Returning to the ground
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
Re: Returning to the ground
I think some of the arguments around what is open and what isn't miss the point, occasionally on purpose.
It's not a bright line test of risk. It's about level of risk and level of "utility" for want of a better word.
I'm sure the thinking is that while there is probably (surely?) a greater risk in allowing people to continue shopping inside, the utility (economic, jobs, Christmas) is much higher than allowing people to go to the football.
I think I disagree, but it's not as simple as saying how come I can do this but I can't do that.
It's not a bright line test of risk. It's about level of risk and level of "utility" for want of a better word.
I'm sure the thinking is that while there is probably (surely?) a greater risk in allowing people to continue shopping inside, the utility (economic, jobs, Christmas) is much higher than allowing people to go to the football.
I think I disagree, but it's not as simple as saying how come I can do this but I can't do that.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
See I of course accept that not every decision is completely based on risk. I will take your word utility. Sure. But my problem is that utility appears to be which rich businessmen can exert the most pressure on the Tory party, clearly not football clubs, or restauranteers...that’s for sure.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:06 pmI think some of the arguments around what is open and what isn't miss the point, occasionally on purpose.
It's not a bright line test of risk. It's about level of risk and level of "utility" for want of a better word.
I'm sure the thinking is that while there is probably (surely?) a greater risk in allowing people to continue shopping inside, the utility (economic, jobs, Christmas) is much higher than allowing people to go to the football.
I think I disagree, but it's not as simple as saying how come I can do this but I can't do that.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 29438
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Returning to the ground
Spearing and Feeney start for them, along with a bloke called Sid Nelson who sounds like a Viz character.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
Don't think that's the main problem. I suspect it's more to do with everyone turning up at the same time, going for half time at the same time and leaving all at the same time (unless it's Wigan where they start leaving about 20 mins in) and obvs, it's not just football, it's other sports too. Bit like why 10 O Clock pub curfew was so heavily criticized, it congregates a lot of people all at once...BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:00 pmSee I of course accept that not every decision is completely based on risk. I will take your word utility. Sure. But my problem is that utility appears to be which rich businessmen can exert the most pressure on the Tory party, clearly not football clubs, or restauranteers...that’s for sure.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:06 pmI think some of the arguments around what is open and what isn't miss the point, occasionally on purpose.
It's not a bright line test of risk. It's about level of risk and level of "utility" for want of a better word.
I'm sure the thinking is that while there is probably (surely?) a greater risk in allowing people to continue shopping inside, the utility (economic, jobs, Christmas) is much higher than allowing people to go to the football.
I think I disagree, but it's not as simple as saying how come I can do this but I can't do that.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
Yep I get that. But we are talking a few thousand going not a full ground. I don’t necessarily think it’s worth the risk on a wide scale but then you can’t justify people piling into shopping centres either.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:51 pmDon't think that's the main problem. I suspect it's more to do with everyone turning up at the same time, going for half time at the same time and leaving all at the same time (unless it's Wigan where they start leaving about 20 mins in) and obvs, it's not just football, it's other sports too. Bit like why 10 O Clock pub curfew was so heavily criticized, it congregates a lot of people all at once...BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:00 pmSee I of course accept that not every decision is completely based on risk. I will take your word utility. Sure. But my problem is that utility appears to be which rich businessmen can exert the most pressure on the Tory party, clearly not football clubs, or restauranteers...that’s for sure.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:06 pmI think some of the arguments around what is open and what isn't miss the point, occasionally on purpose.
It's not a bright line test of risk. It's about level of risk and level of "utility" for want of a better word.
I'm sure the thinking is that while there is probably (surely?) a greater risk in allowing people to continue shopping inside, the utility (economic, jobs, Christmas) is much higher than allowing people to go to the football.
I think I disagree, but it's not as simple as saying how come I can do this but I can't do that.
The data shows that some activities that have been curtailed are safer statistically than others allowed to continue, now I agree with the utility argument, schools are high risk but makes absolute sense to prioritise them. Christmas shopping I’m far less convinced by any argument there...
- officer_dibble
- Immortal
- Posts: 14494
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Returning to the ground
Thank feck Boris a c*nt
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
Looks like a lock-out for normal season - grounds able to open the week after we finish...
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
Playoff final is end of May...
- truewhite15
- Passionate
- Posts: 2846
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
There are a lot of "ifs" in play here. But if that timescale stands, and if we go the distance and get into the playoffs - tickets damn well better be offered to ST holders first and foremost. For both the semis and the final.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
Don't think too many would disagree, certainly not I.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:08 pmThere are a lot of "ifs" in play here. But if that timescale stands, and if we go the distance and get into the playoffs - tickets damn well better be offered to ST holders first and foremost. For both the semis and the final.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
For a home tie we’d be limited to around 6000 if my sums are right...truewhite15 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:08 pmThere are a lot of "ifs" in play here. But if that timescale stands, and if we go the distance and get into the playoffs - tickets damn well better be offered to ST holders first and foremost. For both the semis and the final.
