New Pay per View scheme penalises fans of smaller clubs

[sinkov]

Well, we all have our opinions.

But with around one in 200 currently having Covid in this area, that would mean that a full house at t'Turf would contain around 100 people carrying the disease. If you are happy to take the chance of sitting next to someone who may have it for two hours, go home and live with your wife and kids, visit your parents etc and you think that is sensible, then fair enough.
I would err on the side of caution and give it a swerve.

Personally, I won't be paying £15 a game to watch us on the telly, unless it is a crucial match. But that's just me. I have no problem with it because clubs are taking a big financial hit at the moment and every little helps.
I would prefer if the money received was doled out to include the lower league clubs , many of who are in dire straights.

The old straw man argument again 59, no one, except you, is suggesting full houses at PL games, or any games, theatres, cinemas or anywhere, come to that. It's straight out of the Boris playbook, claiming that anyone who doesn't go along with his lunatic plan to lock us down, is proposing to 'let the virus rip'. No they are not, they are merely suggesting he investigates other options.

Really mon ami, you should be better than Boris...........shouldn't you ?

[1959_60]

The old straw man argument again 59, no one, except you, is suggesting full houses at PL games, or any games, theatres, cinemas or anywhere, come to that. It's straight out of the Boris playbook, claiming that anyone who doesn't go along with his lunatic plan to lock us down, is proposing to 'let the virus rip'. No they are not, they are merely suggesting he investigates other options.

Really mon ami, you should be better than Boris...........shouldn't you ?

What options are there? Letting in 10% of fans? This would mean we had a gate of around 2000. It would probably cost us more in admin than we would get in extra brass when you factor in stewarding, monitoring the bogs etc. And it would hardly improve the atmosphere if everyone was socially distanced from each other.
At least with this scheme we have the option of watching our team for £15, which is better than the other option of not being able to watch them at all. Like I said, I would rarely bother to stump up the £15, but it's there if i want to.

I don't think this was one of Boris's or Dominic's ideas - far too sensible for that

[sinkov]

What options are there? Letting in 10% of fans? This would mean we had a gate of around 2000. It would probably cost us more in admin than we would get in extra brass when you factor in stewarding, monitoring the bogs etc. And it would hardly improve the atmosphere if everyone was socially distanced from each other.
At least with this scheme we have the option of watching our team for £15, which is better than the other option of not being able to watch them at all. Like I said, I would rarely bother to stump up the £15, but it's there if i want to.

I don't think this was one of Boris's or Dominic's ideas - far too sensible for that

If you read it again 59, you'll find the options I was referring to were in regard to the blond buffoon's lockdown lunacy, to which there are numerous other options, and nothing to do with admission to football grounds. Not sure why you're banging on at me about this either, nowhere on this thread have I commented on this scheme, except to point out it's not Sky's doing, nor have I advocated the re-opening of football grounds.

Stop picking on me.

[1959_60]

Fair enough, I was just commenting on the thread title

Regarding the blond buffoon's lockdown lunacy, which parts would you change?

I realise that you don't accept the need for muzzles, but which other policy would you change?

I might even agree with you!

[sinkov]

Fair enough, I was just commenting on the thread title

Regarding the blond buffoon's lockdown lunacy, which parts would you change?

I realise that you don't accept the need for muzzles, but which other policy would you change?

I might even agree with you!

I've just got to make the tea before the England game, I'll get back to you later on that one.

[sinkov]

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world, including here, that lockdowns actually work, that they destroy economies is indisputable. The idea that we can try to contain the virus by locking down the country while we wait for a vaccine is insane. The damage to the economy, jobs and people's long term health is already catastrophic, how much worse can we allow it to get, bearing in mind there is no guarantee there will be an effective vaccine even next year.

We know the people who are most at risk, older people with co-morbidities, they should be protected, it is an insignificant risk to healthy under 60s, they should be allowed to get on with their lives as normally as possible, while obviously observing social distancing, frequent hand washing etc. The NHS will cope with the usual winter surge in respiratory infections, including the Covid cases, we didn't even come close to needing the Nightingales first time around and there is no indication that we'll need them this time. The NHS should be allowed to do it's job of looking after us, and those that can do so safely should get the economy up and running again asap.

Problem is, the government has dug itself into a hole, and shows no inclination to admit there may be another way to handle this, so it just keeps on digging, as a result of which we're all going to suffer more in the longer term. We're still at that stage in the cycle where the bay has emptied of water, and we're still playing on the beach, waiting for the economic tsunami to come rushing in. God help us when it does.

[1959_60]

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world, including here, that lockdowns actually work, that they destroy economies is indisputable. The idea that we can try to contain the virus by locking down the country while we wait for a vaccine is insane. The damage to the economy, jobs and people's long term health is already catastrophic, how much worse can we allow it to get, bearing in mind there is no guarantee there will be an effective vaccine even next year.

