October 3rd

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

Darlofan97
Posts: 4418
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

October 3rd

Post by Darlofan97 » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:37 pm

Start date for the National League.

We will start the season in the FA Cup that weekend.

Final games will be on 29th May, with play-offs in June. That is 35 match weekends, standard season is 39 weekends.

I wonder how this will impact players’ salaries, who are normally paid over 39 weeks.

lo36789
Posts: 8750
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: October 3rd

Post by lo36789 » Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:11 pm

I don't know if it will - if I am not mistaken as players are on a fixed term contract they are paid a fee to fulfil that contract (ie the season denoted in the contract).

So I would think most of our contracts say £x amount paid in 40 weekly instalments rather than "we will pay £x per week"

al_quaker
Posts: 5652
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 am

While it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.

I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.

lo36789
Posts: 8750
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: October 3rd

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:42 am

These questions are still being worked through. There are caveats on all the communications that conversations are still ongoing in terms of what a covid safe football club need to do - and the date is simply indicative / desired.

If starting the season means the vast majority of clubs are no longer a going concern that is more problematic than delayed start to the season.

al_quaker
Posts: 5652
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:00 am

Yes I'm sure they are still being worked through. But, I was just thinking out loud with regards to a whole load of questions and concerns that I have, which I'm sure others of course have thought of. However, it means I am not getting excited at this moment in time about the potential return of non-league football!

lo36789
Posts: 8750
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: October 3rd

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:56 am

Its difficult - the real challenge will be when a good proportion of clubs are ready but some aren't...will those that aren't ready / can't cope be sacrificed for the rest.

Looking closer to home comparing ourselves against the rest of our division we are going to be one of the last who are "ready". We disproportionately rely on the income driven by utilisation of our capacity (how many other clubs use c.45% of their capacity and don't have a benefactor)
Last edited by lo36789 on Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4553
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:57 am

The banning (for want of a better word) of away supporters from travel is the only limitation that to me might work.

Not only would this keep crowd numbers down a bit but it would hopefully stop any virus moving from one area to another for footballing reasons.

In our league it shouldn't hurt finances too much and would leave clubs to show to the league how they plan to safely accommodate their usual number of home supporters, in our case maybe 1200?

Like al-quaker I am just thinking out loud too, before any turkey asks me to provide "evidence"....
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

User avatar
Quaker85
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by Quaker85 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:38 am

We’d suffer if we had York at home before Xmas. Incidentally, a couple of seasons ago the season started with the FA cup for steps 5 and 6 and the move was very unpopular and FA said they wouldn’t do it again. Well this is now the case for us but these are of course unprecedented times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

spen666
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by spen666 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:41 am

al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 am
While it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.

I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.

you raise lots of valid questions that clubs and the relevant authorities will be working on.

To pick up on one point you raise and the one I highlight. This really is a non point. Some clubs get bigger crowds than others normally, is that unfair? It is the way of the world. Nothing unfair about different clubs having different sized grounds ?

spen666
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by spen666 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:43 am

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:56 am
Its difficult - the real challenge will be when a good proportion of clubs are ready but some aren't...will those that aren't ready / can't cope be sacrificed for the rest.
Barring exceptional reasons, eg outbreak of covid in squad or region put on lockdown, clubs that are not ready will I am sure be treated as failing to fulfill any fixture that is postponed and face an Fa/League charge and if guilty then potentially fines/ points deductions etc

Looking closer to home comparing ourselves against the rest of our division we are going to be one of the last who are "ready". We disproportionately rely on the income driven by utilisation of our capacity (how many other clubs use c.45% of their capacity and don't have a benefactor)

al_quaker
Posts: 5652
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:59 am

spen666 wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:41 am
al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 am
While it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.

I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.

you raise lots of valid questions that clubs and the relevant authorities will be working on.

To pick up on one point you raise and the one I highlight. This really is a non point. Some clubs get bigger crowds than others normally, is that unfair? It is the way of the world. Nothing unfair about different clubs having different sized grounds ?
I think it raises questions of fairness, because it is an imposed restriction which won't be felt equally. It's not a natural difference between clubs, it will be a restriction which affects different teams.

