Plymouth Argyle Daily News - Thursday 24 September

Very good arguments from the Colchester Chairman.

As the Colchester guy says, the decision to stop fans returning makes no sense whatsoever.

He has failed to recognise that the return of fans to a stadium is only part of the problem. The government are also taking into account into the dangers involved in how the fans will get to and from the stadium, which has completely passed the Colchester Chairman, as if he has no responsibility towards his supporters outside of the football stadium.

Football Clubs are in good hands, eh?!!!

The same dangers as getting to the pub, restaurant, airport, walking to the plane, getting on a bus.

To suspend the ‘trial’, games is absurd.

Martyn":25a0cmxx said:

The same dangers as getting to the pub, restaurant, airport, walking to the plane, getting on a bus.

To suspend the ‘trial’, games is absurd.

Click to expand...

For example Argyle can easily cope with 1,000, 2,000 3,000. Rowd at Home Park now, with social distancing.

Daz":xgxtcfqo said:

jimsing":xgxtcfqo said:

He has failed to recognise that the return of fans to a stadium is only part of the problem. The government are also taking into account into the dangers involved in how the fans will get to and from the stadium, which has completely passed the Colchester Chairman, as if he has no responsibility towards his supporters outside of the football stadium.

Football Clubs are in good hands, eh?!!!

Click to expand...

What dangers are there of getting to a stadium that are worse than 300 people siting on a plane for 6 hours?

Click to expand...

I should imagine 2700 if the crowd mentioned above is 3000 at a match. The odds of contagion will increase. Having seen a percentage of tourists in both St Ives and Newquay giving scant respect this summer to social distancing as they walk about I reckon the likelihood of further spiking will increase. The guys who do the number crunching on behalf of HM Gov will probably know better.

Whilst the merits or otherwise of crowds coming back into stadiums on a controlled basis continue the clock is ticking on the financial futures of EFL clubs and those of the pyramid below. All of those clubs are facing the loss of match day income for six months or more, quite possibly for the whole season.

As part of Project Re-Start for the Premiership (and ultimately the Championship) back in June the Government insisted on widening the access for fans to view live coverage and Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, as part of the agreement wanted to ensure finances from the game's resumption supported the 'wider football family'. It was left for the football authorities to agree and finalise the details of their plans. The EFL are still waiting.

Meanwhile the Premiership Clubs ramp up wages and pay extraordinary transfer fees on the back of the Project Re-Start agreement. Not only that the Government have provided further financial assistance. In June this year, Tottenham Hotspur received a Coronavirus large business interruption loan (CLBIL) of £175m repayable at a rate of 0.5%. This unsecured loan was underwritten by the Government to the tune of 80%. Funnily enough Tottenham’s annual wage bill was reported to be around £175m but that was before the loan acquisition of Gareth Bale.

I see 'Government sources' have indicated that they believe that the Premiership should fund the match day revenue deficit of the EFL clubs (reported at around £200m) rather than relying on further Government assistance as part of their Project Re-Start agreement. To do so would cost each Premiership club £10m. It is worrying that some Premiership clubs are beginning to question why they should pay.

It seems to me that the template for financial survival has already been set. If Spurs can get a substantial unsecured loan 80% guaranteed by the Government why not extend that the to the football pyramid with a 100% guarantee. Each club could receive the offer of a Government unsecured loan equivalent to the previous season's total match day income less any season ticket receipts and and monies received from the Premiership or through grants such as the £1.57bn offered to the arts. It would be a draw down facility and each club could draw down the amount equivalent to its needs. The EFL could monitor the repayment process with sanctions. There should then be a minimum five year repayment period at the CLBIL rate of 0.5% with an extension by agreement.

Such an arrangement would immediately secure the future of the football pyramid and the flexibility of the loan arrangement allows for adjustment should fans be allowed back into stadiums later in the season.

Finally, if you want to see how rules relating to COVID-19 can change read the link below regarding Belgium who have significant eased controls. It wasn't that long ago that the Government was holding Belgium up as an example to follow.

https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium ... tion-rate/

Daz":2dmuhaqw said:

What dangers are there of getting to a stadium that are worse than 300 people siting on a plane for 6 hours?

Click to expand...

Those people will have been screened before embarking, monitored throughout the flight to ensure they're abiding by anti-Covid measures, then screened again on disembarking. Should anyone develop symptoms later all passenger's contact details will be held to make tracking them down easier.
Admittedly it's far from foolproof but still a lot better than a load of random people on public transport.

I think people going to shops, pubs etc is a better comparison as the environments aren't so tightly controlled and in these cases its harder to see how the risk is much greater for fans attending a football ground.

I think it's more down to timing - had fans been back for a few weeks in limited numbers without any demonstrable issues then it may well have been allowed to continue but with more restrictions being implemented now it would have sent a mixed message should fans have started to be allowed back into grounds on a large scale for the first time.

