|
Post by chigstoke on Aug 21, 2020 16:40:09 GMT
If I have to stay away from the ground then I want to see the game on my TV in HD. Not like the tailend games of last season only on my phone or laptop or desktop not all. And defo not Cast to a TV. I live 165 miles away. Midweek matches are a nightmare. Train fares have doubled, what about the buses from the town centre? I have a season card bought on the first day they were available. I want some say in what matches I can or cannot attend. TonyDx How else will you watch the games on your TV if you don't cast the stream to it? Do you want the club to broadcast the games terrestrially or something? To be fair, our technical department still seems to be run by people who still attempt to use terrestrial tele, so I’m sure Channel 6 is up for grabs.
|
|
|
Post by alanhudson1972 on Aug 21, 2020 19:12:35 GMT
I think I need my eyes testing and perhaps my brain scrubbing, but I honestly thought the title of this thread read "Fans return to LABIA" 😋👅 to which I thought, I'd never left that particular avenue of pleasure in the first place 😁 Are you a fan or do you just pay lip service? Definitely both pal, fully endorse lip service and always suck a Trebor mint as well as super gluing sand paper to my proboscis, in for a penny etc, you really can't lick it. 😋
|
|
|
Post by bingbang on Aug 21, 2020 20:08:21 GMT
Can’t see away fans attending any games all season and possibly beyond in all divisions. That would mean the away sections can be taken up by home fans, costs reduced due to not needing any plod, no large groups of away fans being herded together, just makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by SamB_SCFC on Aug 21, 2020 23:18:28 GMT
I really worry about the future of football. These farcical restrictions could may be survive for 1 whole season. But if things aren't back to normal for the start of 21/22 then the future of the professional football structure that we know and love will be under huge existential threat.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Aug 22, 2020 7:42:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 22, 2020 8:50:14 GMT
I really worry about the future of football. These farcical restrictions could may be survive for 1 whole season. But if things aren't back to normal for the start of 21/22 then the future of the professional football structure that we know and love will be under huge existential threat. As most things we enjoy and love in life could be. Maybe that's the plan?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Aug 22, 2020 10:52:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by SamB_SCFC on Aug 22, 2020 11:16:50 GMT
I really worry about the future of football. These farcical restrictions could may be survive for 1 whole season. But if things aren't back to normal for the start of 21/22 then the future of the professional football structure that we know and love will be under huge existential threat. As most things we enjoy and love in life could be. Maybe that's the plan? I can't see it being part of a wider conspiracy. The government are desperate to get things back to normal as the economy and tax revenues are falling off a cliff. Why they'd want to sabotage English football with the huge amount of tax revenue it generates is beyond me. I just don't see it. Football without fans just doesn't work and even the big brands like the Premier League and Champions League will suffer if the human connection to the sport and proper atmosphere in the grounds isn't restored soon. All in all its an absolute nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 22, 2020 14:29:38 GMT
The interview doesn't really give much, if anything, away on the issues I and others have identified in this thread. The one point on which I disagree with the CEO is his comment that a reason for having no away fans is the need to stop people travelling. That is no longer part of Government policy and advice, except in a very small number of places. As we know some home fans travel a long distance. If the policy objective were to stop fans travelling a long way then you could allocate home tickets on the basis of address. Of course, the FSA and I suspect the large majority of fans would strongly oppose such a proposal and I don't suppose for a moment the club would adopt it, but that's the logic of it. Football fans should not receive special treatment but neither should they be discriminated against. Travelling football fans, be they home or away, should abide by the same rules on travel as anyone else, no more and no less. There are of course other arguments which the CEO and others have put forward for possibly not having away fans, most notably that season cards holders should have priority over away fans. That is of course a strong and understandable argument, although we don't yet know how many season card holders there are, and how many of them would in any case want to go in the current environment, either because of health concerns or because they simply don't fancy the kind of procedures and restrictions which will be in place. But the club and the football industry as a whole will be very unwise to forget the great importance of away fans to the game. They are by definition its best customers and contribute a vital part to the atmosphere which is a key part of the attraction of going to games. It is interesting that the Premier League are keen to keep away fans even in the restricted environment. The Club and the EFL should think long term as well as short term.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2020 16:37:36 GMT
