Clubs need the money now more than before, so it would be tight for any club to play their biggest games behind closed doors or with reduced capacity. I believe the big earning games for every clubs should get preference to be saved for when they can fill their grounds back up as much as they can. Make sure next season starts with the further away matches first, playing the games that will give you your lower crowds with least away fans expected. I would even go as far as for one season only giving games a play offs feel where you play those games back to back. It would make for a tougher looking second half of the season with more local games and all your bigger gate crowds, but it would boost finances. So for example if we go down we could start the season home and away to Gillingham and Plymouth in our first four games. The same way we wouldn't until the new year play away at Doncaster as it would be harsh to cost them the biggest payday they would get all season. If we stayed up we could start the season home and away to clubs like QPR and Millwall. In the second half of the season playing teams twice could be more spread out. It's just an idea so struggling clubs don't struggle even more by only being allowed to let in say 25% for their big local games.
I hope so. It's a massive positive that we've finally got a day with infections below a thousand..... Football being an outdoors sport is going to play in to our hands for letting everyone back together, rather than say a boxing event happening in an arena.
Out of 65 million people the 958 have tested positive. Would it be safe to say as long as you take personal measures outlined from the start that if you were getting it you would have by now?
And I would expect the vast majority of those will recover, unless they are/ were already fighting life ending conditions where your immune system is shot to bits
They haven’t tested 65m as you well know It’s 958 out of approx 139k According to the boffins 1 in 1700 have the virus At that rate out of a crowd of 12000 seven people will walk into Oakwell with it and if they each pass it onto just one other person then 14 will walk out with it As good as the progress is I don’t see crowds getting back to games this side of the new year
In France they are floating the idea of socially distanced crowds. With a 1 metre gap Oakwell could accommodate say 4000 suitably masked. Perhaps a few more with family bubbles. Of course there would have to be rules for moving about, one way systems and strict stewarding at the start and the end. I can't see it working if folks have a few pints before kick off and are running to the toilet every 20 minutes.
That's not quite how it works is it? They're only testing people who think they have it which heavily skews the figures Its like putting out an ad for anyone who thinks they can run 100m in under 10 seconds to come forward to test themselves. 10 people who think they're that good come forward and 7 of them get just under 10 seconds. The take away from that for me is that 7 out of 67million people are proven to be able to run 100m in under 10 seconds not that 7 out of 10 people can do it
Err....right? I would reiterate that the top boffins have restated on today’s coronavirus update that 1 in 1700 people currently have the virus. If our game v Millwall went ahead this Saturday in front of a 12000 crowd then you could expect that 7 people present would be infected. As to how many people they would pass the virus onto, if any, I don’t know. I suggested earlier that each might pass it to one other and that then 14 people would leave Oakwell with disease to illustrate why I don’t think crowds at games will be back anytime soon
