whoareya wrote:
Nah, you've merely offered a different interpretation of the meaning of smokescreen and a rather flimsy counter to my opinion regarding performance, as if being top of the league is the only benchmark of performance and cannot be improved. All my other points are spot on and you have no credible counter, hence your predictable retreat to insults.

Oxford English Dictionary

Smokescreen.

A ruse to disguise ones true intention or belief.

Sorry mate swatting you away is becoming boring.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:
Nah, you've merely offered a different interpretation of the meaning of smokescreen and a rather flimsy counter to my opinion regarding performance, as if being top of the league is the only benchmark of performance and cannot be improved. All my other points are spot on and you have no credible counter, hence your predictable retreat to insults.

Oxford English Dictionary

Smokescreen.

A ruse to disguise ones true intention or belief.

Sorry mate swatting you away is becoming boring.

Yes, your ruse being to disguise your opinion that crowds shouldn't be allowed back behind a notion that it wouldn't be financially viable for the club to do so.

You have a short memory, in the midst of the first lockdown you were implying that the club shouldn't need to plead poverty.

Now it's the opposite


And no retort to my other points I see, as the repeated insult proves.

Disappointingly predictable.

whoareya wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:
Nah, you've merely offered a different interpretation of the meaning of smokescreen and a rather flimsy counter to my opinion regarding performance, as if being top of the league is the only benchmark of performance and cannot be improved. All my other points are spot on and you have no credible counter, hence your predictable retreat to insults.

Oxford English Dictionary

Smokescreen.

A ruse to disguise ones true intention or belief.

Sorry mate swatting you away is becoming boring.

Yes, your ruse being to disguise your opinion that crowds shouldn't be allowed back behind a notion that it wouldn't be financially viable for the club to do so.

You have a short memory, in the midst of the first lockdown you were implying that the club shouldn't need to plead poverty.

Now it's the opposite
And no retort to my other points I see, as the repeated insult proves.

Disappointingly predictable.

Again you just don't make a coherent argument.

The club have said that there are financial difficulties due to Covid. I said that there should not be because we should have built up sufficient funds due to the Cup exploits. However that implies that there has been, in my opinion, a mismanagement of funds. As I have no evidence that the club are being untruthful I would not and did not say the club were not in straightened financial circumstances.

A simple lesson for you. If I give you £100 and tomorrow you say you don't have the money to buy a pair of shoes, that I say you should have is not the same as saying you do.

Logic not really your strong point, is it?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:
Nah, you've merely offered a different interpretation of the meaning of smokescreen and a rather flimsy counter to my opinion regarding performance, as if being top of the league is the only benchmark of performance and cannot be improved. All my other points are spot on and you have no credible counter, hence your predictable retreat to insults.

Oxford English Dictionary

Smokescreen.

A ruse to disguise ones true intention or belief.

Sorry mate swatting you away is becoming boring.

Yes, your ruse being to disguise your opinion that crowds shouldn't be allowed back behind a notion that it wouldn't be financially viable for the club to do so.

You have a short memory, in the midst of the first lockdown you were implying that the club shouldn't need to plead poverty.

Now it's the opposite
And no retort to my other points I see, as the repeated insult proves.

Disappointingly predictable.

Again you just don't make a coherent argument.

The club have said that there are financial difficulties due to Covid. I said that there should not be because we should have built up sufficient funds due to the Cup exploits. However that implies that there has been, in my opinion, a mismanagement of funds. As I have no evidence that the club are being untruthful I would not and did not say the club were not in straightened financial circumstances.

A simple lesson for you. If I give you £100 and tomorrow you say you don't have the money to buy a pair of shoes, that I say you should have is not the same as saying you do.

Logic not really your strong point, is it?

More insults then?

You've got plenty of form for this. Opinion, refutal by bizarre analogy, ingoring firm counter reasoning and then the predictable spiral to insults, several across this thread alone.

I'll let the forum jury decide for themselves.

whoareya wrote:

I'll let the forum jury decide for themselves.

The forum readers will decide for themselves whether you let them or not. And people think I'm arrogant.

And another point of logic. It might be the case that everyone agrees with me. But if you are right and I am wrong, that the world and his wife think that I am right won't make one iota of difference.

This is a board where people are free to express opinions. Between you and me I don't give a sh!t what anyone thinks about me. I am interested in what people think about County. I am especially interested in what people think about County who disagree with me. But I find it a problem when people post without giving reasons and also when people assume facts or express opinion as fact.

Reading your contributions they are literate. However read your initial post and my reply. There was nothing wrong with your question. I answered it as best I could. I made it clear that my views were a 'guesstimate'. Then rather than disagree and say why you chose instead to accuse me of throwing up a 'smokescreen'.