We know the people who are most at risk, older people with co-morbidities, they should be protected, it is an insignificant risk to healthy under 60s, they should be allowed to get on with their lives as normally as possible, while obviously observing social distancing, frequent hand washing etc. The NHS will cope with the usual winter surge in respiratory infections, including the Covid cases, we didn't even come close to needing the Nightingales first time around and there is no indication that we'll need them this time. The NHS should be allowed to do it's job of looking after us, and those that can do so safely should get the economy up and running again asap.

Problem is, the government has dug itself into a hole, and shows no inclination to admit there may be another way to handle this, so it just keeps on digging, as a result of which we're all going to suffer more in the longer term. We're still at that stage in the cycle where the bay has emptied of water, and we're still playing on the beach, waiting for the economic tsunami to come rushing in. God help us when it does.

Tricky subject, I'm glad I'm not responsible for sorting it out.

And i agree with you to an extent.

There are currently over 16m people in the UK over 60 years of age. How can we keep them safe? And for how long?

Are we not going to allow them to do things that under 60's can do? Pub, footy, restaurants, going to their relatives homes or receiving visits from younger loved ones etc? That would be bordering on cruelty.

If we simply let the virus rip through the under 60's you can guarantee that it will affect the over 60's too - unless they are securely locked away.

But it is certainly a tricky balancing act for the Government, weighing lives against the economy and they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If we don't find a vaccine in the near future then the only way of controlling it is if around 50% to 90%(the number for Covid is not known) of the population would have to catch it, survive it and hope that this gives immunity for a lengthy time (this is not known either).
This doesn't seem like a reasonable proposition to me. If, say, 40m of the population gets Covid then, because of the severity of it, our NHS simply couldn't cope.

But, as you say, our economy, in fact the world economy, will take a massive hit, resulting in big problems.

As I said, I'm glad it's not my problem....

[sinkov]

"There are currently over 16m people in the UK over 60 years of age. How can we keep them safe? And for how long?
Are we not going to allow them to do things that under 60's can do? Pub, footy, restaurants, going to their relatives homes or receiving visits from younger loved ones etc? That would be bordering on cruelty.
If we simply let the virus rip through the under 60's you can guarantee that it will affect the over 60's too - unless they are securely locked away."

I haven't suggested trying to keep all over 60s safe, the NHS knows those most in need of protection and it's by no means all over 60s, nothing like it. Neither have I suggested letting the virus rip, using common sense, social distancing, hand washing etc will still be required, it will be just as effective at controlling the virus as a lockdown, which destroys the economy for no good purpose. If you doubt it ask yourself why the death toll peaked around April 10th and was falling steadily long before lockdown could have had any effect on it, why none of the towns and cities put into lockdown recently have come out of lockdown, and are in fact seeing an increase in cases, why Sweden, which had no lockdown, has not suffered unduly as a result.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world, including here, that lockdowns actually work, that they destroy economies is indisputable. The idea that we can try to contain the virus by locking down the country while we wait for a vaccine is insane. The damage to the economy, jobs and people's long term health is already catastrophic, how much worse can we allow it to get, bearing in mind there is no guarantee there will be an effective vaccine even next year.

We know the people who are most at risk, older people with co-morbidities, they should be protected, it is an insignificant risk to healthy under 60s, they should be allowed to get on with their lives as normally as possible, while obviously observing social distancing, frequent hand washing etc. The NHS will cope with the usual winter surge in respiratory infections, including the Covid cases, we didn't even come close to needing the Nightingales first time around and there is no indication that we'll need them this time. The NHS should be allowed to do it's job of looking after us, and those that can do so safely should get the economy up and running again asap.

Problem is, the government has dug itself into a hole, and shows no inclination to admit there may be another way to handle this, so it just keeps on digging, as a result of which we're all going to suffer more in the longer term. We're still at that stage in the cycle where the bay has emptied of water, and we're still playing on the beach, waiting for the economic tsunami to come rushing in. God help us when it does.

I hate it when I wholeheartedly agree with you sinkov when you are being alert and sensible. You are 100% spot on with this post my mate.

[oldcolner]

Problem is, the government has dug itself into a hole, and shows no inclination to admit there may be another way to handle this, so it just keeps on digging, as a result of which we're all going to suffer more in the longer term.

The fact is the Chief Medical and Scientific Advisers have dug the hole, the Government have found it impossible to go against their advice, though there are lots of scientists who disagree. We were following the Swedish model, but Ferguson came out with predictions of massive numbers of deaths causing a panic and lock down. He got it wrong but resigned from his position for personal reasons.
Starmer would need new advisers to move away from the plan