[Valley Blues]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 09 July 2020 - 06:17 AM, said:

The virus is still amongst us.

People are still dying.

Infact numbers are spiralling around the world.

There's still no vaccine or reliable treatment and our test, track and trace system is so useless the government refuse to publish stats.

And whilst fatality figures here are improving that's only because they've been so disgracefully high.

To put things in perspective more people passed in the UK yesterday than in NZ throughout the whole pandemic. More this week than the entire total in Greece. One of several nations still restricting us 'cos we're viewed the same as Trump's US abroad.

Give the public a choice? Well we saw how that worked out outside pubs last weekend. At resorts and beaches. Every time there's been a garbled lockdown lift.

But anyway, all this is moot. Even a PM who loves telling punters what they wanna hear knows large crowds (stop giggling at the back) would be an even worse catastrophe than he's already overseen.

As Kenny Dalgliesh quite rightly quoted 'Someone once said football's more important than life and death. He was wrong'...

When comparing mortality rates worldwide from Covid, can you be certain that each nation is using the same process of determining what is a Covid death and what isn’t?

I can’t.

The uk appears to give a figure for all those recorded deaths that HAD Covid. This doesn’t necessarily mean it was the cause of their death.

Are other nations reporting in the same manner? Or are some nations playing it more cautiously? How do NZ report it?

Without knowing this information, these quoted comparisons are of very little use.

This post has been edited by Valley Blues: 09 July 2020 - 08:25 AM

[CFC91]

Mr Mercury, on 08 July 2020 - 09:02 PM, said:

Regrading the daily numbers, taking into account the weekend low numbers and the following spikes, the seven day average is now around 94 deaths per day. Still an awful figure for all concerned and something that shouldn't be celebrated in any shape or form, but we have come a long way from the hundreds of deaths a day of a few weeks ago. Indeed the weekly average for the last two weeks shows cumulative deaths for the UK lower for the same periods of previous years suggesting that many of those who have died recently, Covid related, were already in the final stages of their lives. This is in no way shape or form a celebration of how the government has handled this disaster but a leaning into how, now, things have to try to return to some form of normality, in unison with common sense, i.e. Be sensible in your day to day lives, and if you think you genuinely have symptoms get a test!

An interesting take, and although 94 deaths of people who had COVID is still horrendous, it is a lot better than it has been and the UK is showing signs of recovery - which is more than can be said about that lot across the pond with just the 60,000 new cases yesterday alone.

People are returning to normal but like you say, we need to be careful and sensible but not scared. I've seen people who have jetted off to Spain, Caribbean and France in the last week - fairly extreme I know but peoples confidence is returning, albeit with extreme caution.

I've been out for a food and drinks in the last few days, it's all very different but the bars and pubs I went in were taking all the right precautions (not all are I know but the majority are) and everyone was being sensible. Obviously that doesn't make a good story so won't be in the media but in the main I was suprised but pleased.

[JonB]

CFC91, on 09 July 2020 - 09:27 AM, said:

An interesting take, and although 94 deaths of people who had COVID is still horrendous, it is a lot better than it has been and the UK is showing signs of recovery - which is more than can be said about that lot across the pond with just the 60,000 new cases yesterday alone.

People are returning to normal but like you say, we need to be careful and sensible but not scared. I've seen people who have jetted off to Spain, Caribbean and France in the last week - fairly extreme I know but peoples confidence is returning, albeit with extreme caution.

I've been out for a food and drinks in the last few days, it's all very different but the bars and pubs I went in were taking all the right precautions (not all are I know but the majority are) and everyone was being sensible. Obviously that doesn't make a good story so won't be in the media but in the main I was suprised but pleased.

We're due to go to France on August 8th, as it stands it looks like we are going. The flight is still going, currently, whilst the house we rent we've paid the deposit for and would probably lose it if we dont go. We've spoken to folk we know in the area we are going to and things are pretty good there, where we go is in the south of France and its a pretty small town to be honest. As it stands about the only thing we need to do is me and my wife will need to wear masks in the airport and on the flights but thats it, our little one wont have to.

[CFC91]

JonB, on 09 July 2020 - 10:59 AM, said:

We're due to go to France on August 8th, as it stands it looks like we are going. The flight is still going, currently, whilst the house we rent we've paid the deposit for and would probably lose it if we dont go. We've spoken to folk we know in the area we are going to and things are pretty good there, where we go is in the south of France and its a pretty small town to be honest. As it stands about the only thing we need to do is me and my wife will need to wear masks in the airport and on the flights but thats it, our little one wont have to.

