Fans at Home Park (2,000 fans allowed in v MK Dons) | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

Fans at Home Park (2,000 fans allowed in v MK Dons)

A rota system to allow all ST holders to see games?

  • Yes, that's fair

    Votes: 83 65.4%
  • No, 1st come, 1st served I want to see all games

    Votes: 36 28.3%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 8 6.3%

  • Total voters
    127

Cobi Budge

Auction Winner 👨‍⚖️
Apr 8, 2011
13,425
12,023
27
Plymouth
Encouraging people to visit cinemas - stuffy, small, indoor spaces - whilst simultaneously saying that being in an outdoor, expansive sports stadium is too dangerous, seems absolutely absurd.
 
May 8, 2011
5,788
793
Cobi Budge":17iakbvx said:
Encouraging people to visit cinemas - stuffy, small, indoor spaces - whilst simultaneously saying that being in an outdoor, expansive sports stadium is too dangerous, seems absolutely absurd.

The danger is not being in an outdoor, expansive stadium, the danger is from how people get to and from the stadium and what they do before and after the event.

The cinema is a controlled environment with lots of COVID mitigations in place. Whereas at the end of a game as an example I doubt it would be easy to enforce or implement social distancing at the squeeze point behind the corner of the Lyndhurst and Devonport.

Similarly for London Clubs how would social distancing work on the tubes and trains after matches?
 

Ponty

English and proud of it
Staff member
R.I.P
Sep 27, 2006
3,469
1,136
Plymouth
Argyle need 8/10000 fans in to make it viable. I won't be one of them.
 

Cobi Budge

Auction Winner 👨‍⚖️
Apr 8, 2011
13,425
12,023
27
Plymouth
HC Green":2438naio said:
Cobi Budge":2438naio said:
Encouraging people to visit cinemas - stuffy, small, indoor spaces - whilst simultaneously saying that being in an outdoor, expansive sports stadium is too dangerous, seems absolutely absurd.

The danger is not being in an outdoor, expansive stadium, the danger is from how people get to and from the stadium and what they do before and after the event.

The cinema is a controlled environment with lots of COVID mitigations in place. Whereas at the end of a game as an example I doubt it would be easy to enforce or implement social distancing at the squeeze point behind the corner of the Lyndhurst and Devonport.

Similarly for London Clubs how would social distancing work on the tubes and trains after matches?

What you’re describing is identical to the situation with the utterly barmy 22:00 curfew though - potentially the most ridiculous measure introduced yet. Masses of people all going home at the same time. So the inconsistencies are very clear to see.
 
May 8, 2011
5,788
793
Cobi Budge":109pi1yf said:
HC Green":109pi1yf said:
Cobi Budge":109pi1yf said:
Encouraging people to visit cinemas - stuffy, small, indoor spaces - whilst simultaneously saying that being in an outdoor, expansive sports stadium is too dangerous, seems absolutely absurd.

The danger is not being in an outdoor, expansive stadium, the danger is from how people get to and from the stadium and what they do before and after the event.

The cinema is a controlled environment with lots of COVID mitigations in place. Whereas at the end of a game as an example I doubt it would be easy to enforce or implement social distancing at the squeeze point behind the corner of the Lyndhurst and Devonport.

Similarly for London Clubs how would social distancing work on the tubes and trains after matches?

What you’re describing is identical to the situation with the utterly barmy 22:00 curfew though - potentially the most ridiculous measure introduced yet. Masses of people all going home at the same time. So the inconsistencies are very clear to see.

Pubs don’t have tens of thousands leaving en masse in very congested areas. No comparison at all.
 
Aug 5, 2005
1,515
202
Cobi Budge":1eea7z5v said:
HC Green":1eea7z5v said:
Cobi Budge":1eea7z5v said:
Encouraging people to visit cinemas - stuffy, small, indoor spaces - whilst simultaneously saying that being in an outdoor, expansive sports stadium is too dangerous, seems absolutely absurd.

