Foxin_Mad Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 2 minutes ago, davieG said: 50 Foxestalk members have a share of a Brick Will have to look for that one. I brought some when the Stadium was built. I thought they would be there forever - that's how it was sold at least. To be honest, until being bored recently I couldn't be arsed to look through them all. Did the originals get replace with the 125 year ones?
Leicester_Loyal Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 12 minutes ago, davieG said: They should have some idea from the ST Supporter number I believe this is the case although ST numbers didn't change unless you stopped going for a few years. Mines a 4 digit number from way back when I went with my daughter who moved away, I now go with my son who went to games then but didn't have a ST but does now so his number is 5 digits long. Could be wrong mind. And this is where I got ****ed over, I've had a ST for 10 years but my supporter number is 6 digits and a few hundred thousand behind my original one
Foxin_Mad Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said: And this is where I got ****ed over, I've had a ST for 10 years but my supporter number is 6 digits and a few hundred thousand behind my original one Mine is 5 digits so no idea what the means.
Popular Post Captain... Posted 25 July 2020 Popular Post Posted 25 July 2020 20 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said: Surely the best option is to lock down the vulnerable instead of locking up everyone and condemning the economy to hell, probably for ever in the case of some sectors. If there is 16 million who maybe affected then identify and protect them, lock them down, provide food parcels whatever they need, tell them not to go out and not to have visitors for now. That's is safest for them. That is what the government started doing until they realised the projected cost in human life. Even if you could identify all vulnerable people, which you can't , and make provisions for all of them and then ensure all people who come into contact them are sufficiently isolating you are not going to solve the problem. The virus can be pretty nasty and in some cases fatal in young healthy people with no known underlying issues. The viral payload seems key in severity of symptoms. Left to spread unchecked you will get a lot more people getting a higher dose of the virus including potentially fatal doses. You are glibly comparing the risk to driving, 1784 people died in car accidents 2018, 45000 people have died of coronavirus, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered from it with the long term effects still unknown. The fatalities are just one side of it the survivors are showing increasing mental health issues and heart issues as a result of contracting covid-19. Wearing a mask and not being able to go to the football are small prices to pay to try and combat this. Football is a luxury not a necessity and the money sloshing around will hopefully mean it will survive without and clubs going bust. 5 1
foxinsocks Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Captain... said: That is what the government started doing until they realised the projected cost in human life. Even if you could identify all vulnerable people, which you can't , and make provisions for all of them and then ensure all people who come into contact them are sufficiently isolating you are not going to solve the problem. The virus can be pretty nasty and in some cases fatal in young healthy people with no known underlying issues. The viral payload seems key in severity of symptoms. Left to spread unchecked you will get a lot more people getting a higher dose of the virus including potentially fatal doses. You are glibly comparing the risk to driving, 1784 people died in car accidents 2018, 45000 people have died of coronavirus, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered from it with the long term effects still unknown. The fatalities are just one side of it the survivors are showing increasing mental health issues and heart issues as a result of contracting covid-19. Wearing a mask and not being able to go to the football are small prices to pay to try and combat this. Football is a luxury not a necessity and the money sloshing around will hopefully mean it will survive without and clubs going bust. Deeaths in folks homes will prove to be about half of the total. If we had quarantined people on the way in... and prevented staff from moving from site to site we could have done much better. Without these deaths the nhs would not have come anywhere near being over run. So the first approach should be to protect these people. Yesterday the times had a piece on super spreading events... where people with low level symptoms go to church say and infect 30 people. It turns out that super spreading events are significant for c19... rather than each person giving it to say 2 others. Most dont pass it on ... a few pass it on to loads. So we have to look at super spreading events. This us where sports events come in. We should go straight to out seats... no refreshments etc Edited 25 July 2020 by foxinsocks 1
Guest bennytwohats Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 2 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said: I think we are all a bit scared into submission by this thing. It kills old and vulnerable people yes - so protect them, stop them going out and family members need to consider wisely who they visit. For the vast majority we all do and continue to do far more dangerous things every day. I would just get on with it, the lasting damage we now have is much worse and only just beginning. The whole high street will be gone soon unless people go out. We cant stop forever and there may never be a working vaccine. I completely get that, but to repeat - there is a huge difference between going out to the high street, bars, restaurants etc, to going to a football stadium with 30,000 people in close quarters. The potential transmissions you could get in the former are nothing compared to the latter, so I think it's pretty flawed to try and use an argument one to justify another. There are a whole load of other problems with what you have said which suggests you don't quite understand the situation. So yes, you make some valid points, no they aren't relevant to getting football grounds back to being full, and yes I am glad you aren't making big decisions for the country!