Where abouts in France are you heading?

Had a similar discussion with my missus last night, she doesn’t want to fly but said she’d get the ferry to France and drive somewhere so debating that for a week or so break

[CFC91]

JonB, on 09 July 2020 - 10:59 AM, said:

We're due to go to France on August 8th, as it stands it looks like we are going. The flight is still going, currently, whilst the house we rent we've paid the deposit for and would probably lose it if we dont go. We've spoken to folk we know in the area we are going to and things are pretty good there, where we go is in the south of France and its a pretty small town to be honest. As it stands about the only thing we need to do is me and my wife will need to wear masks in the airport and on the flights but thats it, our little one wont have to.

Where abouts in France are you heading?

Had a similar discussion with my missus last night, she doesn’t want to fly but said she’d get the ferry to France and drive somewhere so debating that for a week or so break

[JonB]

CFC91, on 09 July 2020 - 01:20 PM, said:

Where abouts in France are you heading?

Had a similar discussion with my missus last night, she doesn’t want to fly but said she’d get the ferry to France and drive somewhere so debating that for a week or so break

Its a small village called St Siffret, nearest town is Uzes and nearest biggest town\city is Nimes. We've driven down numerous times and only stopped because its a bit much with the little one currently. Its about 800 miles from Chesterfield depending on how you do it. If you are driving i would recommend spending some time on google maps and find some places you want to go to and plot a route for a bit of a road trip. France is really easy to drive round and you can avoid the motorways pretty easily. We've rented the same house for the last few years so tend to get there over a couple of days and back in a couple of days but in the past we've spent a week getting there stopping at various places then a week in a normal spot and then home in a couple of days.

The last time we drove i was on paternity leave with the litte one for 6 months so i went down a week earlier than my wife taking child and dog travelling in convoy with the in laws. Ended up being away for 27 days and drove down stopping in a place near Northampton called Sherington the night before the ferry then one night each in Lille, Nancy and Limonest just north of Lyon travelling down, just shy of three weeks in our spot in St Siffret then on the way back we had a night Le Puy En Velay, 2 nights in Colombey Deux Eglise and a final night in Bolougne before getting the ferry back. The actual journey was around 2000 miles but we did about 2500 in total in those days. The best travelling we did was the first year we took the dog with us and we spent a couple of nights in Arromanche doing the D Day beaches then down the west coast for two nights on Île de Ré before heading across country stopping in Saint Emillion, Rodez and Mende to get to our spot in St Siffret. The cross country bit took us on some very interesting roads through various gorges etc. On the way back we blasted it over Saturday and Sunday just stopping in Reims for a night.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Valley Blues, on 09 July 2020 - 08:23 AM, said:

When comparing mortality rates worldwide from Covid, can you be certain that each nation is using the same process of determining what is a Covid death and what isn’t?

I can’t.

The uk appears to give a figure for all those recorded deaths that HAD Covid. This doesn’t necessarily mean it was the cause of their death.

Are other nations reporting in the same manner? Or are some nations playing it more cautiously? How do NZ report it?

Without knowing this information, these quoted comparisons are of very little use.

Blimey - do you work for the government?

Even their figures quote those with Covid as the cause of death on their death certificate. Around forty four thousand so far.

Then the office of national stats quote more than sixty thousand deaths over the expected average.

Doubt they're given to fact fiddling.

As for comparing with other countries Bozo's bunch were happy to use those figures until ours' got worse. At which point they just stopped. As they simply stopped providing test numbers when they became embarrassing, too.

It's widely accepted the UK is only behind Trump's US and Bolsonaro's Brazil - both bizarre Covid deniers, of course - in terms of death rates.

Both Greece and NZ have different demographics to ourselves, however they're just two of many comparable countries who've suffered fewer fatalities overall than we still suffer in a week. Which was the point.

Perhaps those eager to dismiss the UK's appaling pandemic performance can tell us exactly how many daily deaths they deem acceptable or which family members they dub expendable...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 09 July 2020 - 02:55 PM

[sophocles]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 09 July 2020 - 07:31 AM, said:

Okay, but stepping over what I'm sure are tongue-in-cheek jibes any chance of addressing the points?