- officer_dibble
- Immortal
- Posts: 14494
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Returning to the ground
Yup...worry about it IF it happens. I’ve seen nowt that says we are playoff bound....yet.truewhite15 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:08 pmThere are a lot of "ifs" in play here. But if that timescale stands, and if we go the distance and get into the playoffs - tickets damn well better be offered to ST holders first and foremost. For both the semis and the final.
Re: Returning to the ground
Barrow have released their figures for online subscriptions on ifollow.
Obviously as we're massive and that, we're top (2,108 to joint second Cambridge and Bradford on 1,312).
I knew Salford were a tin pot vanity project but for their 2 games against Barrow they were watched by 38 and 55. F*ck me. Next lowest was Crawley with 107 and only Barrow Scunthorpe and fellow vanity project FGR were under 300.
Presumably Worthy knows them all.
Obviously as we're massive and that, we're top (2,108 to joint second Cambridge and Bradford on 1,312).
I knew Salford were a tin pot vanity project but for their 2 games against Barrow they were watched by 38 and 55. F*ck me. Next lowest was Crawley with 107 and only Barrow Scunthorpe and fellow vanity project FGR were under 300.
Presumably Worthy knows them all.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9154
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: Returning to the ground
Are on line subscriptions in addition to season ticket holders who can watch home games? I'd assume Bradford have sold the most STs.
I'd be interested to know total viewing figures for our games. Eg did we have an away following last Saturday of 2000 virtual supporters ?
I'd be interested to know total viewing figures for our games. Eg did we have an away following last Saturday of 2000 virtual supporters ?
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 29438
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Returning to the ground
Subscriptions or sales? I've bought every game (bar Salford which wasn't on) but I can't subscribe because UK.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:49 pmBarrow have released their figures for online subscriptions on ifollow.
Obviously as we're massive and that, we're top (2,108 to joint second Cambridge and Bradford on 1,312).
I knew Salford were a tin pot vanity project but for their 2 games against Barrow they were watched by 38 and 55. F*ck me. Next lowest was Crawley with 107 and only Barrow Scunthorpe and fellow vanity project FGR were under 300.
EDIT
https://www.barrowafc.com/news/2021/feb ... wo-season/
They seem to be using "subs" and "viewers" interchangeably ("698 fans cheered the lads on virtually", "696 Bluebirds were watching" etc) but it's not very clearly explained.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
All ex-Redshite who don't want to pay the extortionate ticket prices at the DMB ground. I suspect like good ex-Reds, they only pretend they've ever been/watched them.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:49 pmBarrow have released their figures for online subscriptions on ifollow.
Obviously as we're massive and that, we're top (2,108 to joint second Cambridge and Bradford on 1,312).
I knew Salford were a tin pot vanity project but for their 2 games against Barrow they were watched by 38 and 55. F*ck me. Next lowest was Crawley with 107 and only Barrow Scunthorpe and fellow vanity project FGR were under 300.
Presumably Worthy knows them all.
Re: Returning to the ground
Yes I wasn't sure so was using subscriptions very loosely.
My best guess is that as their "away" numbers seem to be consistently higher than "home" that this is £10 purchases "on the day" as it were, i.e. doesn't include season ticket holders.
Which suggests Salford have about 20 season ticket holders
My best guess is that as their "away" numbers seem to be consistently higher than "home" that this is £10 purchases "on the day" as it were, i.e. doesn't include season ticket holders.
Which suggests Salford have about 20 season ticket holders
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14171
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
Salford don't use iFollow - They have their own version
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
Re: Returning to the ground
Stop ruining my fun!
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2457
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:23 pm
Re: Returning to the ground
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:14 pmSubscriptions or sales? I've bought every game (bar Salford which wasn't on) but I can't subscribe because UK.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:49 pmBarrow have released their figures for online subscriptions on ifollow.
Obviously as we're massive and that, we're top (2,108 to joint second Cambridge and Bradford on 1,312).
I knew Salford were a tin pot vanity project but for their 2 games against Barrow they were watched by 38 and 55. F*ck me. Next lowest was Crawley with 107 and only Barrow Scunthorpe and fellow vanity project FGR were under 300.
EDIT
https://www.barrowafc.com/news/2021/feb ... wo-season/
They seem to be using "subs" and "viewers" interchangeably ("698 fans cheered the lads on virtually", "696 Bluebirds were watching" etc) but it's not very clearly explained.
Screenshot 2021-02-26 at 16.16.19.png
I think it might have something to do with iFollow's wording. On the website, when you purchased a single match, you officially "subscribe" to it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests