[dtp]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 04 June 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

It's not me saying family members from different households can't mix, Dave - it's the government!

And as a law abiding citizen I'm sure you'd never advocate breaking the rules. So, individual seats it is, then. Well until the government changes it's mind again, anyway.

Gotta say there's a lot of the government's briefings about your second paragraph, too. Loadsa words, no real answers. You requested a considered way forward and I suggested one fair to all. Why are you so reluctant to embrace it - 'cos you might not be one of the 'haves', perhaps?

Not sure why you're still trying to mitigate the daytripping Dom debacle, either. He admitted breaking his own rules, on at least four separate occasions, yet not only refused to apologise but was backed by Bozo. In total contrast to prof Ferg, that scottish woman and a Labour MP.

Government advisors, Carson and Co, season ticket holders or occasional punters my point hasn't changed since my first post: the same standards for all.

Sorry Chris, you haven't answered the points I raised about family members from the same households such as husband and wife, father and son, husband wife and kids so no, as a law abiding citizen I don't advocate breaking of any rules. I say they can sit together under the present rules of social distancing. For instance my son can sit with his son but I would have to sit socially distanced apart. Individual seats are not required under the present rules in respect of members of the same household. In fact, for instance, as I mentioned previously under your system you are suggesting a family of five from the same household such as husband wife and three young kids should be separated up to suit your own ends. Such a family could currently have season tickets to sit together in the family stand but you, a family man, think it's preferable to split them up into individual seats. C'mon, Chris, you are better than that!!!

Then, you prefer to have queuing for tickets for every single game and seat, taking up more staff and supporter time, handling extra paperwork whilst trying to maintain a safer environment. If the Trust, or other new owners come in, I know initially the returning thousands might be disappointed but somebody has to be unless we can actually return to larger capacities. Seat planning, administration, social distancing, supporter safety and loyalty is far better served via the sale of season tickets.

[johnd51]

dtp, on 04 June 2020 - 06:15 AM, said:

Interesting that you say no new cases in town again today. Where do you get your info from and does this just cover the Borough or any outlying areas as well?

This post has been edited by johnd51: 04 June 2020 - 09:26 PM

[johnd51]

coronavirus.data.gov.uk
National and regional information available updated daily around 5pm classified by local authorities.
No more positive tests again today. Still 228.
We are over the worst.

[dim view]

johnd51, on 04 June 2020 - 09:30 PM, said:

coronavirus.data.gov.uk
National and regional information available updated daily around 5pm classified by local authorities.
No more positive tests again today. Still 228.
We are over the worst.

Morning
So, the big question is how encouraging stats like those should influence forward thinking on filling stadia.
Do we retain the much loved traditional experience based on the paucity of positive tests or do we change the product by invoking social distancing ideas or summat else?

My idea, which may or may not be worthy of debate, is that a mass produced, high quality, unobtrusive, patented, face mask might be a feasible way to get back as far as possible to the traditional experience. The product - to spectate - will have to evolve in some direction unless we wing it by saying 'ok x negative tests in succession in the town or city and we resume as though nowt has happened'.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dtp, on 04 June 2020 - 07:45 PM, said:

Sorry Chris, you haven't answered the points I raised about family members from the same households such as husband and wife, father and son, husband wife and kids so no, as a law abiding citizen I don't advocate breaking of any rules. I say they can sit together under the present rules of social distancing. For instance my son can sit with his son but I would have to sit socially distanced apart. Individual seats are not required under the present rules in respect of members of the same household. In fact, for instance, as I mentioned previously under your system you are suggesting a family of five from the same household such as husband wife and three young kids should be separated up to suit your own ends. Such a family could currently have season tickets to sit together in the family stand but you, a family man, think it's preferable to split them up into individual seats. C'mon, Chris, you are better than that!!!

Then, you prefer to have queuing for tickets for every single game and seat, taking up more staff and supporter time, handling extra paperwork whilst trying to maintain a safer environment. If the Trust, or other new owners come in, I know initially the returning thousands might be disappointed but somebody has to be unless we can actually return to larger capacities. Seat planning, administration, social distancing, supporter safety and loyalty is far better served via the sale of season tickets.

I dealt with the family thing in my last but one post, Dave; how do you prove who lives with who? How do you ensure it's not abused? How do you steward it all? Isn't that in itself imposing impossible demands on clubs' duty of care?

Bearing in mind a single allegedly stadium acquired case and the shutters would soon be back down.

