Coronavirus: Football Discussion Thread

Who says the players don't want to play. Players wont want to put themselves and their families at risk but once the 14 days have gone, where's the risk?

If 250 if England have it, it's manageable. if it goes to ten thousand then you get these problems where everyone starts to know someone or has contact with someone who has it.

Up until now, I'd only thought about the safety of the fans, but this is a reminder that the players come into it too.

I think we should also remind ourselves that at the moment very few people have been diagnosed with the virus.
It does seem it’s quite difficult to get a diagnosis, quite a few hurdles to jump before you get tested. The vast majority of those that are ringing 111 and are not being tested probably don’t have the virus. But it could be that thousands of people have the virus but just haven’t been tested
 
Did you hear about some Iranians who heard that alcohol kills the virus (true) but who killed themselves through alcohol poisoning?

I am waiting for someone to invent a modified mask that not only provides a physical barrier to anti-viral particles but kills the virus. A soapy mask? Must be possible.

Remember London plague and ring-a-ring a roses a pocket full of posies, a tissue a tissue we all fall down?
Apparently quite a few people attending the Cheltenham festival are expressing their belief that large consumption of alcohol kills the virus
 
And Valencia and Atalanta fans still turned up in their thousands for the game. That will happen for our game too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-outside-Mestalla-despite-told-stay-away.html
(Sorry for the link but its the only paper that reported the story that was on some of the sports channels.)

That's what I was saying the other day. Imagine they did it here next week when the scousers could win the league at home to Palace. It would be more dangerous than letting them all in.
 
The PL nor the CL will be cancelled. All will probably end up being behind closed doors. Far to much money invested in these for them to be cancelled or postponed with EUROPA 2020 coming up.
 
Euro 2020 will be pushed back a year.
Leagues and cups will be suspended and restart in summer.
 
UEFA rejected our request to postpone the game at Olympiacos


Wow. Says it all.

I read yesterday that they are pressuring goverments regarding the Euro's saying if each city has good health services they should be able to commence as planned.

Uefa ****s do not give a single fuck about me or you or our families as long as they can cash in. Dirty deplorable bastards.
 
I would be fascinated to see the analysis that was carried out before the government decided that it is better to carry on playing football matches. That it was safer for people to be in an outdoors setting rather down the pub.

How did they estimate how many fans would go to the pub if a game is played behind closed doors? Did they take into account how many football fans have Sky subscriptions? How many take their kids to games but wouldn’t take them to the pub? How many fans don’t like going to the pub? Did they consider the effect that early kick offs would have? Games played at 12.3O or 2pm rather than late afternoon/ evening kick offs? Did they also factor in that many fans also go to the pub before or after matches? That pubs near grounds have a roaring trade on match days. That bars around grounds and on concourses are packed before kick off. Did they assess the risk from travelling to matches on public transport , especially packed trams and the underground?

if they’d taken all of those factors into consideration and still concluded that it would be best for matches to go ahead, then I would have confidence in that decision. Or was it just a case of Sir Humphrey deciding “well they’ll all go to the pub”.

In the grand scheme of things deciding whether or not to continue playing football matches in front of fans might not be the most important decision facing the government and the health service. But the way that they arrived at that decision would be a good indicator of how robust is their planning process.
 
I would be fascinated to see the analysis that was carried out before the government decided that it is better to carry on playing football matches. That it was safer for people to be in an outdoors setting rather down the pub.

How did they estimate how many fans would go to the pub if a game is played behind closed doors? Did they take into account how many football fans have Sky subscriptions? How many take their kids to games but wouldn’t take them to the pub? How many fans don’t like going to the pub? Did they consider the effect that early kick offs would have? Games played at 12.3O or 2pm rather than late afternoon/ evening kick offs? Did they also factor in that many fans also go to the pub before or after matches? That pubs near grounds have a roaring trade on match days. That bars around grounds and on concourses are packed before kick off. Did they assess the risk from travelling to matches on public transport , especially packed trams and the underground?

if they’d taken all of those factors into consideration and still concluded that it would be best for matches to go ahead, then I would have confidence in that decision. Or was it just a case of Sir Humphrey deciding “well they’ll all go to the pub”.

In the grand scheme of things deciding whether or not to continue playing football matches in front of fans might not be the most important decision facing the government and the health service. But the way that they arrived at that decision would be a good indicator of how robust is their planning process.

Isn't this just basic numbers, and why France has banned events with people over 1000. It's just how social networks operate - pub has a few hundred nodes while a football games has 100s of thousands of nodes. Trams on matchdays are just about the worst place imaginable for this virus.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top