How will/should LR and other stadiums open/reopen to fans? (10 viewing)

Kingston Bee

Active member
Joined
22 Oct 2008
Messages
5,589
Reaction score
23
Location
Kingston-Upon-Thames
But then you are asking the premier to fish in a smaller pond for players as they can’t afford the bestthey become weaker and less attractive to sky.

And all to save the little clubs who can’t afford to run as a business.

That will not happen and will be legally challenged.

the sad thing is the small clubs can’t operate as it is but the bigger clubs are not charities. They will have to become semi pro or amateur and see if they can survive that way.
What about the big clubs that are losing money every year. In any other industry they would be shut down and players and staff made redundant. What would you propose? Also at what point does a small club become a big club and exempt from the small club rules you outline above.
 

mhead bee

Well-known member
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
23,851
Reaction score
130
Location
Maidenhead
What about the big clubs that are losing money every year. In any other industry they would be shut down and players and staff made redundant. What would you propose? Also at what point does a small club become a big club and exempt from the small club rules you outline above.
I don't understand the point about "big clubs small clubs", that is one of those phone in topics they do on talksport when there is a slow news day so Huddersfield fans can argue why they think they are bigger than Villa etc.

However, when has a premier league or so called "big club"ever been bailed out financially from another "big club"....I will tell you, never.

So are you proposing the rich clubs bail out the struggling clubs in the prem as well? I am not sure what point you are making but the way I see it if a club can't survive on its income without charity from a a richer club then they need to change. The same rules apply to any club of any size, but the richer clubs are not having issues surviving, the ones that are, Bolton for example just bomb down the league.
 

Gazza Bee

Active member
Joined
27 Jan 2001
Messages
6,939
Reaction score
81
Location
City: Sunbury State: Surrey
I don't understand the point about "big clubs small clubs", that is one of those phone in topics they do on talksport when there is a slow news day so Huddersfield fans can argue why they think they are bigger than Villa etc.

However, when has a premier league or so called "big club"ever been bailed out financially from another "big club"....I will tell you, never.

So are you proposing the rich clubs bail out the struggling clubs in the prem as well? I am not sure what point you are making but the way I see it if a club can't survive on its income without charity from a a richer club then they need to change. The same rules apply to any club of any size, but the richer clubs are not having issues surviving, the ones that are, Bolton for example just bomb down the league.
I think these are unique circumstances whereby the normal matchday revenue that smaller clubs rely on is no longer available - under normal times I would agree with you but where clubs are losing a significant part of their income then something needs to be done to protect them
 
OP
Guildford Bee

Guildford Bee

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2000
Messages
12,645
Reaction score
110
Location
Epsom, Surrey

nick logan

Well-known member
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
30,553
Reaction score
121
Location
Essex
Yes, a nice gesture.
Not necessarily a 'bail out' but some have shown a willingness to help.

Just been feature on Hendon and their crowd on sat, why are they allowed fans and efl / prem football isn’t ?
 

Kingston Bee

Active member
Joined
22 Oct 2008
Messages
5,589
Reaction score
23
Location
Kingston-Upon-Thames
I don't understand the point about "big clubs small clubs", that is one of those phone in topics they do on talksport when there is a slow news day so Huddersfield fans can argue why they think they are bigger than Villa etc.

However, when has a premier league or so called "big club"ever been bailed out financially from another "big club"....I will tell you, never.

So are you proposing the rich clubs bail out the struggling clubs in the prem as well? I am not sure what point you are making but the way I see it if a club can't survive on its income without charity from a a richer club then they need to change. The same rules apply to any club of any size, but the richer clubs are not having issues surviving, the ones that are, Bolton for example just bomb down the league.
I was referring to your earlier post and continued reference to small and big clubs. Everyone assumes that it will only be the likes of Macclesfield that will need bailing out, I am not so sure especially if this situation goes on.
 

Oceanbee

Active member
Joined
7 Sep 2013
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
68
it’s an idea, not a great one, but definitely an idea.

how about starting with lowest Covid risk then working backwards from there so it’s proved nice and safe before any high risk people enter.
Using the Government’s statistics, and up to now, 99.94% of the UK population have not died from COVID-19.
Like ‘killer’ winter and summer flu, many will get it, but you always could get flu just sitting at a football match anyway, as those around you cough, wheeze, splutter, sneeze, and hug you when we score!
So on that basis you could let us all in.

However, if you want the safest/lowest risk group to be only let in, then it’s kids under 10 years old.
 
Last edited:

beesbees_bfc

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2008
Messages
593
Reaction score
50
Using the Government’s statistics, and up to now, 99.94% of the UK population have not died from COVID-19.
Like ‘killer’ winter and summer flu, many will get it, but you always could get flu just sitting at a football match anyway, as those around you cough, wheeze, splutter, sneeze, and hug you when we score!
So on that basis you could let us all in.

However, if you want the safest/lowest risk group to be only let in, then it’s kids under 10 years old.
I think maybe you’ve misinterpreted my point or not read all the way through the recent discussion.

My ‘suggestion’ was in response to posters proposing that older fans should be let in first and I was pointing out that, rom a Covid perspective it should be the reverse...so first would be, for example, under 30s, then under 40s etc so working up to the highest risk categories.