Now stepping over your little jibes about a lack of thought or criticism for the sake of it I've suggested a straightforward system that could, possibly, get a limited number of punters back to games. Fairly and with no elitism. As opposed to your idea which'd see a lucky sixteen or so hundred (if watching Town these days can be called 'lucky') with everyone else locked out. Including hundreds of folk who consider themselves just as loyal as you.

If you wanna talk about ducking questions are you really so convinced you'd be one of the in-crowd?

As said I get it. You and many like you - including some very good friends of mine - are desperate for a return to routine. Are afraid for CFC's very future, infact. But more Brits are dead of this disease than civilians in WW2. Just take a minute to think about that. A disease still infecting thousands every day and under a government that dun't know it's ass from it's elbow.

I've enjoyed our exchange as always but 'come on' yourself; finding other things to do on a Saturday is a small price to pay by comparison...

[Nitrous Oxide]

It can't work. Even if everyone could sit 2m apart how do you handle people like those on the row where I usually sit whose kids have incredibly weak bladders and need to go 3 or 4 times in each half. Im up and down more times, its like a Joe Wicks workout. Ejector seats would be a good idea but I think that might cause a problem for the pigeons.

[dtp]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 05 June 2020 - 06:47 AM, said:

I dealt with the family thing in my last but one post, Dave; how do you prove who lives with who? How do you ensure it's not abused? How do you steward it all? Isn't that in itself imposing impossible demands on clubs' duty of care?

Bearing in mind a single allegedly stadium acquired case and the shutters would soon be back down.

Now stepping over your little jibes about a lack of thought or criticism for the sake of it I've suggested a straightforward system that could, possibly, get a limited number of punters back to games. Fairly and with no elitism. As opposed to your idea which'd see a lucky sixteen or so hundred (if watching Town these days can be called 'lucky') with everyone else locked out. Including hundreds of folk who consider themselves just as loyal as you.

If you wanna talk about ducking questions are you really so convinced you'd be one of the in-crowd?

As said I get it. You and many like you - including some very good friends of mine - are desperate for a return to routine. Are afraid for CFC's very future, infact. But more Brits are dead of this disease than civilians in WW2. Just take a minute to think about that. A disease still infecting thousands every day and under a government that dun't know it's ass from it's elbow.

I've enjoyed our exchange as always but 'come on' yourself; finding other things to do on a Saturday is a small price to pay by comparison...

I've enjoyed it too, Chris, but if nothing else it shows there are differences of opinion as to how attending games at some time in the future might be possible or controlled. And, that is exactly why the NL powers that be should be thinking in advance rather than waiting to see. Possibly, that's where this thread started???

[Tha Knows...]

No football please until it is safe to sit next to random folk without wearing masks! Just leave it.

[jack bauer]

in many ways this thread reminds me of more football related threads of the past where posters, myself included, would try desperately to come up with a winning team from our available squad of players in the hope that we might just have hit upon a solution that was actually impossible.

[60s 70s Spireite]

dtp, on 05 June 2020 - 07:33 AM, said:

I've enjoyed it too, Chris, but if nothing else it shows there are differences of opinion as to how attending games at some time in the future might be possible or controlled. And, that is exactly why the NL powers that be should be thinking in advance rather than waiting to see. Possibly, that's where this thread started???

But it’s not for the NL to decide. It’s for the FA, who will consult with the government, as will the horse racing industry, the European Golf Tour, Motor Racing, both codes of Rugby, et al, and as one they will one up with a decision as to when spectators can return. It’s fanciful to think that one sport, at one level, will come up with its own solution.

[dtp]

60s 70s Spireite, on 05 June 2020 - 04:00 PM, said:

But it’s not for the NL to decide. It’s for the FA, who will consult with the government, as will the horse racing industry, the European Golf Tour, Motor Racing, both codes of Rugby, et al, and as one they will one up with a decision as to when spectators can return. It’s fanciful to think that one sport, at one level, will come up with its own solution.

Yet today the Derbyshire Times is quoting the Fylde owner, David Haythornthwaite, trying to get the NL to take the necessary steps to decide when the new season should commence with attendances. His suggestion is the beginning of January but, more importantly, he feels decisions need to be taken now to enable clubs to plan ahead.

[60s 70s Spireite]

dtp, on 05 June 2020 - 05:32 PM, said:

Yet today the Derbyshire Times is quoting the Fylde owner, David Haythornthwaite, trying to get the NL to take the necessary steps to decide when the new season should commence with attendances. His suggestion is the beginning of January but, more importantly, he feels decisions need to be taken now to enable clubs to plan ahead.

