Premier League 2020/21 Thread

[jonthefox 4,131]

59 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Sky now they believe only 25% crowd capacity for next season and I know FT have been discussing how the club pick that (above 33% now 25%) as a club but what about as a league.

Would be a terrible disadvantage to the smaller clubs, will pick B’Mouth as casing point when going to OT for instance, would Man U get the lions share of the 25% of 74k Let’s say 18k and B’Mouth get 500 tickets then in the reverse fixture 25% is only 2.7k total I’m sure the FA will oblige B’Mouth to offer at least 500 tickets to away supporters so 1 team gets 18k cheering them on in a home game the other gets little over 2k could stink of big club bias again.

i think the sensible option is to split the 25% 50/50, the clubs can work that between their season ticket holders for home games with away a first come approach. Seems rough on ticket holders but the atmosphere is generated by 2 sets of supporters singing off and reacting against each other and I think it wouldn’t take long before it became as sterile as watching with no crowd if 18k sat waiting for 500 voices to raise themselves.
 

I’m sure it won’t happen and the bigger clubs will gain their additional advantage to keep the Status Quo

To think we could of had Kasabian as well. Opportunity lost there. 

[Foxin_Mad 711]

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 5,957]

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 711]

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.

[Captain... 7,862]

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.

[foxinsocks 1,619]

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

[bennytwohats 465]

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 103]

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 18,195]

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 18,195]

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.

[Corky 14,462]

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.

[st albans fox 8,751]

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 

[Koke 7,949]

Adam Lallana to Brighton. 

 

 

[UniFox21 7,653]

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 5,571]

Brighton in the top half, what a dull prospect that would be.

[Koke 7,949]

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. 

[Fox in the North 1,774]

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 

[SO1 1,727]

(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.

[pmcla26 2,318]

1 minute ago, SO1 said:

(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.

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. 

Edited 25 July 2020 by pmcla26

[SouthStandUpperTier 5,856]

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?

[SO1 1,727]

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 1,229]

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. 

[Stadt 13,296]

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 1,229]

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 1,069]

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