Ceirboy Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 1 hour ago, Captain... said: That is what the government started doing until they realised the projected cost in human life. Even if you could identify all vulnerable people, which you can't , and make provisions for all of them and then ensure all people who come into contact them are sufficiently isolating you are not going to solve the problem. The virus can be pretty nasty and in some cases fatal in young healthy people with no known underlying issues. The viral payload seems key in severity of symptoms. Left to spread unchecked you will get a lot more people getting a higher dose of the virus including potentially fatal doses. You are glibly comparing the risk to driving, 1784 people died in car accidents 2018, 45000 people have died of coronavirus, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered from it with the long term effects still unknown. The fatalities are just one side of it the survivors are showing increasing mental health issues and heart issues as a result of contracting covid-19. Wearing a mask and not being able to go to the football are small prices to pay to try and combat this. Football is a luxury not a necessity and the money sloshing around will hopefully mean it will survive without and clubs going bust. 😐
davieG Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said: Will have to look for that one. I brought some when the Stadium was built. I thought they would be there forever - that's how it was sold at least. To be honest, until being bored recently I couldn't be arsed to look through them all. Did the originals get replace with the 125 year ones? I don't think so there are two batches of Bricks in the wall.
davieG Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 I don't want to go back until it's very much safer or there's a proven vaccine I just hope that doesn't mean I lose my ST. 1
Corky Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 54 minutes ago, davieG said: I don't want to go back until it's very much safer or there's a proven vaccine I just hope that doesn't mean I lose my ST. There are so many things to be sorted out, I don't envy the people who will have to make the decisions about who will be able to attend and which matches, how season tickets will be priced and payments staggered, concourse management, getting people in and out. I suppose if you have health issues then you may have an exemption and keep your ticket, I don't see many choosing to not renew but it may be forced by circumstances. 1
st albans fox Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 1 hour ago, davieG said: I don't want to go back until it's very much safer or there's a proven vaccine I just hope that doesn't mean I lose my ST. Absolutely zero chance of that happening 1
UniFox21 Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 1 minute ago, Koke said: Adam Lallana to Brighton. I read that as other clubs were offering 1 or 2 years at max, Brighton taking a gamble of a longer deal on less per week. As I've said in the transfer thread, it's a gamble
Nalis Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 Brighton in the top half, what a dull prospect that would be. 1
Koke Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 11 minutes ago, Nalis said: Brighton in the top half, what a dull prospect that would be. They're a tiny club though. Top half is probably their ceiling.
Popular Post Fox in the North Posted 25 July 2020 Popular Post Posted 25 July 2020 30 minutes ago, Koke said: They're a tiny club though. Top half is probably their ceiling. Perhaps but they have a reasonably good training ground and stadium compared to others in the division, think it’s great when clubs try to push the establishment 5
Guest SO1 Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 (Lallana)Thank god that's done. We have enough 30+ experience in the squad. Rather use the money for wages on a younger player with more upside and possible resale. If he can't contribute for Liverpool then what makes anyone think he's good enough for us.
SouthStandUpperTier Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 Just now, pmcla26 said: I don’t know, we don’t have many 30+ players to be honest (not saying we need more, just if you’re good enough and all that) and he probs would’ve been alright back up for us, just not the preferred option. Schmeichel, Morgan, Fuchs, Evans, Albrighton, Vardy. That's 6. Is that above or below average for PL squads?
Guest SO1 Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 1 minute ago, pmcla26 said: I don’t know, we don’t have many 30+ players to be honest (not saying we need more, just if you’re good enough and all that) and he probs would’ve been alright back up for us, just not the preferred option. I know injury could happen to anyone and might have nothing to do with age. Just feel that if we're short on cash that i'd rather see it spent a younger player with the ability to compete for a starting spot. Or a two footed right side attacking player with goals in his locker.
winteriscoming Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 Don’t get this thing with signing younger players and getting a re-sale profit on them. So does that mean we shouldn’t look at players over a certain age 28+? Even if they would improve our starting XI. 1
Stadt Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 5 minutes ago, winteriscoming said: Don’t get this thing with signing younger players and getting a re-sale profit on them. So does that mean we shouldn’t look at players over a certain age 28+? Even if they would improve our starting XI. It’s about getting the right mix, usually players 28+ don’t represent good value but when you can sign a player like Evans for £3.5m () we’d be daft not to
winteriscoming Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 19 minutes ago, Stadt said: It’s about getting the right mix, usually players 28+ don’t represent good value but when you can sign a player like Evans for £3.5m () we’d be daft not to Yes that’s the prime example. I agree with getting the right mix. Although I do enjoy clubs paying over the odds for our players - maguire.
lestajigs Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 Man u getting all the media about this 4th spot, its like we don’t even come into the fold, Solskjaer this Solskjaer that! Cant believe he’s even the manager of Manchester utd tbf! Lets upset the apple cart
peach0000 Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 51 minutes ago, Fox in the North said: Perhaps but they have a reasonably good training ground and stadium compared to others in the division, think it’s great when clubs try to push the establishment They have a good stadium and an absolutely huge area with no competition to draw fans. Definitely a club on the up not to be underestimated.
Fox in the North Posted 25 July 2020 Posted 25 July 2020 3 minutes ago, peach0000 said: They have a good stadium and an absolutely huge area with no competition to draw fans. Definitely a club on the up not to be underestimated. Definitely! Considering where they were 20 years ago, I’m sure Brighton fans are perfectly happy with their situation. Also with a coach like Graham Potter, they may well start to pick up some momentum. Compare them to the likes of Watford who have a decent stadium but share a training ground with Imperial College London or Bournemouth who are only just starting to build a training ground themselves. Credit to the club and the owners they managed to build the infrastructure when they did it the championship.
Recommended Posts