Say it's only 10% capacity, which I've seen mentioned. Gateshead will be relatively unaffected, we will be allowed ~300 fans in. Our revenues will be severly impacted due to covid legislation, there's will be impacted only slightly. This is an extreme example, but it highlights that the potential covid restrictions won't be felt equally. I fail to see how that is anything other than unfair. We, as a team which fills a reasonable % of our ground, will be affected by reduced capacities more than others. Are we going to be forced into a relegation battle because our revenue streams are going to impacted by league/government imposed restrictions more than some other teams in the league?

Whether there's a reasonable solution this of course is a different matter.

spen666
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by spen666 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:46 am

al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:59 am
spen666 wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:41 am
al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 am
While it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.

I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.

you raise lots of valid questions that clubs and the relevant authorities will be working on.

To pick up on one point you raise and the one I highlight. This really is a non point. Some clubs get bigger crowds than others normally, is that unfair? It is the way of the world. Nothing unfair about different clubs having different sized grounds ?
I think it raises questions of fairness, because it is an imposed restriction which won't be felt equally. It's not a natural difference between clubs, it will be a restriction which affects different teams.

Say it's only 10% capacity, which I've seen mentioned. Gateshead will be relatively unaffected, we will be allowed ~300 fans in. Our revenues will be severly impacted due to covid legislation, there's will be impacted only slightly. This is an extreme example, but it highlights that the potential covid restrictions won't be felt equally. I fail to see how that is anything other than unfair. We, as a team which fills a reasonable % of our ground, will be affected by reduced capacities more than others. Are we going to be forced into a relegation battle because our revenue streams are going to impacted by league/government imposed restrictions more than some other teams in the league?

Whether there's a reasonable solution this of course is a different matter.

Why won't it be imposed equally. If every club can only have for example 1/4 of its capacity - that is applied to all clubs. The fact club a may have a tiny ground and fills it normally where as club B have a huge ground and rarely fill any of it is not making it unfair.

You are trying to find a reason to make an issue about

It is no more unfair to clubs than to say it is unfair Darlington get 1500 every week whereas Lemington only get 300. The fact that therefore Darlington get more revenue from fans than Lemington is unfair on Lemington.

Unless every ground is identical, every crowd is identical in size, every player is paid the same and is of equal ability and fitness etc- then you will always be able to make a claim something is unfair

If you are worried about the % of the ground your fans fill, then the answer is get a bigger ground. Why should a club who maintain a bigger ground every year be penalised for the extra costs and expense they pay every year, because another club only maintain a tiny ground. Grounds are different sizes. Should Gateshead be limited to 3000 if they drew a glamour tie in the FA cup because that is all Darlington could get in if they got a glamour tie? Of course not. Clubs have different capacities at their grounds all the time.

Accept the fact that not everything is equal. Is it unfair that Darlington do not have a clubhouse/ venue they can make money from, but other clubs do? Perhaps every club who has a clubhouse or external venue should have to close it down. Then perhaps Darlington should be limited to crowds the same size as say Lemington because its unfair they get bigger crowds, more support and more fan revenue than other clubs. All of which is complete nonsense and is not going to happen.

its a difference, its not unfair. The world is not a homogenous place. Get over it

al_quaker
Posts: 5652
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:53 am

I do accept that not everything is equal, and you raise some reasonable points. Natural variations do exist between clubs, however I do still think a league/government imposed restrction which will impact some clubs revenues but not others at short notice does raise questions of fairness.

However, to be honest spen, I have no trust that you are debating in good faith, so that's me done replying to you.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5125
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:04 am

Spen has never argued in good faith.

For some reason he’s an incredibly insecure individual who tries to drag other people down by insulting them (as proven in this thread). Disagreeing with people reasonably is beyond him, and he has no intention of doing so.

We all know he’s a troll (just check out the Spennymoor London Branch Twitter account he runs). It’s beyond me why he’s still allowed to post on here, given his obvious intentions to bait and disrupt.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

al_quaker
Posts: 5652
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:08 am

Indeed. It's one thing on here, another on his social media profile, whether that's the 'London Branch' or his personal account.

Happy to debate my views with genuine Darlington fans, and happy for people to point out flaws in my current thinking. But debating with a troll with more faces than the town clock? Not for me

Darlogramps
Posts: 5125
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:09 am

al_quaker wrote:I do accept that not everything is equal, and you raise some reasonable points. Natural variations do exist between clubs, however I do still think a league/government imposed restrction which will impact some clubs revenues but not others at short notice does raise questions of fairness.