The danger is not being in an outdoor, expansive stadium, the danger is from how people get to and from the stadium and what they do before and after the event.

The cinema is a controlled environment with lots of COVID mitigations in place. Whereas at the end of a game as an example I doubt it would be easy to enforce or implement social distancing at the squeeze point behind the corner of the Lyndhurst and Devonport.

Similarly for London Clubs how would social distancing work on the tubes and trains after matches?

What you’re describing is identical to the situation with the utterly barmy 22:00 curfew though - potentially the most ridiculous measure introduced yet. Masses of people all going home at the same time. So the inconsistencies are very clear to see.

People don't all leave the pub at the same time. At football games they do.
 
Jul 14, 2008
764
20
You’ve obviously never been to Soho on a Friday night, it’s exactly like leaving a football match.

And in any case, they could just empty each block on a staggered basis rather than everyone leaving together.
 

Cobi Budge

Auction Winner 👨‍⚖️
Apr 8, 2011
13,425
12,023
27
Plymouth
HC Green":3hmf8ubx said:
Cobi Budge":3hmf8ubx said:
HC Green":3hmf8ubx said:
Cobi Budge":3hmf8ubx said:
Encouraging people to visit cinemas - stuffy, small, indoor spaces - whilst simultaneously saying that being in an outdoor, expansive sports stadium is too dangerous, seems absolutely absurd.

The danger is not being in an outdoor, expansive stadium, the danger is from how people get to and from the stadium and what they do before and after the event.

The cinema is a controlled environment with lots of COVID mitigations in place. Whereas at the end of a game as an example I doubt it would be easy to enforce or implement social distancing at the squeeze point behind the corner of the Lyndhurst and Devonport.

Similarly for London Clubs how would social distancing work on the tubes and trains after matches?

What you’re describing is identical to the situation with the utterly barmy 22:00 curfew though - potentially the most ridiculous measure introduced yet. Masses of people all going home at the same time. So the inconsistencies are very clear to see.

Pubs don’t have tens of thousands leaving en masse in very congested areas. No comparison at all.

Have you been in central London or central Liverpool lately? Absolute chaos at closing time. Far worse than post match. Even Mutley Plain on Saturday night was pretty bad. The 22:00 curfew has been a disaster.

And as the above poster has said, you could easily stagger stadium arrival and departure times.
 
Dec 26, 2010
191
264
The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.
 
May 8, 2011
5,788
793
Eddie":1pzyhatu said:
The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.

The issue with COVID is not about me, whether I get seriously ill or not but will the person I pass it on to die from it or the person he/she passes onto die and so on.
That is why the current rules stress social distancing and putting in mitigations to reduce the risk and why getting to and away from mass events are unlikely to have these mitigations in place.
 
Nov 29, 2011
2,205
43
Plymouth
There really isn’t an argument to made that allowing people to attend concerts at the O2 or the Royal Albert Hall is in any way more ‘covid secure’ than attending football.

This line that gets trotted out about travel to and from the stadiums being the problem only makes sense if other ‘mass gatherings’ are banned, which at this point they clearly are not. Unless I’ve missed something wouldn’t people be travelling to the O2 by the same means, or has teleportation been invented?

I think people underestimate the lengths that clubs have gone to in preparation for fans to return. Colchester United look to have ripped up every fourth seat or so!
 
Jul 12, 2016
7,772
4,961
Health is more important than any game of football and I cannot understand why some fans are looking for loopholes and questioning expert opinion. The government are not issuing these rules for the hell of it .I can only assume that those who are complaining have not had any friends or relatives who have been struck down by this dreadful virus.
 
Jul 12, 2016
7,772
4,961
Eddie":38ipjytj said:
The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.
if you smoked you probably ignored the dangers as well!
If you want to gamble with your life then fine .Just don't gamble with mine or others.