Fan Return News/Updates

[Wymsey]

Feel free to merge, moderators, if necessary.

 

Word has it from an LCFC employee, who has worked on the new training ground, is that the club is in talks to permit 10,000 at most into games from October - on a 'ballot basis'.

 

Have been given permission to reveal this.

[shailen]

Wonder how it's all gonna work. 

 

Will there be a ban on shouting/cheering? 

Can we sit next to each other in your own group but be socially distant from the next group? 

How will refreshments work, if at all open? 

Will the ballot allocate the tickets in a fair way or will it be completely random? 

[Reginaldo]

Brighton piloting fan return in friendly with Chelsea...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/12040/12056286/fans-to-attend-brighton-friendly-against-chelsea-in-test-event

[jammie82uk]

44 minutes ago, shailen said:

Will there be a ban on shouting/cheering?

Going from current guidelines yes

 

 

44 minutes ago, shailen said:

Can we sit next to each other in your own group but be socially distant from the next group? 

yes as long as you have entered the ballot under the same application
 

 

45 minutes ago, shailen said:

How will refreshments work, if at all open?

unsure on this as each club will do it differently 
 

45 minutes ago, shailen said:

Will the ballot allocate the tickets in a fair way or will it be completely random? 

It will be completely random but as soon as you are drawn out, you cannot attend another game until the ballot cycle is complete 

[hackneyfox]

53 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Feel free to merge, moderators, if necessary.

 

Word has it from an LCFC employee, who has worked on the new training ground, is that the club is in talks to permit 10,000 at most into games from October - on a 'ballot basis'.

 

Have been given permission to reveal this.

When I spoke to Jim the other day he said the club were working an an assumption of 7.5-8k.

I think someone has mentioned the ballot before.

[KrefelderFox666]

Just for reference/comparison. Germany have banned mass events of all sorts until 31 December, which includes sporting events. However, they have asked the associations to come up with plans before the end of October which would be reviewed. So earliest, fans in November. Considering Germany have dealt with the virus much better, either the UK are being a bit optimistic with October, or it's another gung ho move from BJ and the gang.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

15 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Just for reference/comparison. Germany have banned mass events of all sorts until 31 December, which includes sporting events. However, they have asked the associations to come up with plans before the end of October which would be reviewed. So earliest, fans in November. Considering Germany have dealt with the virus much better, either the UK are being a bit optimistic with October, or it's another gung ho move from BJ and the gang.

Bochum found out today no fans at all before Christmas at least.

[KrefelderFox666]

8 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Bochum found out today no fans at all before Christmas at least.

Yes, everyone until end of October. Then it has to be a squeaky clean concept to be proposed to the leaders to show it can be safe, otherwise it is at least end of the year. So realistically, most clubs will be without fans until 2021.

 

Currently up to 300 fans are allowed at smaller grounds. And I think this varies by state too.

[harpendenfox]

The thing is positive test rates are clearly going to increase quite significantly in the next few weeks, just as they have been in France, Spain and now Italy. So will we start to see crowd gatherings as rates go up? 
 

I’m not saying we should or should not, and we know thus far super spreader events have been almost exclusively indoors, but it’s a big leap of faith. 

 

I hope we will see limited crowds from October, but my pessimistic side thinks it unlikely.
 

 

[Ricey]

With it being the summer holidays we've been getting out a lot more and pretty much most places we have been to have been more dangerous in regards to spread than what a 30% full, social distanced football match will be. You get the concourse right with a one way system and it's not a problem in comparison to most other places that have been open for weeks.

 

There are so many other venues that are worse. Pubs, bars, restaurants, indoor play areas, bowling alleys, swimming pools, gyms, schools...I could go on.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

Ban over 65s and high risk groups until it’s considered no risk, make it mandatory to wear masks, get the stadiums back open again.

 

The only reason shops, pubs and restaurants can open is because people spend in them everyday. Football fans are considered unruly yobs who only spend on football matches once a week or once a fortnight so will be made to wait until last for any normality.

[KrefelderFox666]

RB Leipzig have been given the green light from local authorities to allow fans in for their first game of the season against Mainz. 8,500 have been allowed.

[l444ry]

Thought it was common knowledge that they are aiming at 3rd October?

[hackneyfox]

On 27/08/2020 at 22:20, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Ban over 65s and high risk groups until it’s considered no risk, make it mandatory to wear masks, get the stadiums back open again.

 

The only reason shops, pubs and restaurants can open is because people spend in them everyday. Football fans are considered unruly yobs who only spend on football matches once a week or once a fortnight so will be made to wait until last for any normality.

Do you not think the over 65s and high risk groups should have some say in it?

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, l444ry said:

Thought it was common knowledge that they are aiming at 3rd October?

