Amberarmy wrote:If only it had stayed at 6-0...that was my prediction

Their biggest ever away win in competitive matches. Now they play the side against which they had the biggest ever win in England. I wonder. I just wonder.

COUNTY 14 TOON 0

I'm disappointed Newcastle seem to be taking this so seriously. Perhaps, given their winning margin, they may rest a further few first teamers next game....

Think we need to start posting that we are going to get hammered and the game is as good as already lost. Get the message out on social media and perhaps some of the club staff will pick up on it and they underestimate us. I hope no-one really bigs it up. The game will be big enough as it is.

Ha ha. A Leeds radio station tried that last season, telling everyone to spread the word on social media that Ben White was actually crap in the hope of driving his asking price down.

I imagine that Newcastle will insist on our players having covid-19 tests carried out.

NearlyDead wrote:I imagine that Newcastle will insist on our players having covid-19 tests carried out.

Thats fine as long as they are prepared to cough up the 5k for it to happen.

I think the cost is about £100-£150 per test.

Until the Orient situation arose I hadn't realised that the EFL no longer required clubs to do regular testing.

While the cost of testing is the major factor in not doing it, which is why Spurs paid for Orient's tests, and so I understand the reason for not doing it regularly, it is so, so much the wrong strategy and is a disaster waiting to happen.

The only way to keep covid-19 numbers down if you are allowing people to mix is to test (often) and to trace and isolate. How many times does it need to be said? The population size (team, company, region, nationwide) doesn't matter; it's the basic principle.

It's possible to reduce the cost of testing by doing pooled tests (it's what they did in Wuhan's 2nd outbreak I think, to cut down the massive number of tests), though I don't know if the UK is set up for doing pooled tests.

I think for a club like us, with say a max staff of about 40 people, you'd have to pool about 6 or 8 people to reliably spot 1 case in the club; so you'd have say 4 or 5 initial pooled tests and then only test individual samples from a pool if that pool shows positive.

So you'd have a one-off (or even maybe weekly) testing cost of £400-£500 if they all come back negative. Still a lot on little to no income for sure, but perhaps that cost could be part met by the EFL/FA.

I'd have said go one player light in your squad and use that budget to (part) fund it internally. This should have been a precondition for restarting pro football.

NearlyDead wrote:I think the cost is about £100-£150 per test.

Until the Orient situation arose I hadn't realised that the EFL no longer required clubs to do regular testing.

While the cost of testing is the major factor in not doing it, which is why Spurs paid for Orient's tests, and so I understand the reason for not doing it regularly, it is so, so much the wrong strategy and is a disaster waiting to happen.

The only way to keep covid-19 numbers down if you are allowing people to mix is to test (often) and to trace and isolate. How many times does it need to be said? The population size (team, company, region, nationwide) doesn't matter; it's the basic principle.

It's possible to reduce the cost of testing by doing pooled tests (it's what they did in Wuhan's 2nd outbreak I think, to cut down the massive number of tests), though I don't know if the UK is set up for doing pooled tests.

I think for a club like us, with say a max staff of about 40 people, you'd have to pool about 6 or 8 people to reliably spot 1 case in the club; so you'd have say 4 or 5 initial pooled tests and then only test individual samples from a pool if that pool shows positive.

So you'd have a one-off (or even maybe weekly) testing cost of £400-£500 if they all come back negative. Still a lot on little to no income for sure, but perhaps that cost could be part met by the EFL/FA.

I'd have said go one player light in your squad and use that budget to (part) fund it internally. This should have been a precondition for restarting pro football.

If we are chosen for TV there's some logic in the club investing in testing once or twice in the week before the game so that we don't suffer like Orient and lose the TV revenue.

Just realised, we have a 100% win record at home to Newcastle.

A repeat of our 1947 4-2 home score would be nice.

Good Evening

I might be totally wrong, but was the 4-2 the same season as the record defeat?

And if it was, I seemed to think it was sweet revenge as it denied them promotion....

Or I might have dreamed it all!

Phil in Northampton

Yes, it was. The match was played on 7th June 1947 in front of 8,798 fans. Scorers for County, Carr 2 ,Rawcliffe and Haddon.

The gate at Newcastle in the famous match was 52,137.

Info from Ambrosen.

Morecambe lost 0-5 in their last home match so it could be even harder for them to stay up this season.

Wondering when sky will announce ties

There has only been 3 Newcastle v County games but they have been high scoring affairs with an average of 8.3 goals per game

1922 FAC Newcastle 6 - 0 County
1946 D2 Newcastle 13 - 0 County
1947 D2 County 4 - 2 Newcastle

UPTHEPORT wrote:Wondering when sky will announce ties

After tonight's games/first thing tomorrow you'd think.
Pick one from the unbolded games to make the fourth TV game

Liverpool v Arsenal
Burnley v Bournemouth (tee hee!)
Brentford v Fulham
Everton v West Ham
Aston Villa v Stoke City
Orient v Tottenham (?? Given Walsall off, unlikely to be ready to play this next week, so can discount this game)
Newport County v Newcastle United
Brighton v Manchester United