Looks like the Germans are looking at 2021
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Aug 27, 2020 17:49:22 GMT
The interview doesn't really give much, if anything, away on the issues I and others have identified in this thread. The one point on which I disagree with the CEO is his comment that a reason for having no away fans is the need to stop people travelling. That is no longer part of Government policy and advice, except in a very small number of places. As we know some home fans travel a long distance. If the policy objective were to stop fans travelling a long way then you could allocate home tickets on the basis of address. Of course, the FSA and I suspect the large majority of fans would strongly oppose such a proposal and I don't suppose for a moment the club would adopt it, but that's the logic of it. Football fans should not receive special treatment but neither should they be discriminated against. Travelling football fans, be they home or away, should abide by the same rules on travel as anyone else, no more and no less. There are of course other arguments which the CEO and others have put forward for possibly not having away fans, most notably that season cards holders should have priority over away fans. That is of course a strong and understandable argument, although we don't yet know how many season card holders there are, and how many of them would in any case want to go in the current environment, either because of health concerns or because they simply don't fancy the kind of procedures and restrictions which will be in place. But the club and the football industry as a whole will be very unwise to forget the great importance of away fans to the game. They are by definition its best customers and contribute a vital part to the atmosphere which is a key part of the attraction of going to games. It is interesting that the Premier League are keen to keep away fans even in the restricted environment. The Club and the EFL should think long term as well as short term. I'm rarely inclined to defend our CEO but maybe he was thinking about coach and rail travel in this instance...which would be potentially difficult/hazardous/expensive for large groups of away fans. Most 'exiled' Stoke fans will travel in small (family?) groups to home games, certainly not in convoys of coaches (not sure we still have 'special' trains) Cue the Southern Supporters putting me straight on this
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Aug 28, 2020 10:41:53 GMT
Looks like the Germans are looking at 2021 Which is quite bizarre given the number of people in bars, restaurants and just walking along the river in Cologne only this Wednesday 🤷♂️
|
|
|
Post by bridget on Aug 28, 2020 16:42:07 GMT
Having read the terms and conditions published on the Stoke City site re the purchasing of season tickets it clearly states that season tickets are subject to availability and are for entry to 23 league games in the 20-21 campaign. Surely if the number of tickets sold already exceed any likely new capacity then they can't legally sell more? They can change terms and conditions for people buying tickets from this point forward but not for those who have already purchased because the contract has already been entered into. In addition to that the CLUB have already instigated a system that prioritises the allocation of tickets using a loyalty points system that has been used many times previously so why is there a need for a huge debate surely this system should stand. As Malcolm has said there needs to be some clarity and openness in relation to seeing what was suggested and put forward. I can see that those that were willing to invest in the club in April not knowing what division the club were going to be playing in and when they were next going to be seeing games are going to be completley disregarded and shafted as usual by Mr Scholes et al because as is the norm with modern day football it will be all about the money. I think you have made a very powerful point, on both consumer law and loyalty grounds, which it is difficult to argue against, although no doubt some will hold the counter view that those who, for whatever reason, did not purchase an early bird season card should not be at a disadvantage in the new situation. The loyalty scheme until now has been used for away game allocation. There would no doubt be some opposition to a proposal to use it to prioritise access to home games. The key figure of course is how many 20/21 season cards have been sold in relation to the allowed capacity under the new arrangements. I will ask Harpreet for her view on the legal point you have made.
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Aug 28, 2020 19:50:53 GMT
Right so possibly the most controversial post I have ever put on the oatcake, but please hear me out. BLM protest, no social distancing, thousands of people.... very little photo evidence of masks etc... coming from far and wide to a central location...... NO SUDDEN SPIKE ( given at the time London was at the epicentre of viral potency) Packistani Independence Day mass gatherings of people from the very group ethically Most at risk...... no masks.... no spike.