Correct it is they even stated it in the Season ticket information 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

1 hour ago, hackneyfox said:

Do you not think the over 65s and high risk groups should have some say in it?

Honestly, no.
 

We all locked down when we needed to in order to ensure the NHS wasn’t over-whelmed but it seems to me that it’s now a case of protecting the most vulnerable (the old and at-risk). Unfortunately many in those categories would take the risk or think they can make a judgement call but that could end up with further negative impact on both those groups and everyone else so you can’t rely on individuals to make decisions that could negatively impact the wider population.

 

IMO, everyone stepped up when it was needed with the lockdown and now it’s time for the vast majority of the population to get some kind of normality back and banning the older and at risk groups could allow that sooner. Think of it as paying back the actions everyone took in March, April, May.

 

People might talk about rights or say it’s unfair to impose a ban on those groups, which for some it will be, but it’s a sacrifice by a few for the many and there will be some that unfortunately get caught up in a ban that will have to take it on the chin.

[hackneyfox]

Just now, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Honestly, no.
 

We all locked down when we needed to in order to ensure the NHS wasn’t over-whelmed but it seems to me that it’s now a case of protecting the most vulnerable (the old and at-risk). Unfortunately many in those categories would take the risk or think they can make a judgement call but that could end up with further negative impact on both those groups and everyone else so you can’t rely on individuals to make decisions that could negatively impact the wider population.

 

IMO, everyone stepped up when it was needed with the lockdown and now it’s time for the vast majority of the population to get some kind of normality back and banning the older and at risk groups could allow that sooner. Think of it as paying back the actions everyone took in March, April, May.

 

People might talk about rights or say it’s unfair to impose a ban on those groups, which for some it will be, but it’s a sacrifice by a few for the many and there will be some that unfortunately get caught up in a ban that will have to take it on the chin.

Have you ever looked at the average bunch of football fans. I'd reckon on 80% being in high risk categories or over 65.

There's plenty of over 65s who a lot fitter than those 25 years younger.

I'm not 65 yet by the way.

 

So the over 65s and those who are high risk shouldn't be allowed to attend a social/cultural event? That's some serious payback you're demanding there.

[hackneyfox]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

I get that, but the area where we desperately need improvement is not full back.

As we have two out injured and another has just left I'd see that as desperate.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

2 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Have you ever looked at the average bunch of football fans. I'd reckon on 80% being in high risk categories or over 65.

There's plenty of over 65s who a lot fitter than those 25 years younger.

I'm not 65 yet by the way.

 

So the over 65s and those who are high risk shouldn't be allowed to attend a social/cultural event? That's some serious payback you're demanding there.

It’s not going to be a perfect science, admittedly.

But if you can think of a better solution that doesn’t rely on self-autonomy or self-judgement to minimise risk as best as possible then I’d be happy to hear it.

 

It’s not huge payback when you think of the thousands who have missed months of their university experience or thousands of young couples who have had to get married on video conference or  young people missing out on cultural/social events at theatres, bars, pubs, nightclubs for the last 6 months.

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

As we have two out injured and another has just left I'd see that as desperate.

That's a short term problem.

Also, you've quoted me in the wrong thread 

Edited 1 September 2020 by Beechey

[hackneyfox]

Just how long before they've paid back though? Don't forget that those who you want to ban from going out have almost certainly had a far tougher time under lockdown than many of the young people.

I haven't noticed many over 65s at illegal raves round our way.

 

[hackneyfox]

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

That's a short term problem.

Also, you've quoted me in the wrong thread 

[norwichfox]

12 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

Just how long before they've paid back though? Don't forget that those who you want to ban from going out have almost certainly had a far tougher time under lockdown than many of the young people.

I haven't noticed many over 65s at illegal raves round our way.

 

That's because we know how to keep them "underground"...

[Guest Markyblue]

On 27/08/2020 at 22:20, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Ban over 65s and high risk groups until it’s considered no risk, make it mandatory to wear masks, get the stadiums back open again.

 

The only reason shops, pubs and restaurants can open is because people spend in them everyday. Football fans are considered unruly yobs who only spend on football matches once a week or once a fortnight so will be made to wait until last for any normality.

So you want to ban the entire b.a.m.e community as well as people over 65, many of whom are still working in high risk jobs like hospitals from sitting in a football stadium. 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

3 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

So you want to ban the entire b.a.m.e community as well as people over 65, many of whom are still working in high risk jobs like hospitals from sitting in a football stadium. 

Quite the leap you’ve taken there from what I said Markyblue... 

 

I want to ban those in at-risk health categories with pre-existing medical conditions that the NHS have determined as being particularly susceptible to Covid.

 

I know it’s en vogue mate but nothing to do with race.