[Updated] Football suspended indefinitely

[bycarspete]

12 minutes ago, Conrad said:

Jumping the gun a bit there Pete, what about the 20/21 season.😃

Sorry about that, 19/20 20/21 😕🍻😊⚽

[Warren]

13 hours ago, Wrex said:

To be fair Tim Martin had a point that most Spoons are huge so they are actually able to operate with social distancing, whereas that wouldn't be possible/profitable for small pubs that need to pack punters in to make money

I go to a small drinkers pub called the Coach and Horses. We have a virtual pub going now. So that has come up with the idea of appointed slots to go drinking - so 10 people from 7pm to 8pm then you have to drink up immediately and leave. I guess that could work but the pub would not be as profitable. They could start a take out as well via the beer garden if it was permitted. For the drinkers, I sort of see us standing in squares in the pub shouting at each other from a distance. The reality is our pub is likely to go out of business and as its 300 years old that would be very demoralizing. We have talked about getting it back as a community pub through some sort of shared ownership if that happened which possibly could work. The barrier to that is the scale of repair and maintenance that is probably needed which I expect could see off £100k as well as buying the building. 

The first time I went in this pub some 30 plus years ago, I opened the door and encountered this wall of smoke. It was absolutely packed and there was no way to actually see where the bar was; had to feel our way their to coin a phrase. Social distancing impossible! At least today when it is open its very pleasant place to be and worth trying to save it if that can be done. 

[Wrex]

There's a lot of misconceptions in here about social distancing. Different countries, and different parts of different countries, have different rules and suggestions. It's put into place to reduce the ability of the Coronavirus to spread.

The lockdown will be gradually lifted as social distancing is maintained. Being able to meet a small number of friends or family will be permitted before things such as pubs will be opened up. If you'll be allowed into the local pub then you'll be able to go in there and sit at a small table with your friends.

Keeping two metres apart from a Covid-19 positive person doesn't make you immune from catching the virus off them. It just makes it less likely that you will catch it. You're infinitely more likely to catch the virus standing two metres away from your coronavirus mate as you bellow at each other for two hours than you are momentarily bumping into a coronavirus positive stranger.

[CambridgeDon]

On 29/04/2020 at 21:49, valiant said:

I've been thinking about how tricky it's going to be to get football going again. For example even if they play behind closed doors but just one player ends up dying of Covid-19 I could imagine it would cause uproar and fury to whoever allowed football to restart. Maybe even the courts would be involed and huge multi-million pay outs would have to be made.

People would be saying what were they thinking allowing poxy football to be played in the middle of a worldwide virus pandemic that has no cure or vaccine.

Think that's right. Behind closed doors football will simply not generate enough income leaving clubs dependent on the few owners who would be prepared to meet the bills even if they have the money. How precarious would that be? The legal risk is also enormous: if one player or club employee dies, even if they've agreed to play or participate, then the likely claims would be potentially enormous and not the level of risk that underwriters would be too keen to take on.

It's looking bleak - unless we get either a treatment or vaccine; and that will probably take 12-18 months if the CMO is to be believed.

We've been well and truly rogered by this terrible virus.

[DistantVale]

6 hours ago, Loggerheads Sage said:

Did anyone spot that Bristol Rovers player rep, reporting back to the team, someone recorded it and has leaked it!!  On the BBC website.  Basically it seemed to say that the feeling among the football authorities,  EFL, PL, PFA  etc is that there would not be fans inside stadiums until 2021 at the earliest.   Not really surprised, with no vaccine available, probably until ,what, mid next year?  I can see social distancing continuing for some time ( and pubs not reopening any time soon in all probability sadly).  Plus, as mentioned above, will fans return anyway and sit touching other fans in crammed seats - I don't think they will in numbers - especially with our aging fan base.

A bigger worry is, if the above does come to pass ( and this appears to be current thinking - not just a rumour),  what on earth happens to season ticket sales?  I would assume that very few tickets will be sold currently and fans will make a judgement at the end of June.  Hopefully for the Vale's sake most fans will be in a position to write off this seasons missed games ( although some understandably will not ),  But next season is becoming increasingly worrying, financially. Will 3000+ fans part with £300ish with a good chance they will be banned from a chunk of the season?

All of this assumes of course that the players will want to play at all.  ( Aguerro comment)  As someone commented , was it Rob?,  it is easy to see 1 player contacting it, squad has to isolate and it all grinds to a halt.  Sorry to be such a pessimistic bugger - must be the lockdown getting to me slowly!!

 

Bradford have suspended season tickets because there is a possibility of so many games been played behind close doors! 