How to allow whoever wants to turn up a safe seat? Something even approaching a 'normal' matchday? Without cronyistic double standards?

There've now been a number of threads punctuated by well meaning 'ifs', 'maybes', 'perhaps' and 'hopefullys' but we're yet to see a credible solution...

Glad you took it in the way it was intended. I have, however, already put forward practical solutions earlier in this thread. They involved -

a. using the whole ground for home fans, apart from a small section of the East stand, if needed, for away supporters,

b. Taking out alternate rows of seats to create exit/entry pathways and provide adequate spacing

c. removing every 5th seat in each row to create 'vertical' exit/entry pathways,

I haven't done the detailed calculations, but my guess is that these measures would allow about a quarter of the stadium seating capacity to be occupied, which would accommodate the numbers we were admitting during recent seasons. The sort of queuing/ distancing systems we are already familiar with in shops etc would work for refreshments and toilet visits. The practicalities and expense of seat removals may make my plan unworkable, but, in theory it could be done, and could provide safe access for a reasonable number of fans to attend matches.

[Mr Mercury]

sophocles, on 09 July 2020 - 03:25 PM, said:

Glad you took it in the way it was intended. I have, however, already put forward practical solutions earlier in this thread. They involved -

a. using the whole ground for home fans, apart from a small section of the East stand, if needed, for away supporters,

b. Taking out alternate rows of seats to create exit/entry pathways and provide adequate spacing

c. removing every 5th seat in each row to create 'vertical' exit/entry pathways,

I haven't done the detailed calculations, but my guess is that these measures would allow about a quarter of the stadium seating capacity to be occupied, which would accommodate the numbers we were admitting during recent seasons. The sort of queuing/ distancing systems we are already familiar with in shops etc would work for refreshments and toilet visits. The practicalities and expense of seat removals may make my plan unworkable, but, in theory it could be done, and could provide safe access for a reasonable number of fans to attend matches.

Sadly c isn’t viable because the seat pitch is steeper than the steps pitch were an extra step is in place

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 09 July 2020 - 04:02 PM

[hardgums]

sophocles, on 09 July 2020 - 03:25 PM, said:

Glad you took it in the way it was intended. I have, however, already put forward practical solutions earlier in this thread. They involved -

a. using the whole ground for home fans, apart from a small section of the East stand, if needed, for away supporters,

b. Taking out alternate rows of seats to create exit/entry pathways and provide adequate spacing

c. removing every 5th seat in each row to create 'vertical' exit/entry pathways,

I haven't done the detailed calculations, but my guess is that these measures would allow about a quarter of the stadium seating capacity to be occupied, which would accommodate the numbers we were admitting during recent seasons. The sort of queuing/ distancing systems we are already familiar with in shops etc would work for refreshments and toilet visits. The practicalities and expense of seat removals may make my plan unworkable, but, in theory it could be done, and could provide safe access for a reasonable number of fans to attend matches.

This!

[dim view]

sophocles, on 09 July 2020 - 03:25 PM, said:

Glad you took it in the way it was intended. I have, however, already put forward practical solutions earlier in this thread. They involved -

a. using the whole ground for home fans, apart from a small section of the East stand, if needed, for away supporters,

b. Taking out alternate rows of seats to create exit/entry pathways and provide adequate spacing

c. removing every 5th seat in each row to create 'vertical' exit/entry pathways,

I haven't done the detailed calculations, but my guess is that these measures would allow about a quarter of the stadium seating capacity to be occupied, which would accommodate the numbers we were admitting during recent seasons. The sort of queuing/ distancing systems we are already familiar with in shops etc would work for refreshments and toilet visits. The practicalities and expense of seat removals may make my plan unworkable, but, in theory it could be done, and could provide safe access for a reasonable number of fans to attend matches.

Wouldn't the best practical solution be to play our matches at Bramall Lane with a 4k capacity until summat happens?

This post has been edited by dim view: 09 July 2020 - 05:16 PM

[JonB]

dim view, on 09 July 2020 - 05:15 PM, said:

Wouldn't the best practical solution be to play our matches at Bramall Lane with a 4k capacity until summat happens?

