m fund from the PL available providing the championship has a wage cap. Problem solved. I dont care if it widens the gap between the championship and the PL. 

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Matthew me said:

Football clubs did get the same support as hospitality businesses , no issue they had furlough. 

But why should we spend tax payers money on a football club when we have a trillion of national debt and nurses earning £25k to risk their lives to save us.

it shouldn’t be getting special treatment, but I suspect football won’t be the only industry under serious trouble with the latest lockdown.  The government seem to imply its “economy first, people’s lives second”, so they should be putting support measures in place to help those businesses who’s trade they’ve constrained by putting lockdown back in.  Perhaps just extending CJRS woukd help.  Other countries have by 12-24 months.  But our government are too busy giving £108m contracts for PPE to one man bands, because one of their mates is profiteering.  If they weren’t “washing” public money through their mates, and eventually offshore no doubt, we might see nurses paid properly.  Football isn’t the reason for nurses pay...if only our taxes were being used like the voting public told they were gonna be used.

It's a football issue, sort it internally

no, it’s a covid issue, impacting many, many industries.

Other hospitality industries don't have a multi billion group of clubs at the top that feed from lower levels

not my area of expertise but I suspect there are some huge entertainment businesses outside of football too....and I suspect they have supply chains similarly impacted.  Are they bailing out them?

If the government pay to support football clubs, it's a sad sad day. It's a case of survival from your own industry

An industry forced to be unable to trade because of a virus and measures imposed by the government.  Enough businesses have gone to the wall through covid...ineptitude of our government in dealing with it has exacerbated the impact.  Remember it was gonna all be over in 12 weeks!!!

 

[Lrrr]

McAnthony (Posh) is asking for a loan (with interest) from the premier league to help lower league and non league clubs, but said he’s not optimistic 

[IAmNick]

29 minutes ago, Matthew me said:

Other hospitality industries don't have a multi billion group of clubs at the top that feed from lower levels 

 

So do you support smaller pubs going out of business as long as Wetherspoons can keep going?

Local theatres as long as the next Avengers movie gets made?

Local restaurants as long as Pizza Express is alright?

Family B&Bs as long as Premier Inn are ok?

Do you think all those large corporations don't/haven't benefitted from the smaller ones they bought up / took staff from / forcibly closed and replaced etc. along the way? Surely you should be advocating for them to do the same? It's not a football problem, it's a societal/capitalism problem!