Perhaps football clubs will be included in the businesses to receive government help, to be announced later ... (sadly, fat chance I suspect!).

Don’t forget Frank Nouble birthday today

Quintrell_Green":3vyyusdz said:

Daz":3vyyusdz said:

jimsing":3vyyusdz said:

He has failed to recognise that the return of fans to a stadium is only part of the problem. The government are also taking into account into the dangers involved in how the fans will get to and from the stadium, which has completely passed the Colchester Chairman, as if he has no responsibility towards his supporters outside of the football stadium.

Football Clubs are in good hands, eh?!!!

Click to expand...

What dangers are there of getting to a stadium that are worse than 300 people siting on a plane for 6 hours?

Click to expand...

I should imagine 2700 if the crowd mentioned above is 3000 at a match. The odds of contagion will increase. Having seen a percentage of tourists in both St Ives and Newquay giving scant respect this summer to social distancing as they walk about I reckon the likelihood of further spiking will increase. The guys who do the number crunching on behalf of HM Gov will probably know better.

Click to expand...

How do you know they were tourists? Has there been a spike in St. Ives and Newquay? Not that I'm aware. A lot of nonsense over the Summer about folk crowding on beaches and spreading the virus.
The last wave lasted 3 months approx I think. Perhaps in another 3 months things may change.

Its really simple we all dislike these draconian rules including the rule makers, and yes their are loads of mixed messages. This happens well trying to protect lives and the economy, however we have to try to abide by the rules or the vulnerable in our society are going to die, end of.

Balham_Green":3dhb8q7e said:

Quintrell_Green":3dhb8q7e said:

Daz":3dhb8q7e said:

jimsing":3dhb8q7e said:

He has failed to recognise that the return of fans to a stadium is only part of the problem. The government are also taking into account into the dangers involved in how the fans will get to and from the stadium, which has completely passed the Colchester Chairman, as if he has no responsibility towards his supporters outside of the football stadium.

Football Clubs are in good hands, eh?!!!

Click to expand...

What dangers are there of getting to a stadium that are worse than 300 people siting on a plane for 6 hours?

Click to expand...

I should imagine 2700 if the crowd mentioned above is 3000 at a match. The odds of contagion will increase. Having seen a percentage of tourists in both St Ives and Newquay giving scant respect this summer to social distancing as they walk about I reckon the likelihood of further spiking will increase. The guys who do the number crunching on behalf of HM Gov will probably know better.

Click to expand...

How do you know they were tourists? Has there been a spike in St. Ives and Newquay? Not that I'm aware. A lot of nonsense over the Summer about folk crowding on beaches and spreading the virus.
The last wave lasted 3 months approx I think. Perhaps in another 3 months things may change.

Click to expand...

They were wearing silly hats, flip flops T-Shirts, kids carried buckets and spades. They also did not speak with Cornish accents. We are normally quite astute at spotting tourists. Contagion figures in Cornwall has increased over recent weeks by over 250% according to press reports.

Martyn":kspl8m3d said:

Martyn":kspl8m3d said:

The same dangers as getting to the pub, restaurant, airport, walking to the plane, getting on a bus.

To suspend the ‘trial’, games is absurd.

Click to expand...

For example Argyle can easily cope with 1,000, 2,000 3,000. Rowd at Home Park now, with social distancing.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that coping with crowds of these proportions are as easy as you make out.

Social distancing is easily said, but not so easily put into operation. It requires the co-operation of the customer in the first place, and although the average football fan would happily concede to any restrictions placed on them whilst in the ground there will always be a small proportion of those that will be too impulsive, too selfish, too rebellious to comply with the restrictions that would be placed on them.

Social distancing inside and outside the ground would not be easy.

The queues when getting into the ground would require better planning. The mere fact of establishing seating areas for those that attend the game would need planning. People will be more liable to shouting and therefore the crowd will need to distance by more than 1 metre to avoid the water droplets from them fall on others. Finding ways of allowing people to visit the privvy during the game. Establishing a method of exiting the stadium at the end of the match. We all know of those that cannot wait to get away before the match finishes.

Just a few of the complications that arise from allowing crowds into the stadia. Probably would not be too much of a problem at the beginning, but as the crowds were allowed to increase the difficulties in safe distancing at all times would also increase.

I'm not saying that it would be impossible, but maybe impractical is the correct word to use. We are all aware of the numpties that refuse to sit down in their seats that create problems for the Club. How do you think they would react to the new restrictions that were placed upon them?

Although I think the EFL would be the guiding force in these matters and would create general guidelines that Clubs would have to abide by, each Club has a health & safety responsibility and would have to create their own regulations and ensure strict adherence, and also create the means of enforcing such regulations, another headache for the Club to deal with.

Not impossible, but not easy either.