However, to be honest spen, I have no trust that you are debating in good faith, so that's me done replying to you.
To prove your point about unfairness, let’s say we decided to move to the Arena for a season, even if grounds were only allowed 10% capacity, we could get in our full regular attendance (which averaged at around 1400-1500) I believe.

Yet staying at Blackwell would see us only able to bring in 300. These are loopholes (and you can fair bet other clubs would play merry hell about it).
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

al_quaker
Posts: 5652
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:19 am

Maybe unfairness isn't quite the right word. Maybe it should have been competitive integrity or something like that. It's better than no football for sure, but I am just thinking out loud as to how a temporary restriction imposed on member clubs will not be felt equally. No doubt spen is already spinning it on social media to attack though.

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:09 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:57 am
The banning (for want of a better word) of away supporters from travel is the only limitation that to me might work.

Not only would this keep crowd numbers down a bit but it would hopefully stop any virus moving from one area to another for footballing reasons.
That's a very, VERY good point - so obviously the league won't think of it.
We are Darlo! We know our shitt! If we say it's 1-2-0-1-1-3-0-1-1 then you better believe it! La la la oo, la la la oo (clap, clap, clap, clap)

spen666
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by spen666 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:29 pm

al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:08 am
Indeed. It's one thing on here, another on his social media profile, whether that's the 'London Branch' or his personal account.

Happy to debate my views with genuine Darlington fans, and happy for people to point out flaws in my current thinking. But debating with a troll with more faces than the town clock? Not for me
Erm I have made no comment on any other social media about your bleating of unfairness because of this perceived abuse you are bleating on about. Still don't let your paranoia stop you thinking its unfair

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5720
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:58 pm

I think he is just calling you out on your general two face activity.

It's a fair comment really.

al_quaker
Posts: 5652
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:02 pm

spen666 wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:29 pm
al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:08 am
Indeed. It's one thing on here, another on his social media profile, whether that's the 'London Branch' or his personal account.

Happy to debate my views with genuine Darlington fans, and happy for people to point out flaws in my current thinking. But debating with a troll with more faces than the town clock? Not for me
Erm I have made no comment on any other social media about your bleating of unfairness because of this perceived abuse you are bleating on about. Still don't let your paranoia stop you thinking its unfair
I've never mentioned 'abuse', but don't let that stop you from exaggerating my feelings on this. I'm also far from paranoid, just musing.

Meanwhile, everyone on here knows you're a two-faced troll. You've got history of slating DFC on twitter. Spennymoor Town fans hanging around on here and then commenting about it on twitter. Pathetic isn't it.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5125
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:55 pm

Fairly standard Spen playbook there. Almost predictable now.

Deliberately distort the point and accuse others of being paranoid. If he’s had to sink to that level, fair to say al_quaker has the better of him in this discussion.

I notice he’s even locked his own Twitter account - he’s not afraid to tell it like it is, but only to the people who already agree with him.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlopartisan
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:49 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by Darlopartisan » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:38 pm

Would it not be fairer if we have to limit numbers to base it on last season’s average attendance ? I don’t know the exact figures, but let’s say Gateshead ground can hold 10000 but their average gate was 1000 and say numbers were cut to 50 percent because of Covid so they would be allowed 500, we would be around the 750 mark, this way it would based on attendance not capacity.
Or I could be talking bollocks.

bigdavethemaddog
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:52 am

Re: October 3rd

Post by bigdavethemaddog » Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:32 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:09 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:57 am
The banning (for want of a better word) of away supporters from travel is the only limitation that to me might work.

Not only would this keep crowd numbers down a bit but it would hopefully stop any virus moving from one area to another for footballing reasons.
That's a very, VERY good point - so obviously the league won't think of it.
the only problem with that is you do get fans that travel into games from afar.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4553
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:39 pm

al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:59 am
I think it raises questions of fairness, because it is an imposed restriction which won't be felt equally. It's not a natural difference between clubs, it will be a restriction which affects different teams.
There's no need to go any further than this - it's a good point well made - Spen's gone into "Turbotit mode"

