Government urged to allow return of fans (ed. Limited crowds to return in Tiers 1&2)

I just heard on the radio 12,000 people will be allowed in to watch Belgium take on the mighty Ivory Coast in a friendley match tonight in Brussels.

Yet...........................Brussels is second only to Madrid with the highest infection rate for major city's in Europe.

Madness and all for a friendly against a third rate team. 

I could understand the petition if weve of had the 1000 test games and the positive cases remained the same.
But 17500 cases today, if the government said fans could return on the 24th of October and there was an outbreak at football matches who would we blame?

Mendonca In Asdas said:

clb74 said:

I could understand the petition if weve of had the 1000 test games and the positive cases remained the same.
But 17500 cases today, if the government said fans could return on the 24th of October and there was an outbreak at football matches who would we blame?

Could the clubs be sued if you could prove you caught coronavirus at a football match?

Quite how you could prove it, I don’t know.

The government give the go ahead for 24th October.
The club and the Trust then decide its probably best not to 

The_Organiser said:

SouthWest_Addicks said:

However much I would love to go back and watch Charlton regularly cannot see it happening. I do find its a shame for the club as they put a lot of effort and time into running a safe trial event, which when perfectly. Wonder if the clubs will be happy to run at huge losses and just allow 1k and have huge running cost to try and beg government to give it the okay.

Personally, I have already accepted that this season will be behind close doors. I doubt we will even have fans in the ground for the Euros in the summer. 

Least I’ll get £700 back. UEFA won’t be happy with the amount of money they would have to give back, I just can’t see how we could possibly go from limited crowds (if any) in say March, up to 90k in June.

Have to agree. Cannot see in any universe how in 9 months times we would be ready to welcome 20 thousand Croatians, Czech and maybe more Jocks into London. 

I’m sure that the governing body would find it easier if they donated to the tories.

jimmymelrose said:

It seems logical to me to decide all these matters by way of a people V metres squared of space calculation. A number of people per metres squared should be set and fairly applied to all businesses: stadiums, shops, etc alike. If anything the numbers should be different between indoor and outdoor settings therefore allowing more people per metres squared outside than inside.

So, for example, a figure of 1person per 5 metres squared could be set. In a football stadium, the number of people allowed would be determined by the floor space of each stand.

If people are socially distanced then what is the problem?

I think that football clubs are being discriminated against when other businesses are allowed to admit people, especially indoors.

I'd like to know what people who disagree with this argument think long-term about viruses and society. Regarding covid19, it may be around for up to ten years with no effective vaccine. Beyond covid19 there could quite possibly be other, quite likely worse, viruses to come. With this in mind, a sensible social distance has to be decided upon, put in place, and get back on with things allowing all businesses including football clubs a chance to survive, and allowing people to partake in the activities that make them happy.

It’s always been the case football fans are discriminated against.Personally think it’s for various factors which doesn’t make sense when all the measures are put in place. It’s a shame as Charlton put on a trial event which was ignored. I’m under the impression that all trial events were safe, but politicians too scared to even consider this information.

I doubt we will get any high quality debate when it’s discussed in Parliament. It’s a shame as I agree totally with you.

If our track and trace, along with the app was robust enough, I don't see why a few thousand fans, couldn't watch Charlton (and other clubs of course) and potentially help beat the virus.

How? I would imagine a controlled and limited mass gathering is a great way to pick up asymptomatic spreaders and get them out of the system. Sadly, it would mean anybody from the high risks groups, or who live with somebody in such a group, shouldn't be allowed to attend, but with strict measures at the ground and fans knowing the risks, it could work positively. 

It could mean around a hundred people going into quarantine in the worst case scenario, but most wouldn't have the virus and that would be a risk they had to be willing to take. And within that, an asymptomatic spreader or two, or three, as well as potential asymptomatic spreaders would be out of the loop. 

All attendees would need the app of course and have to agree to declare symptoms if they get them. I would have thought it wouldn't be too hard in say the Valley to have a few thousand and develop a system where people are separated throughout by turnstyle they entered. And for those to have limited close contact with each other. 

Fans would have to drive or walk, not use public transport. And it could actually be a positive development in our fight against this terrible virus. IMO. 

se9addick said:

jimmymelrose said:

It seems logical to me to decide all these matters by way of a people V metres squared of space calculation. A number of people per metres squared should be set and fairly applied to all businesses: stadiums, shops, etc alike. If anything the numbers should be different between indoor and outdoor settings therefore allowing more people per metres squared outside than inside.

So, for example, a figure of 1person per 5 metres squared could be set. In a football stadium, the number of people allowed would be determined by the floor space of each stand.

If people are socially distanced then what is the problem?

I think that football clubs are being discriminated against when other businesses are allowed to admit people, especially indoors.

I'd like to know what people who disagree with this argument think long-term about viruses and society. Regarding covid19, it may be around for up to ten years with no effective vaccine. Beyond covid19 there could quite possibly be other, quite likely worse, viruses to come. With this in mind, a sensible social distance has to be decided upon, put in place, and get back on with things allowing all businesses including football clubs a chance to survive, and allowing people to partake in the activities that make them happy.