Add to this that life has mainly restarted with fucking masks (that most don’t fucking work anyway (before I get slated, Warm, damp face coverings are an ideal breeding ground for infection and you are all breathing it in and out willingly) and 90 percent of people have NO idea on the correct application and removal but that is by the by. We can eat out to help out..... yet seemingly can’t have a few friends and family around for a bbq and kids birthday party.... and then we have the bollox of long term not being able to watch a game of football in a stadium in open air, yet we can sit in bandies, or the cinema.... we can even drive to Bernard castle to check out eyesight.... just humour me, positive cases still remain high (or wishful thinking for other threats and illnesses) and how many are dying daily right now? How many companies are making a fortune on the backs of gullible people over a paper fucking mask?
|
|
|
Post by ab61 on Aug 28, 2020 20:53:04 GMT
Looks like the Germans are looking at 2021 Which is quite bizarre given the number of people in bars, restaurants and just walking along the river in Cologne only this Wednesday 🤷♂️ What. Huddled together in groups of 50,000. Doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Aug 28, 2020 21:46:09 GMT
Which is quite bizarre given the number of people in bars, restaurants and just walking along the river in Cologne only this Wednesday 🤷♂️ What. Huddled together in groups of 50,000. Doubt it. Of course not but there were thousands around, the bars were packed not an empty seat hardly, people sitting on the grass by the river the train station was packed I was sat without a mask in numerous bars an arms length from the next table. So if I can do that why can't I sit in the open air and watch football if I choose. I bet there were more than 50k gathered around the cathedral and the immediate area.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 28, 2020 21:49:08 GMT
The German courts have overruled the Government's ban on large events.
There's a demonstration planned for Berlin tomorrow. They also had one at the beginning of August.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Aug 29, 2020 14:05:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Aug 29, 2020 18:24:43 GMT
Right so possibly the most controversial post I have ever put on the oatcake, but please hear me out. BLM protest, no social distancing, thousands of people.... very little photo evidence of masks etc... coming from far and wide to a central location...... NO SUDDEN SPIKE ( given at the time London was at the epicentre of viral potency) Packistani Independence Day mass gatherings of people from the very group ethically Most at risk...... no masks.... no spike. Add to this that life has mainly restarted with fucking masks (that most don’t fucking work anyway (before I get slated, Warm, damp face coverings are an ideal breeding ground for infection and you are all breathing it in and out willingly) and 90 percent of people have NO idea on the correct application and removal but that is by the by. We can eat out to help out..... yet seemingly can’t have a few friends and family around for a bbq and kids birthday party.... and then we have the bollox of long term not being able to watch a game of football in a stadium in open air, yet we can sit in bandies, or the cinema.... we can even drive to Bernard castle to check out eyesight.... just humour me, positive cases still remain high (or wishful thinking for other threats and illnesses) and how many are dying daily right now? How many companies are making a fortune on the backs of gullible people over a paper fucking mask? Most people are under the misconception that masks are supposed to stop you catching the virus. They do not, you need a perspex shield for that. A mask stops an infected person from spreading it through sneezes, coughing, shouting or singing by stopping the air from explosively spreading to others which is why it is not personal choice to wear a mask.
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Aug 29, 2020 19:15:39 GMT
Right so possibly the most controversial post I have ever put on the oatcake, but please hear me out. BLM protest, no social distancing, thousands of people.... very little photo evidence of masks etc... coming from far and wide to a central location...... NO SUDDEN SPIKE ( given at the time London was at the epicentre of viral potency) Packistani Independence Day mass gatherings of people from the very group ethically Most at risk...... no masks.... no spike. Add to this that life has mainly restarted with fucking masks (that most don’t fucking work anyway (before I get slated, Warm, damp face coverings are an ideal breeding ground for infection and you are all breathing it in and out willingly) and 90 percent of people have NO idea on the correct application and removal but that is by the by. We can eat out to help out..... yet seemingly can’t have a few friends and family around for a bbq and kids birthday party.... and then we have the bollox of long term not being able to watch a game of football in a stadium in open air, yet we can sit in bandies, or the cinema.... we can even drive to Bernard castle to check out eyesight.... just humour me, positive cases still remain high (or wishful thinking for other threats and illnesses) and how many are dying daily right now? How many companies are making a fortune on the backs of gullible people over a paper fucking mask? Most people are under the misconception that masks are supposed to stop you catching the virus. They do not, you need a perspex shield for that. A mask stops an infected person from spreading it through sneezes, coughing, shouting or singing by stopping the air from explosively spreading to others which is why it is not personal choice to wear a mask. They don’t work unless changed very regular, now people have got fancy looking cotton masks that they used all day every day... it’s a farce. But again the elephant in the room is the lack of deaths, we have had 1 death from Covid in the last 8 weeks at our local hospital yet we are all in this quazey state of panic still, they are even reopening schools next week etc we built Covid hospitals that have never been used, any other disease or virus wouldn’t have this sort of utilitarian response and quite honestly it’s all starting to wear thin.