I read his statement differently. He is asking whether clubs the season want to start without spectators, or wait until they are allowed to attend. He seems to prefer to wait until spectators can attend, which he hopes is January. He says we can then start planning for January, presumably a best guess when the risk has almost receded. I see no mention of distancing or toilets or queues. 'Planning' is more likely to mean semantics like a fixture list. Any date and arrangements for spectators attending football matches will come from the very top, not from one of the many leagues up and down the country.

Strange its the Fylde owner, I see the Blackpool area is one of the worst for Coronavirus cases in the country.

[sophocles]

Nitrous Oxide, on 05 June 2020 - 07:12 AM, said:

It can't work. Even if everyone could sit 2m apart how do you handle people like those on the row where I usually sit whose kids have incredibly weak bladders and need to go 3 or 4 times in each half. Im up and down more times, its like a Joe Wicks workout. Ejector seats would be a good idea but I think that might cause a problem for the pigeons.

Since not all seats would be needed, vertical rows of seats could be removed to create more back-to-front gangways. If this was done, as well as leaving every other horizontal row empty, it would probably be possible to accommodate approximately one third of capacity (also using the North stand for home supporters). Toilets would still need to be subject to a strict one in - one out system.

[60s 70s Spireite]

sophocles, on 05 June 2020 - 07:04 PM, said:

Since not all seats would be needed, vertical rows of seats could be removed to create more back-to-front gangways. If this was done, as well as leaving every other horizontal row empty, it would probably be possible to accommodate approximately one third of capacity (also using the North stand for home supporters). Toilets would still need to be subject to a strict one in - one out system.

Leaving every other row empty reduces the capacity by half, to say 5000. Then you have to have at least 2 or 3 seats space between each occupied seat. So that reduces the capacity to between 1200 and 1600, less the seats taken out.
Plus, as I keep saying, what about those clubs without much seating? A steward positioned between each spectator?

[Nitrous Oxide]

sophocles, on 05 June 2020 - 07:04 PM, said:

Since not all seats would be needed, vertical rows of seats could be removed to create more back-to-front gangways. If this was done, as well as leaving every other horizontal row empty, it would probably be possible to accommodate approximately one third of capacity (also using the North stand for home supporters). Toilets would still need to be subject to a strict one in - one out system.

That might work.

[JonB]

Aren’t the seats installed in units that are full rows...to make vertical gangways would need the steelwork to be cut.

[Tha Knows...]

Filling in the corners might help..

[johnd51]

Another day with no positive tests in the Borough 🙂👨‍⚕️🤾‍♂️🍻

[dtp]

60s 70s Spireite, on 05 June 2020 - 06:17 PM, said:

I read his statement differently. He is asking whether clubs the season want to start without spectators, or wait until they are allowed to attend. He seems to prefer to wait until spectators can attend, which he hopes is January. He says we can then start planning for January, presumably a best guess when the risk has almost receded. I see no mention of distancing or toilets or queues. 'Planning' is more likely to mean semantics like a fixture list. Any date and arrangements for spectators attending football matches will come from the very top, not from one of the many leagues up and down the country.

Strange its the Fylde owner, I see the Blackpool area is one of the worst for Coronavirus cases in the country.

Baby steps, I know, but several questions to be answered before moving into further detail.

But as he says, the NL have to decide whether or not the new season will start in August as currently planned. If it does start then do Clubs agree that matches might have to be played behind closed doors? Do Clubs want the new season to start with spectators? If it doesn't start in August what should be the targeted start date?

Haythornthwaite is suggesting starting in January but, as the Government's furlough scheme is set to be slowly wound down and finished by 31st October, I would have thought that a number of Clubs will struggle to survive that long so, possibly, 1st November might become a new targeted start date.

JonB, on 05 June 2020 - 10:33 PM, said:

Aren’t the seats installed in units that are full rows...to make vertical gangways would need the steelwork to be cut.

That was one of my thoughts and why I suggested taking out every other row.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

johnd51, on 05 June 2020 - 11:27 PM, said:

Another day with no positive tests in the Borough 🙂👨‍⚕️🤾‍♂️🍻

Do we know how many people were actually tested?

As opposed to ones 'in the post' or two swabs on the same person counted as individual tests, of course.

I'd check the official figures, but for some strange reason the government seem reluctant to publish them...