At what cost? Wouldn’t the cost of borrowing probably negate actually playing with fans in. Plus how many will go if they have to go there especially as the blunts and Wednesday alternate Saturday home games so I suspect we’d have to play games at strange times working round Wednesday home games as Yorkshire plod would need to police both and we know what they are like.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dtp, on 08 July 2020 - 03:03 PM, said:

I merely make suggestions on how things could possibly work in a relatively controlled environment for discussion whereas you just turn everything into a negative, not to be discussed, but just shunned. I've said before, Chris, and I'll say it again it is far easier to oppose ideas/suggestions than make them but if people had not had ideas in the past we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

ST's do not necessarily have to be paid for in one payment. They could be paid for in instalments. Or, do you think that is unfair?

Walk ups create their own problems and could create time consuming difficulties in obtaining contact details on a match day. This might mean taking on additional staff to control queues and gather information which is not cost effective. Do you think it best to add to costs you already criticise as being too high?

And then, I am not suggesting certain supporters are shunned for a whole season only making suggestions for the start of when supporters might be allowed to games and how this could be done. As things become more relaxed then more people could be allowed to attend.

Pleased you like the idea of being waited on but do you really think it is necessary to sup alcohol bearing in mind a good number of supporters drive to games?

When pubs and restaurants take table bookings they do not have to make records of who is cohabiting with who and whether or not certain people are within a family bubble. So why should clubs?

You like to keep referring to the select few and elitism but do you really think this will change if the Trust or any other owner takes over?

You put stuff forward for discussion and we're discussing it, Dave.

As for turning everything into a negative I've merely pointed out flaws in your ideas you've yet to address. Please don't blame me because a return to your regular seat is unfeasable.

Anyway, fair comment on ST's being paid over time.

But like it or not walk ups have always constituted a percentage of our crowds and it's unfair to penalise people who can't/don't want to commit.

If you're concerned with increased costs who d'y'think's gonna ensure distancing is respected? Other protocols are met? Do the waiting-on you've suggested? And whilst some may not want an ale - or 'alcohol' as you put it - I'd guess beer constitutes a significant percentage of concourse sales. Either way pay-out per punter will inevitably rise.

I'm pretty sure hospitality venues ARE required to take contact details. There was supposed to be a 'world beating' app but, well, looks like that went the way of every other government target. So as with your 'should things become more relaxed' we have to live in the here and now. There's also the family unit thing - how do you possibly police that? Take everyone's word? Meanwhile we've already seen how clued-up the Club are regarding GDPR.

You've often accused me of being negative but to answer the cronyism question yeah, I really do hope there'll be a change when Carson and Co go. Infact I'd strongly urge the new people to put honesty and unity at the top of their 'To Do' list.

Our friend 'Sophocles' has at least offered a real world scenario - a drastically reduced capacity with strict stewarding. That leaves two choices for who's allowed in: first come first served ticket sales every game (which may be increased if and when) or some sort of lottery style allocation. Fans submit their names and take pot luck if they're drawn and where they sit. In the spirit of 'all in this together' that'd include boardmembers, too.

Okay, it might mean sitting in an unfamiliar stand amidst unfamiliar faces but everyone at least has an opportunity. Do you have a problem with that?

[Mr Mercury]

sophocles, on 09 July 2020 - 03:25 PM, said:

Glad you took it in the way it was intended. I have, however, already put forward practical solutions earlier in this thread. They involved -

a. using the whole ground for home fans, apart from a small section of the East stand, if needed, for away supporters,

b. Taking out alternate rows of seats to create exit/entry pathways and provide adequate spacing

c. removing every 5th seat in each row to create 'vertical' exit/entry pathways,

I haven't done the detailed calculations, but my guess is that these measures would allow about a quarter of the stadium seating capacity to be occupied, which would accommodate the numbers we were admitting during recent seasons. The sort of queuing/ distancing systems we are already familiar with in shops etc would work for refreshments and toilet visits. The practicalities and expense of seat removals may make my plan unworkable, but, in theory it could be done, and could provide safe access for a reasonable number of fans to attend matches.

Sadly c isn’t viable because the seat pitch is steroervthan the steps pitch were an extra step is in place

[dtp]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 09 July 2020 - 05:52 PM, said:

You put stuff forward for discussion and we're discussing it, Dave.

As for turning everything into a negative I've merely pointed out flaws in your ideas you've yet to address. Please don't blame me because a return to your regular seat is unfeasable.

Anyway, fair comment on ST's being paid over time.

But like it or not walk ups have always constituted a percentage of our crowds and it's unfair to penalise people who can't/don't want to commit.