[Emile]

If the season is voided I will personally find the idea of getting behind next season more difficult. Who's to say this won't happen again next year? Cancel it again half way through? I would be cautious spending my money on a season ticket 

[stupers]

On 29/04/2020 at 13:13, Frank Mustard said:

It all lies in the hands of scientific experts and the Government. As much clout as we’ve allowed Sky to have on our game in this country they’ll have no say whatsoever on when football can and can’t resume.

As for the current season resuming, it may well do but it won’t be this side of Christmas.

Apologies, I should have been more clear. The government will obviously decide who can come in to contact with who. Once it is possible to play football again, then it will be up to the leading organisations to decide whether football restarts from its previous point, or begins anew. Sky will have a massive impact on that decision. I've seen that the value of the games unplayed that Sky are allocated just in the Premier League is worth 700m+. Given that most foolish clubs will have already spent that money, I would say they would be inclined to find a way to finish the season and show the games on TV. Sky surely won't write that money off.

My point (I guess) is, once football is legally allowed to play again, TV revenue will be the deciding factor.Because for the clubs and their existence, it has to be.

[Wrex]

8 hours ago, CambridgeDon said:

Think that's right. Behind closed doors football will simply not generate enough income leaving clubs dependent on the few owners who would be prepared to meet the bills even if they have the money. How precarious would that be? The legal risk is also enormous: if one player or club employee dies, even if they've agreed to play or participate, then the likely claims would be potentially enormous and not the level of risk that underwriters would be too keen to take on.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/

The death rate for a person below 40 is 0.3%. Then factor in that no professional footballer will have any underlying health issues. Let's not lose our minds over this.

The real risk of any death would be if the player went out into the world and then came into contact with an elderly person.

[Valiant62]

The fact that it’s less dangerous for younger people sidelines the danger of becoming a vector for infecting older or more vulnerable people. Re Spoons, their reputation is sullied by how Martin treated his workers. Re social distancing and drinking, one solution (like Vilnius) to try would be to ban traffic from Burslem, use the streets / roads with loads more stands / tables like for smokers and introduce waiter service. Doesn’t completely solve the issue but worth a try.

[TheSage]

Thoughtful comments. Out in the open air is clearly less worrying that inside a packed room.

Younger people it seems generally do not suffer as older people can do but I'm unsure how definite the data is. 

The Italian figures above are clear (it's 0.4% isn't it?) but it's from a fairly small sample of 25,000 and we'd need the picture worldwide. 

Remember too that coaches, managers, kit men, trainers and back room staff, etc. can be in their 50s, 60s and 70s and then the risk shoots up. Roy Hodgson?

The other crucial issue is that although many footballers (c.17-36) might not themselves become seriously ill they are still very infectious and dangerous to older adults. Footballers remember are not children but young adults with presumably the same viral load.

Players can of course have the virus without any obvious symptoms so unless you test them every day...

I heard a chap on the radio earlier - a doctor in an ICU - and he was saying that for him any thought of playing sport at the moment fills him with disgust - because of the number of lives lost and the appalling horror that many people are going through at present.  He has a point.

We can't carry on indefinitely but the longer we stay at home the lower the R0 number becomes and if it gets very low the virus will be unable to infect many people and we're half way to getting a real grip on it.

So there are many factors still to sort out and ponder carefully.

[Wrex]

I still think the EFL's hopes of finishing the season are fanciful, especially seen as there is limited gain for them as most the club's money comes from gate money. I can see the Premier League giving it a go but that depends on a number of factors:

- the government allowing it

- the club's agreeing to whatever limitations are necessary to finish the season (Brighton might prefer to end the season than play their remaining "home" games at a neutral venue; West Ham are safe as things stand etc)

- players refusint to play on safety grounds, or maybe objecting to having to isolate from families etc

- broadcasters being okay with it (if the games have to be put on terrestrial TV is there much for existing right's holders to gain?)

- public opinion

- Most obviously, the virus itself. If it flares up again or manages to infect a squad/player then that would likely bring the idea down

 

So there's a lot going against it and one variable put a stop to it. Not that there can't be compromises, or players grumbling about it but it going ahead. But it's only right that football authorities try and plan things. If it came to end of June and the virus has really been controlled and players are out of shape and the FA are saying "oh we didn't think we'd be allowed to football so we didn't prepare anything" then they'd look really incompetent.

[CambridgeDon]

6 hours ago, Wrex said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106372/coronavirus-death-rate-by-age-group-italy/

The death rate for a person below 40 is 0.3%. Then factor in that no professional footballer will have any underlying health issues. Let's not lose our minds over this.

The real risk of any death would be if the player went out into the world and then came into contact with an elderly person.