|
|
|
Post by ashleyscfc on Aug 29, 2020 22:15:07 GMT
Most people are under the misconception that masks are supposed to stop you catching the virus. They do not, you need a perspex shield for that. A mask stops an infected person from spreading it through sneezes, coughing, shouting or singing by stopping the air from explosively spreading to others which is why it is not personal choice to wear a mask. They don’t work unless changed very regular, now people have got fancy looking cotton masks that they used all day every day... it’s a farce. But again the elephant in the room is the lack of deaths, we have had 1 death from Covid in the last 8 weeks at our local hospital yet we are all in this quazey state of panic still, they are even reopening schools next week etc we built Covid hospitals that have never been used, any other disease or virus wouldn’t have this sort of utilitarian response and quite honestly it’s all starting to wear thin. Some fake news right there. Obviously I’m sure you can change your definition of what “works”, but on a basic level, I take it you don’t put your hand over your mouth when you cough or sneeze either then? Because it does nothing... Empirical data shows a slow down in transmission in areas where masks are used and data from 198 countries found lower death rates in countries where masks were mandatory or culturally normal. The royal society published recently a report stating cotton masks reduce infections risks by 54%. The lancet published data from 16 countries wearing a mask reduces chances of catching Covid to to just 3%. If that doesn’t match your definition of “works” then so be it. They work for doctors, nurses etc But I’m sure we’ll all trust your expert opinion...which is just what it is. Do us all a favour and spread your rubbish down the pub or somewhere else. Isn’t their a 5g tower that needs burning down somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Aug 29, 2020 22:38:04 GMT
On Radio Stoke, I think Angela said the club will make an announcement regarding fans return to the stadium on Thursday, and that it will be more positive than most fans expect.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Sept 4, 2020 11:19:35 GMT
Still no news
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Sept 4, 2020 15:08:03 GMT
Right so possibly the most controversial post I have ever put on the oatcake, but please hear me out. BLM protest, no social distancing, thousands of people.... very little photo evidence of masks etc... coming from far and wide to a central location...... NO SUDDEN SPIKE ( given at the time London was at the epicentre of viral potency) Packistani Independence Day mass gatherings of people from the very group ethically Most at risk...... no masks.... no spike. Add to this that life has mainly restarted with fucking masks (that most don’t fucking work anyway (before I get slated, Warm, damp face coverings are an ideal breeding ground for infection and you are all breathing it in and out willingly) and 90 percent of people have NO idea on the correct application and removal but that is by the by. We can eat out to help out..... yet seemingly can’t have a few friends and family around for a bbq and kids birthday party.... and then we have the bollox of long term not being able to watch a game of football in a stadium in open air, yet we can sit in bandies, or the cinema.... we can even drive to Bernard castle to check out eyesight.... just humour me, positive cases still remain high (or wishful thinking for other threats and illnesses) and how many are dying daily right now? How many companies are making a fortune on the backs of gullible people over a paper fucking mask? Most people are under the misconception that masks are supposed to stop you catching the virus. They do not, you need a perspex shield for that. A mask stops an infected person from spreading it through sneezes, coughing, shouting or singing by stopping the air from explosively spreading to others which is why it is not personal choice to wear a mask. That’s not entirely true. Studies have shown that face coverings do cut down the extent of transmission significantly. However, not all masks are created equal. The gold standard is the N95 mask, which cuts the probability of contracting a respiratory infection to 3% when speaking to an infected person for 15 min at a distance of 2 meters. The probability is about 17% without a mask, on average. Coughing, shouting, sneezing etc. increases the probability significantly in both cases. The residual 3% probably arises from infection through the eyes - tears drain down the back of the throat. Therefore the combination of a wearing face shield and a mask decreases the risk substantially. All this assumes that masks are worn properly and not fiddled with once in place. Wearing a mask under the nose is almost useless because we mostly breathe in through the nose and out through the mouth, unless suffering from nasal congestion. In fact it could be worse than not wearing a mask at all because the mask will trap droplets on the outside, forming a reservoir of viruses, which are then inhaled. Masks should always be removed from the ear and never worn under the chin because droplets deposited below the chin will be transferred to the inside of the mask. In 1919 the most respected scientific journal in the world (then and now), Science, published an article on the lessons learned from the Spanish Flu. They concluded the best weapons were isolation of those infected, face coverings and hand washing. 100 years on, this is still true. What is also interesting is the most contentious socio-political issues of the day were opening bars, opening schools, mass transport, returning to work and attendance at sporting events, with the divisions falling entirely down political lines. The more things change, they more they stay the same. I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 4, 2020 15:44:45 GMT