St Paul tells us to turn the other cheek. I don't.

whoareya wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:What exactly are the additional financial implications of letting a restricted number of home season ticket holders into games that are already taking place?

If you mean the cost of stewarding, turnstiles etc, then just apply a minimal surcharge as many car dealerships are doing if you want your car serviced, to cover additional PPE etc.

This figure is a guesstimate. But I hope not a ridiculous one.

Firstly there is the cost of stewarding. I don't know but with Covid restriction One steward per 25 supporters would not seem unreasonable. 40 stewards for five hours at Saturday rates. £20 x 5 x 40. £4,000 just for starters. The company which employs those stewards will want to make a profit, will have their own expenses, will have to make NI contributions. At a very conservative estimate a further £2,000. Policing costs for outside the stadium. Public liability insurance and so on another £5,000. And having to build in sanitary stations etc. These costs are not known to me, in reality they may be higher or lower. Likewise there may be costs of which I have not detailed. Now a father taking two kids to a game for which they all have tickets might be a bit miffed at having to fork out another £36 as a 'minimal' surcharge don't you think?.

The 1000 limit would almost certainly rule out the family scenario you suggest and clubs don't pay anything for policing unless they attend inside the stadium, in this instance that wouldn't be needed. Even so, perhaps a dad would gladly pay a surcharch to take his kids to football - I know I would have. 1 steward per 25 supporters is more like a ratio of guards at The Maze, not a ratio for stewarding a largely elderly, passive attendance.

If the overall consensus was that even a limited crowd would be beneficial to the team spirit and performance then perhaps the club would gladly absorb the cost.

I think your repeated dismissals of the viability is a smokescreen - more to do with your opinion that it shouldn't be allowed, rather than it not being financially viable.

There it is. Read it.

Outside the stadium.

I look forward to your acknowledgement that you are in error.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:What exactly are the additional financial implications of letting a restricted number of home season ticket holders into games that are already taking place?

If you mean the cost of stewarding, turnstiles etc, then just apply a minimal surcharge as many car dealerships are doing if you want your car serviced, to cover additional PPE etc.

This figure is a guesstimate. But I hope not a ridiculous one.

Firstly there is the cost of stewarding. I don't know but with Covid restriction One steward per 25 supporters would not seem unreasonable. 40 stewards for five hours at Saturday rates. £20 x 5 x 40. £4,000 just for starters. The company which employs those stewards will want to make a profit, will have their own expenses, will have to make NI contributions. At a very conservative estimate a further £2,000. Policing costs for outside the stadium. Public liability insurance and so on another £5,000. And having to build in sanitary stations etc. These costs are not known to me, in reality they may be higher or lower. Likewise there may be costs of which I have not detailed. Now a father taking two kids to a game for which they all have tickets might be a bit miffed at having to fork out another £36 as a 'minimal' surcharge don't you think?.

The 1000 limit would almost certainly rule out the family scenario you suggest and clubs don't pay anything for policing unless they attend inside the stadium, in this instance that wouldn't be needed. Even so, perhaps a dad would gladly pay a surcharch to take his kids to football - I know I would have. 1 steward per 25 supporters is more like a ratio of guards at The Maze, not a ratio for stewarding a largely elderly, passive attendance.

If the overall consensus was that even a limited crowd would be beneficial to the team spirit and performance then perhaps the club would gladly absorb the cost.

I think your repeated dismissals of the viability is a smokescreen - more to do with your opinion that it shouldn't be allowed, rather than it not being financially viable.

There it is. Read it.

Outside the stadium.

I look forward to your acknowledgement that you are in error.

The club doesn't pay for policing outside the stadium. I pointed that out to you. It's a fact, but I'm sure you've already checked it for yourself.

You were wrong.

I look forward to your acknowledgment that you are in error

whoareya wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:What exactly are the additional financial implications of letting a restricted number of home season ticket holders into games that are already taking place?

If you mean the cost of stewarding, turnstiles etc, then just apply a minimal surcharge as many car dealerships are doing if you want your car serviced, to cover additional PPE etc.

This figure is a guesstimate. But I hope not a ridiculous one.

Firstly there is the cost of stewarding. I don't know but with Covid restriction One steward per 25 supporters would not seem unreasonable. 40 stewards for five hours at Saturday rates. £20 x 5 x 40. £4,000 just for starters. The company which employs those stewards will want to make a profit, will have their own expenses, will have to make NI contributions. At a very conservative estimate a further £2,000. Policing costs for outside the stadium. Public liability insurance and so on another £5,000. And having to build in sanitary stations etc. These costs are not known to me, in reality they may be higher or lower. Likewise there may be costs of which I have not detailed. Now a father taking two kids to a game for which they all have tickets might be a bit miffed at having to fork out another £36 as a 'minimal' surcharge don't you think?.