If that's the case, why don't we have a lockdown just for older people? And why don't we open up games for supporters below 40 if the risk is so low? Answer: the scientific advice is that anyone can get it, anyone can spread it and they don't need to have underlying issues to die from it, regardless of age. Some footballers may have underlying health issues and, even if they don't, they may carry the virus home to their families who may be susceptible to the virus. And then it spreads to other people, which is the whole reason for the lockdown. 

Only today, the EFL is warning players that they may have no employment after June - and into next season. Why would anyone say this unless there was a good chance that no games will be played? And would no games be played if it were safe? The EFL is facing the inevitable: as I said in my original post, behind closed doors football is not financially viable and inherently risky.

The whole rationale for the lockdown is that this is a novel virus for which there is no treatment and no vaccine. Until either or both of those is secure, the only measure the government has to prevent its spread is social distancing. Yes, it has to change at some point but it's going to be a lot longer than most people think - and with repeated outbreaks.

[JRC]

51 minutes ago, CambridgeDon said:

If that's the case, why don't we have a lockdown just for older people? And why don't we open up games for supporters below 40 if the risk is so low? Answer: the scientific advice is that anyone can get it, anyone can spread it and they don't need to have underlying issues to die from it, regardless of age. Some footballers may have underlying health issues and, even if they don't, they may carry the virus home to their families who may be susceptible to the virus. And then it spreads to other people, which is the whole reason for the lockdown. 

Only today, the EFL is warning players that they may have no employment after June - and into next season. Why would anyone say this unless there was a good chance that no games will be played? And would no games be played if it were safe? The EFL is facing the inevitable: as I said in my original post, behind closed doors football is not financially viable and inherently risky.

The whole rationale for the lockdown is that this is a novel virus for which there is no treatment and no vaccine. Until either or both of those is secure, the only measure the government has to prevent its spread is social distancing. Yes, it has to change at some point but it's going to be a lot longer than most people think - and with repeated outbreaks.

The answer to the first question is the more the virus spreads in the broader community the more chance it will impact people more vulnerable.  It doesn't tend to kill healthy people but they do pass it to those more likely to die.

As it looks likely a large part of next season will be behind closed doors it might help the club if ovf ran a survey of how much people would be prepared to pay for a combinded iplayer and season ticket. Considering you get home and away games and the need to keep the club afloat I think most people would be reasonably generous. Maybe then offer it for sale with an option of an additional contribution.  I'd quite happily pay 600, maybe a little more. Whatever the price I'd definitely top it up to that figure if there was an option to do so.

[CambridgeDon]

1 hour ago, JRC said:

The answer to the first question is the more the virus spreads in the broader community the more chance it will impact people more vulnerable.  It doesn't tend to kill healthy people but they do pass it to those more likely to die.

As it looks likely a large part of next season will be behind closed doors it might help the club if ovf ran a survey of how much people would be prepared to pay for a combinded iplayer and season ticket. Considering you get home and away games and the need to keep the club afloat I think most people would be reasonably generous. Maybe then offer it for sale with an option of an additional contribution.  I'd quite happily pay 600, maybe a little more. Whatever the price I'd definitely top it up to that figure if there was an option to do so.

Yes, you're probably right about next season but there's a lot more discussion to come. Even the players are in two minds about it and apparently, understandably, worried for their families. Not a fan of the Premier at all but I found this interesting piece today in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/30/manchester-city-babies-sergio-aguero-believes-players-are-fearful-coronavirus

And another one where the French League is now being sued for the consequences of its decision to close the season early:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/01/amiens-vow-to-fight-ligue-1-relegation-after-injustice-of-season-resolution

The PL and EFL will be damned whatever they do.

[Paul6754]

6 hours ago, CambridgeDon said:

Yes, you're probably right about next season but there's a lot more discussion to come. Even the players are in two minds about it and apparently, understandably, worried for their families. Not a fan of the Premier at all but I found this interesting piece today in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/30/manchester-city-babies-sergio-aguero-believes-players-are-fearful-coronavirus

And another one where the French League is now being sued for the consequences of its decision to close the season early:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/01/amiens-vow-to-fight-ligue-1-relegation-after-injustice-of-season-resolution

The PL and EFL will be damned whatever they do.

And that's the point CD, the PL and EFL will be damned whatever they do and same with the government.

People are going to pop off from COVID-19 as long as the virus is around, just like the flu etc but there is already a treatment (Remdesivir) approved for it and others in the pipeline including several potential vaccines. Also, once the peak is passed there will be hospital beds and ventilators etc available for treatment to aid recovery for the very sick.

Since life is all about risk/benefit anyway, the country and it's economy has to start up sometime and that includes football, I'm optimistic this current season can be completed by mid-end Aug this year as I posted before. Anarchy and social unrest will be the result if the economy remains in limbo.