Most people are under the misconception that masks are supposed to stop you catching the virus. They do not, you need a perspex shield for that. A mask stops an infected person from spreading it through sneezes, coughing, shouting or singing by stopping the air from explosively spreading to others which is why it is not personal choice to wear a mask. That’s not entirely true. Studies have shown that face coverings do cut down the extent of transmission significantly. However, not all masks are created equal. The gold standard is the N95 mask, which cuts the probability of contracting a respiratory infection to 3% when speaking to an infected person for 15 min at a distance of 2 meters. The probability is about 17% without a mask, on average. Coughing, shouting, sneezing etc. increases the probability significantly in both cases. The residual 3% probably arises from infection through the eyes - tears drain down the back of the throat. Therefore the combination of a wearing face shield and a mask decreases the risk substantially. All this assumes that masks are worn properly and not fiddled with once in place. Wearing a mask under the nose is almost useless because we mostly breathe in through the nose and out through the mouth, unless suffering from nasal congestion. In fact it could be worse than not wearing a mask at all because the mask will trap droplets on the outside, forming a reservoir of viruses, which are then inhaled. Masks should always be removed from the ear and never worn under the chin because droplets deposited below the chin will be transferred to the inside of the mask. In 1919 the most respected scientific journal in the world (then and now), Science, published an article on the lessons learned from the Spanish Flu. They concluded the best weapons were isolation of those infected, face coverings and hand washing. 100 years on, this is still true. What is also interesting is the most contentious socio-political issues of the day were opening bars, opening schools, mass transport, returning to work and attendance at sporting events, with the divisions falling entirely down political lines. The more things change, they more they stay the same. I hope this helps. The wearing of a mask is chiefly to stop an infected person from spreading the virus not to stop the person wearing it from becoming infected. This is why it is not a personal choice. If you are asymptomatic and are not wearing a mask every time you speak, cough, sing etc you spread the droplets containing the virus in the air to people sharing the space with you even if they are wearing a mask.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Sept 4, 2020 16:46:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 4, 2020 19:49:22 GMT
The most sensible suggestion I've seen yet. I suggested that Stoke should do something similar earlier in the thread. You surely can't sell something, when you don't know what it is that you actually have for sale.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 4, 2020 19:59:31 GMT
The most sensible suggestion I've seen yet. I suggested that Stoke should do something similar earlier in the thread. You surely can't sell something, when you don't know what it is that you actually have for sale. Easy decisions to make when you've got 10's of millions coming in from other revenue streams. Not quite when you haven't. I agree with the principal though.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 4, 2020 20:12:32 GMT
The most sensible suggestion I've seen yet. I suggested that Stoke should do something similar earlier in the thread. You surely can't sell something, when you don't know what it is that you actually have for sale. Easy decisions to make when you've got 10's of millions coming in from other revenue streams. Not quite when you haven't. I agree with the principal though. Absolutely, can't disagree with you there mate, if I didn't know that our owners were able to keep us going, then I'd probably have a different opinion on it.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Sept 4, 2020 20:39:06 GMT
The most sensible suggestion I've seen yet. I suggested that Stoke should do something similar earlier in the thread. You surely can't sell something, when you don't know what it is that you actually have for sale. Easy decisions to make when you've got 10's of millions coming in from other revenue streams. Not quite when you haven't. I agree with the principal though. Not as much as expected given the Chinese TV deal has fallen through, unless something else is in the pipeline. Though I think it makes more sense to stop selling anyway, as if fans can't go into the ground, it'll surely be more expensive in the long-run to sort out refunds and whatever else.
|
|