The 1000 limit would almost certainly rule out the family scenario you suggest and clubs don't pay anything for policing unless they attend inside the stadium, in this instance that wouldn't be needed. Even so, perhaps a dad would gladly pay a surcharch to take his kids to football - I know I would have. 1 steward per 25 supporters is more like a ratio of guards at The Maze, not a ratio for stewarding a largely elderly, passive attendance.

If the overall consensus was that even a limited crowd would be beneficial to the team spirit and performance then perhaps the club would gladly absorb the cost.

I think your repeated dismissals of the viability is a smokescreen - more to do with your opinion that it shouldn't be allowed, rather than it not being financially viable.

There it is. Read it.

Outside the stadium.

I look forward to your acknowledgement that you are in error.

The club doesn't pay for policing outside the stadium. I pointed that out to you. It's a fact, but I'm sure you've already checked it for yourself.

You were wrong.

I look forward to your acknowledgment that you are in error

Other than areas owned or controlled. Which may or may not include anyone queuing up on pavements etc. But as I say you are probably right inasmuch as those cost might be minimal or zero.

Let me explain. I don't know what the costs are. Neither do you. You can't simply declare yourself right. Even the President of the United States can't get away with that. As I say looking at the evidence policing cost are probably minimal. I am better informed than I was because when a point is made I check it out. If you wish to read the judgement in Leeds United FC v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police you will have a better understanding yourself. Again let me explain.

A man goes to the doctor. After tests the doctor gives his prognosis. Which is two years. Two years go by and the man goes back to the doctor. 'Doc, you were wrong, I'm still alive.' To which the doctor replies, 'No, I was right'. A prognosis is a prediction. It is a prognosis. not a cast iron guarantee.

My view as to the cost of putting on match and stewarding a crowd at Rodney Parade will cost in the region of £10/15,000 more than without a crowd. It may be more, it may be less. What do you think it is?

So it is ironic, if not justifiable, for people to illegally stream our games due to our individual previous indiscretions of intellectual property theft.. yet it is justifiable, if not ironic, that people who have paid for the pleasure to go to the games (once "allowable") are unable to do so due to the club making less because of illegal streams.

Or something like that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/55010011

4,000 fans to be allowed back in once English lockdown ends.

faerun exile wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/55010011

4,000 fans to be allowed back in once English lockdown ends.

This strikes me as negligent. Nothing about how the virus acts has changed over the last month, and nothing has changed in terms of how we're prepared to deal with it. We don't yet have a vaccine rollout, we know from what we saw over the summer that infection rates will rocket if people are encouraged to mix, and clubs haven't changed their suggested precautions since they developed plans (which were rejected) just prior to the season starting. So why allow fans back now? It cannot possibly be because it's safe to do so.

The UK Government seem to (again) be engaging in the sort of negligent boosterism that saw us come unstuck over the summer with Eat Out To Help Out - relaxing regulations to try and 'save' a sector in the short-term, but in doing so adding to the wider public health crisis so that it takes longer to recover in the long-term.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong. But until I'm convinced of the fact - and much as it pains me - I won't be going back to watch any live football just yet.

Tier 1: 50% capacity or 4,000 max whichever is lower
Tier 2: 50% capacity or 2,000 max whichever is lower
Tier 3: remain behind closed doors
Remains to be seen what happens in Wales.

50% capacity at RP is 3,500-4,000 so a normal league crowd. Social distancing out the window in that case.

Edit: social distancing to apply so if same rules as above adopted at RP then we could be looking at 2,500 ish capacity.

Totally negligent.
Just like the 5 day break for Xmas as clearly the Virus will not be about for those 5 days.
Buffoons running the UK albeit its not up to them in Newport.
Like the post above until we get the vaccine in us count me out.

Seems like it's just part of a plan to make a section of the general public grateful for a gesture in their direction. Last week it was the betting fraternity, next week football fans and those selling Christmas tat.
If 4,000 is representative of the Old Trafford capacity, we might get an allowance of about 350.

Edit: Missed this info above, so ignore my post.

Tier 1: 50% capacity or 4,000 max whichever is lower
Tier 2: 50% capacity or 2,000 max whichever is lower
Tier 3: remain behind closed doors

Great news if people can self police this as well as stewards standing outdoors is a safe event

There is little evidence of people catching covid outdoors except when you get idiots like those celebrating like Leeds and Liverpool fans where when they won titles