If you're concerned with increased costs who d'y'think's gonna ensure distancing is respected? Other protocols are met? Do the waiting-on you've suggested? And whilst some may not want an ale - or 'alcohol' as you put it - I'd guess beer constitutes a significant percentage of concourse sales. Either way pay-out per punter will inevitably rise.

I'm pretty sure hospitality venues ARE required to take contact details. There was supposed to be a 'world beating' app but, well, looks like that went the way of every other government target. So as with your 'should things become more relaxed' we have to live in the here and now. There's also the family unit thing - how do you possibly police that? Take everyone's word? Meanwhile we've already seen how clued-up the Club are regarding GDPR.

You've often accused me of being negative but to answer the cronyism question yeah, I really do hope there'll be a change when Carson and Co go. Infact I'd strongly urge the new people to put honesty and unity at the top of their 'To Do' list.

Our friend 'Sophocles' has at least offered a real world scenario - a drastically reduced capacity with strict stewarding. That leaves two choices for who's allowed in: first come first served ticket sales every game (which may be increased if and when) or some sort of lottery style allocation. Fans submit their names and take pot luck if they're drawn and where they sit. In the spirit of 'all in this together' that'd include boardmembers, too.

Okay, it might mean sitting in an unfamiliar stand amidst unfamiliar faces but everyone at least has an opportunity. Do you have a problem with that?

Like Sophocles I have suggested taking out every other row. This reduces capacity by half. The space created would allow for serving to be made to supporters sat in seats in the row above.

The fact that I suggested to start with ST's only gives the Club contact details of all ST holders. You said how does the club check people are cohabiting. I said they do not need to. Now you seem to have reverted back to "contact details" which I had already covered.

As I've said previously, families can sit together so it is not necessary to create space between every seat. If seating is arranged according to ST sales then capacity can be maximised according to the number sold and seating would not have to be re-arranged for every individual game. That is why, initially, it would be far more effective to work on a ST basis rather than a walk-up one. From a business point of view the Club will need guaranteed income served at as little cost as possible which suits the model of STs over walk-up's. And, yes, there is the chance of disappointing some regular walk-up's but the other way round there is a chance of disappointing a number of regular ST holders.

Regarding, ST's perhaps having to sit in different seats I covered this in a much earlier post as you know. I said then I don't have a problem with it so, to repeat myself, if my family and I had to sit in different seats in a different stand then so be it but I would expect the option of returning to my regular seat when allowed. I think that is a fair solution.

I know you might have concerns about the additional thousands that will want to return if DA and AC etc vacate the premises but I don't see the NAPM as being more important as the regular walk-up or the regular ST. The only difference is the Club already know who the regular STs are but not necessarily the regular walk-up's or those who have vowed to return when new acceptable owners come in.

However, if all STs sold could be fitted into 3 Stands under the spacing suggestions made then the remaining Stand could be offered on a first come first served basis walk-up basis or whatever.

As far as alcohol is concerned it might be a profitable concourse sale but, as you have suggested in a different post, it can also lead to misbehaviour and a possible disregard of social distancing. Non-alcoholic beverages and food can also be profitable too.

This post has been edited by dtp: 09 July 2020 - 08:12 PM

[dim view]

JonB, on 09 July 2020 - 05:39 PM, said:

At what cost? Wouldn’t the cost of borrowing probably negate actually playing with fans in. Plus how many will go if they have to go there especially as the blunts and Wednesday alternate Saturday home games so I suspect we’d have to play games at strange times working round Wednesday home games as Yorkshire plod would need to police both and we know what they are like.

I would lobby for all big clubs to help out their neighbours for nowt as a gesture in the current climate. It's got to be better than ripping rows and columns of seats out at CFC, which is just crass.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 09 July 2020 - 07:22 PM, said:

I would lobby for all big clubs to help out their neighbours for nowt as a gesture in the current climate. It's got to be better than ripping rows and columns of seats out at CFC, which is just crass.

Why not go the whole hog and relocate to Owlerton?

[CFC91]

Sounds like the season restart 12th Sept with fans is gathering a bit of pace after today’s announcement

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 09 July 2020 - 05:15 PM, said:

Wouldn't the best practical solution be to play our matches at Bramall Lane with a 4k capacity until summat happens?

We wouldn't need 400.

[Westbars Spireite]

And if you don't want to go 'cos you're fearful, don't.