You are completely ignoring both the criticality of the service provided (supermarket vs football stadium are not equal in that respect) and the impact on the economy from restrictions (pub vs football stadium are not equal in that respect). 

Ultimately nobody will starve to death and a very important sector (almost uniquely important in this country compared to the rest of Europe) won’t collapse if stadiums remain closed. There will be some impact on a local level to businesses that rely on football supporters trade, but in terms of national GDP that’s not going to have an enormous impact.

However well you set up your social distancing measures opening football stadiums in this country will create hundreds of thousands of interaction chances, not just at the stadium but through all the activities that going to a match entails. When we have tens of thousands of new cases, rising hospital admissions and circa 70 deaths a day it is frankly tone death to think this is a good idea. 

From an 'impact on the economy' perspective I don't see how pubs are more important than football clubs.

From a health perspective, people in pubs are indoors, and they're mostly consuming something bad for their health.

Personally, I haven't been in a pub (which incidentally are no more important in  the UK to any other country, either economically or culturally) anywhere since before covid19, but I would be quite comfortable in a football stadium with no-one within my 5 metre squared space.

se9addick said:

jimmymelrose said:

se9addick said:

jimmymelrose said:

It seems logical to me to decide all these matters by way of a people V metres squared of space calculation. A number of people per metres squared should be set and fairly applied to all businesses: stadiums, shops, etc alike. If anything the numbers should be different between indoor and outdoor settings therefore allowing more people per metres squared outside than inside.

So, for example, a figure of 1person per 5 metres squared could be set. In a football stadium, the number of people allowed would be determined by the floor space of each stand.

If people are socially distanced then what is the problem?

I think that football clubs are being discriminated against when other businesses are allowed to admit people, especially indoors.

I'd like to know what people who disagree with this argument think long-term about viruses and society. Regarding covid19, it may be around for up to ten years with no effective vaccine. Beyond covid19 there could quite possibly be other, quite likely worse, viruses to come. With this in mind, a sensible social distance has to be decided upon, put in place, and get back on with things allowing all businesses including football clubs a chance to survive, and allowing people to partake in the activities that make them happy.

You are completely ignoring both the criticality of the service provided (supermarket vs football stadium are not equal in that respect) and the impact on the economy from restrictions (pub vs football stadium are not equal in that respect). 

Ultimately nobody will starve to death and a very important sector (almost uniquely important in this country compared to the rest of Europe) won’t collapse if stadiums remain closed. There will be some impact on a local level to businesses that rely on football supporters trade, but in terms of national GDP that’s not going to have an enormous impact.

However well you set up your social distancing measures opening football stadiums in this country will create hundreds of thousands of interaction chances, not just at the stadium but through all the activities that going to a match entails. When we have tens of thousands of new cases, rising hospital admissions and circa 70 deaths a day it is frankly tone death to think this is a good idea. 

From an 'impact on the economy' perspective I don't see how pubs are more important than football clubs.

From a health perspective, people in pubs are indoors, and they're mostly consuming something bad for their health.

Personally, I haven't been in a pub (which incidentally are no more important in  the UK to any other country, either economically or culturally) anywhere since before covid19, but I would be quite comfortable in a football stadium with no-one within my 5 metre squared space.

The revenue from punters in pubs is worth significantly more than the revenue from fans in football stadiums, I’m astonished you “don’t see” that. 

The % of the UK’s economy that is dependent on and generated by the hospitality sector is very large compared to lots of other countries. 

I believe he lives in France, so of course he hasn't been to a proper pub in a while!

Judging by what the Culture Secretary said on the news this morning, fans back in stadiums is not gonna happen while the infection rate is rising, end of.  

They do, but if you are one of a lucky few able to attend, and in this day of CCTV and the prospect of a very long ban, I think you can achieve a COVID safe experience in football grounds with fans behaving appropriately to the new circumstances. In terms of the Police, the smaller numbers will mean it is easy for clubs to ensure away fans don't attend and less policing would be needed.

But you know who is sitting where. You simply inform fans attending that there will be monitoring and any infringements will face a serious long term sanction. I would imagine you can't stop the cheer when your team scores, it is a refelx reaction. But with face masks and social distancing, I don't think it would be a massive risk. Also, in our home games so far, it can be argued that there have been measures to prevent cheering on the pitch!  

jimmymelrose said:

People do behave differently and will cheer. 
Therefore set a greater social distance for football if it is felt necessary. 

Even a zone of 20m2 per person would be something.

Something is better than nothing, however small. The test of 1000 at The Valley was a start, and it was a success, wasn't it?

It also needs to be considered that driving everyone towards streams could be counter-productive. How many people are gathering indoors together to watch on TV?
At least if you have organised attendence it is controlled.

It may be controlled in the stadium, but as soon a people leave they are not controlled and might pack together on public transport or meet up in pubs.

It's also important to take into account the current trajectory of the virus. I don't think it's realistic to be opening things up at present.

London palladium a couple of nights ago. All up on their feet clapping and cheering under one roof.

I'll take a guess they didnt travel in their own cars avoiding public transport. I'll also take a guess they made a night of it by going into pubs and restaurants before hand. This is somehow ok but this is not 🤷‍♂️