To go on to a different point, I think it would be unfair for the league to impose any major restrictions that would lead to clubs losing money or getting into financial difficulties. For them to effectively say " we're kicking off now, about 10 of you will defo lose money with our new crowd restrictions but it's not unfair. The world is not a homogenous place. Get over it"
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

spen666
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by spen666 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:00 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:39 pm
al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:59 am
I think it raises questions of fairness, because it is an imposed restriction which won't be felt equally. It's not a natural difference between clubs, it will be a restriction which affects different teams.
There's no need to go any further than this - it's a good point well made - Spen's gone into "Turbotit mode"

To go on to a different point, I think it would be unfair for the league to impose any major restrictions that would lead to clubs losing money or getting into financial difficulties. For them to effectively say " we're kicking off now, about 10 of you will defo lose money with our new crowd restrictions but it's not unfair. The world is not a homogenous place. Get over it"

Its no more unfair than the capacity at any ground is different from other grounds. Its a difference between clubs. Blackwell Meadows for example has a bigger capacity than Lemington. That doesn't make it unfair. Its a fact of life that some grounds are bigger than others and can therefore hold more people.

As long as the same criteria are used to determine capacity at each ground ( as happens normally with the Green Guide) then there is nothing unfair.unless you are saying it is unfair to have ground capacity limits.

It may well hit Darlington harder than say Brackley, but that doesn't make it anymore unfair than Darlington having a much bigger crowd supporting them at a game than most other teams in normal times.

Its a difference, its not unfair

Emdubya
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:31 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by Emdubya » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:06 pm

Darlopartisan wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:38 pm
Would it not be fairer if we have to limit numbers to base it on last season’s average attendance ? I don’t know the exact figures, but let’s say Gateshead ground can hold 10000 but their average gate was 1000 and say numbers were cut to 50 percent because of Covid so they would be allowed 500, we would be around the 750 mark, this way it would based on attendance not capacity.
Or I could be talking bollocks.
Here’s a thought.Open the ground and if you want to go.then go.Wear a mask 😷 if we have to.If you’re frightened of this bug then stay away.Thousands of people on beaches,protests and the great pub opening day and no spike in infections.
I’d rather take my chance with 1500 in the open air than with 100 in a supermarket .
Tin hat is on,fire away😂

onewayup
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by onewayup » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:19 pm

As long as people wear facemasks and follow guidelines implemented by the clubs I see very little chance of a spike in the virus, but people must be aware of how important it is to keep yourself right and use common sense, to be able to stay safe.

User avatar
dfc4me
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: October 3rd

Post by dfc4me » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:31 pm

Emdubya wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:06 pm
Darlopartisan wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:38 pm
Would it not be fairer if we have to limit numbers to base it on last season’s average attendance ? I don’t know the exact figures, but let’s say Gateshead ground can hold 10000 but their average gate was 1000 and say numbers were cut to 50 percent because of Covid so they would be allowed 500, we would be around the 750 mark, this way it would based on attendance not capacity.
Or I could be talking bollocks.
Here’s a thought.Open the ground and if you want to go.then go.Wear a mask 😷 if we have to.If you’re frightened of this bug then stay away.Thousands of people on beaches,protests and the great pub opening day and no spike in infections.
I’d rather take my chance with 1500 in the open air than with 100 in a supermarket .
Exactly. Make face masks a condition of entry, no exceptions, possibly temperature checks at turnstiles, capacity limited to 1500 all ticket and split the ground so everyone can’t go onto the tin shed. Think people would then be as safe at BM as anywhere else.

lo36789
Posts: 8750
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: October 3rd

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:47 pm

Emdubya wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:06 pm
Here’s a thought.Open the ground and if you want to go.then go.Wear a mask 😷 if we have to.If you’re frightened of this bug then stay away.Thousands of people on beaches,protests and the great pub opening day and no spike in infections.
I’d rather take my chance with 1500 in the open air than with 100 in a supermarket .
Tin hat is on,fire away😂
I imagine there is probably some public liability insurance issues but I actually don't disagree with some principles of this.

- it should be clear that it is not a clubs obligation to police adherence to social distance within "household bubbles".
- there needs to be guidance on whether standing side by side with a face mask enables a 1m social distance and equally what transmission is like when standing behind another person (ie do you need to be a full metre away from them when not face-to-face).

Tubes, buses, aeroplanes and taxis seem to be able to argue that you can be closer than 1m if wearing a face covering and avoiding face to face contact so there is a precedent.

Post Reply