It’s not actually what I think should happen, as I’ve stated a few times on this thread, I believe all season ticket holders should be treated equally on a rotational basis whilst capacity is reduced and, of course, anyone who doesn’t wish to attend at that point from a safety perspective, having made a decision on their individual risk profile, can be left out of the rotation.
 

moribee

moribee
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
6,728
Reaction score
29
Location
East Colnbrook
Agreed we should move on as we aren’t going to agree, I think all season ticket holders should be treated equally and admitted on a rotation basis whereas you, assuming you are backing MoriBees suggestions, believe all older Fans should be allowed in fans and that it’s ok to discriminate on the basis of age as long as its in the favour of the old not the young.

But, of course, use the simplest way to shut down any debate on that by referencing the one and only ‘Very’ old world war 2 vet to make any point that disagrees with you to be attacking veterans and being ungrateful for the huge sacrifice he, and others like him, made...ignoring the fact that the vast vast majority of the people you want in first will be significantly younger than him and will not be world war 2 vets.

I’m probably getting overly invested in this but it really feels; despite it often being levelled at the young, the sense of entitlement is very much a characteristic of the more ‘mature’ of this board is anything to go by
There is a huge entitlement. Feel it in the soul.
 
OP
Guildford Bee

Guildford Bee

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2000
Messages
12,645
Reaction score
110
Location
Epsom, Surrey
No difference, in fact you could argue that a modern stadium is safer.
I think the non-league ran a very clever PR campaign over the summer and capitalised on the Govt's ignorance of non-league football, using lots of 'one man and a dog' type photos of a handful of fans scattered around wide open non-league grounds. In many cases this is obviously a fair reflection of that level but in some it's not and a lot of clubs seems to be inevitably getting far higher crowds than might've otherwise expected. 500+ at Leatherhead seems pretty big compared to their historic attendances even though I think their crowds have gone up in recent years.

Ironically, if the national league and national leagues N&S hadn't applied for and been granted the 'elite' status they needed to hold their play-offs they'd be playing in front of fans as well which, based on the current restrictions, would mean 3,000-odd being allowed to watch Notts County.
 

Oceanbee

Active member
Joined
7 Sep 2013
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
68
I think maybe you’ve misinterpreted my point or not read all the way through the recent discussion.

My ‘suggestion’ was in response to posters proposing that older fans should be let in first and I was pointing out that, rom a Covid perspective it should be the reverse...so first would be, for example, under 30s, then under 40s etc so working up to the highest risk categories.

It’s not actually what I think should happen, as I’ve stated a few times on this thread, I believe all season ticket holders should be treated equally on a rotational basis whilst capacity is reduced and, of course, anyone who doesn’t wish to attend at that point from a safety perspective, having made a decision on their individual risk profile, can be left out of the rotation.
Agree with your last point about equal treatment, and I wasn’t really having "a go" at your comments.

I was really pointing out how the Government uses a variety of statistics to bamboozle us all.

For example, last week Sir Patrick Vallance made this exact statement - "What we see is that something under eight per cent of the population have been infected as we measure the antibodies, so about eight per cent, so 3 million or so people, may have been infected and have antibodies. It means that the vast majority of us are not protected in any way and are susceptible to this disease."

His facts are wrong. 8% of the population is 5.4 million, so he is about 80% understated from his figure!!!!! Using a further 80% of 3 million.
So if he is wrong on that figure by that much, who know what else he is wrong on.

Also he referred to the situation as an epidemic, not a pandemic. So does he really know what he is saying and what figures he is giving us.
All facts, check out his speech on the Government website.
 

Gazza Bee

Active member
Joined
27 Jan 2001
Messages
6,939
Reaction score
81
Location
City: Sunbury State: Surrey
Agree with your last point about equal treatment, and I wasn’t really having "a go" at your comments.

I was really pointing out how the Government uses a variety of statistics to bamboozle us all.

For example, last week Sir Patrick Vallance made this exact statement - "What we see is that something under eight per cent of the population have been infected as we measure the antibodies, so about eight per cent, so 3 million or so people, may have been infected and have antibodies. It means that the vast majority of us are not protected in any way and are susceptible to this disease."

His facts are wrong. 8% of the population is 5.3 million, so he is about 80% understated from his figure!!!!!
So if he is wrong on that figure by that much, who know what else he is wrong on.

Also he referred to the situation as an epidemic, not a pandemic. So does he really know what he is saying and what figures he is giving us.
All facts, check out his speech on the Government website.
Erm I would give his opinions more weight than 99.9% of the population to be fair...so approx 40 milion people ;)
 

beesbees_bfc

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2008
Messages
593
Reaction score
50
Agree with your last point about equal treatment, and I wasn’t really having "a go" at your comments.

I was really pointing out how the Government uses a variety of statistics to bamboozle us all.

For example, last week Sir Patrick Vallance made this exact statement - "What we see is that something under eight per cent of the population have been infected as we measure the antibodies, so about eight per cent, so 3 million or so people, may have been infected and have antibodies. It means that the vast majority of us are not protected in any way and are susceptible to this disease."

His facts are wrong. 8% of the population is 5.4 million, so he is about 80% understated from his figure!!!!! Using a further 80% of 3 million.
So if he is wrong on that figure by that much, who know what else he is wrong on.

Also he referred to the situation as an epidemic, not a pandemic. So does he really know what he is saying and what figures he is giving us.
All facts, check out his speech on the Government website.
Don’t worry I didn’t take it as a personal attack just clarifying my position.

I have my own views, as I’m sure we all do, on the pandemic and it’s management but am not going to share those or get in to that...the coronavirus thread has been shut down for straying in to the politics space and I don’t want to risk contributing to this one suffering the same fate so will only be offering opinions on the admittance of fans in to LR and not on the wider Covid ‘situation’.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 5)

Top Bottom