Your assertions the other day and above that the middle class and middle aged are the ones most likely to break lockdown rules are completely contrary to what I I've seen from working throughout the crisis. Whilst it was very quiet during the first week or two of lockdown, since then requests for runs to pick up drugs, and people ringing our office at 1a.m. for "a 6 seater" with music blaring out in the background and a party obviously going on have been more and more commonplace. There have also been certain streets and estates where little notice appears to have been taken of lockdown rules and social distancing from the off. They've obviously been practising their own particular brand of herd immunity. Meanwhile we haven't heard a dicky bird from most of what you might call our middle class or slightly better heeled customers. I even picked up a young girl who worked in a large nursing home after she finished work and the second she got in the car she was straight on the phone arranging a meet up with a group of lads. From picking her up on previous occasions it also seemed clear she had been carrying on as normal. Even I felt very cross about that as whilst I don't agree with lockdown or most of the restrictions in principle, since they came into effect I've complied with them, and it's really unfair to ignore them when you know for a fact you're coming into direct contact every day with the most vulnerable people who are also sitting ducks in the enclosed confines of a nursing home. (Sorry if in wrong thread)

That's the spirit!

Don't see how you can hold some of the remaining games at neutral venues and some at home grounds, that skews the competition even more than if they were all held at neutral venues. What's a "high risk" game when it's at home? Is it one where they fear fans may gather outside? Not sure how you can worry about that unless it actually happens. If it does they'll have to figure out how to deal with it and warn of appropriate sanctions in advance.

I suspect you may be right, unfortunately, but the Government's aim all along has been to suppress the spread of the virus so that the NHS did not become overwhelmed, rather than aim to eradicate it completely which is obviously impossible in the absence of a reliable vaccine. I just wonder whether later in the year rates of new infections and deaths might get so low that the medics calculate there is no plausible scenario under which tne NHS could become overwhelmed and that therefore there is no valid reason why crowds could not return to football. As I've said before, imo, people should not necessarily expect social distancing to be the future norm nor for it to carry on ad infinitum nor for the focus to suddenly switch to an unrealistic target of eradicating the virus completely. The focus for me should be on living our lives as normally as possible whilst keeping the impact of the virus under manageable proportions rather than curtailing our lives as much as possible to reduce bare numbers of infections to an absolute minimum. I appreciate you may not agree.

All correct Parson and something I've been saying for many weeks now. Yet despite all this you still seem opposed to the return of football?

Fair comment, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you wished anyone harm rather that you would expect from any sample size of 1000 of the population 5 -10 people to be positive and for those people to make a swift and complete recovery in the absence of any underlying age or health factors. There were one or two (literally) concerns raised about returning in Germany from players with partners who had serious health conditions but nothing like the hand wringing and agonising which has gone on here. Former Wimbledon and Man Utd striker who is now a football correspondent in Spain said on the radio last week there hadn't been a single objection to returning from players there either. Certainly as regards to football, in othercountries where Governments haven't jumped the gun and banned all sport until a certain date, there seems to be a general acceptance that seasons have to be finished and everyone is just getting on with it.

If Rovers have had no positive tests so far I don't see a problem with them announcing the fact. I'm sure you'd have been absolutely cock a hoop if we'd announced 2 or 3 positive tests as you'd be citing it as evidence it was too early for football to restart. If you meant it's surprising we didn't have any positive tests, again this isn't that surprising as only 0.8% tested positive in the Premier League round of tests so only a handful of Clubs will record any positive tests. As regards the Bundesliga, it seems to have gone relatively well, the standard has been good and to my mind there is no more loss of tension or feeling of importance or feeling that the proceedings are a training exercise or exhibition match than if there was a crowd. The only downside from watching in this Country is that most people don't have an emotional attachment in either side. You are against the reintroduction of football so therefore you are opposed to playing behind closed doors on principle and are now trying to decry its relevance. There's no doubt it isn't quite as good as the normal product but such is the apparent resistance to getting back to normal in general I fear we're going to have to get used to football behind closed doors for quite some time to come.

I think we're generally on the same page about football (and everything in general restarting) but I don't follow you there. It makes it far less likely that they will come into contact with anyone who actually has the virus than if they weren't all tested. Or would you prefer the wording, "minimises any additional risk there might be from resuming playing over and above that which they incur by going about their every day lives?"

If you're tested once and thereafter ignored maybe, but if you're tested regularly over a period and are negative it's very unlikely you will have the virus when a game is played.

The furlough scheme has little or no impact when you have employees on tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds a week. Then on top of that, if fixtures weren't completed, the TV Companies will be demanding hundreds of millions of pounds back. I know the situation is of Clubs own making and they need to reset for future purposes but currently the game is where it is.

Financially, it can't.

It is slightly weird given this is a football m/b but it's in keeping with the general view of the Board regarding the Crisis. As regards football, I haven't actually missed it in the slightest during its absence. In fact I've actually felt a slight sense of release from the feeling of obligation of having to trudge down to Ewood fortnightly to witness the dross served up by Mowbray's team. I'd far rather my favourite Pubs and Restaurants re-opened first. However it's not a question of my personal entertainment. If football doesn't return fairly soon under normal circumstances then Clubs will go bust. In exactly the same way in the real world if businesses can't return soon enough they'll go to the wall too. Surely those are situations to be avoided if at all possible and in football's case if it can be avoided by playing temporarily behind closed doors that should be pursued vigorously.

I think you are labouring under the mis apprehension that the Premier League providing private testing for footballers has any sort of impact on the availability of publicly funded testing from a separate source for the Public, NHS and Care Homes. You're not going to be swayed or dissuaded on that point so there's no point debating it further. If it was the case that testing footballers meant more deserving cases went without, I'd agree. with you.

I'm probably the wrong person to be asking that Stuart. You know my views on the entire thing, I would never have imposed a blanket lockdown in the first place. However, by any standard, if the general public had all had the benefit of being tested twice a week for the last month (like footballers will have by the time they restart) then yes, undoubtedly.

I'd personally have no qualms about attending a game with crowds as normal tomorrow if it was suddenly deemed legal but if as seems likely it is deemed necessary to keep crowds away from football until say the start of the 2021-22 season I'd have no problem with the game continuing behind closed doors until that point if it meant Clubs survived. Some Clubs will survive, I think many lower down and not so low down the Pyramid will go unless broadcasters can be persuaded to provide generous deals which would replace gate and matchday revenue to televise all games live. As the demand for that in the Lower leagues is likely to be limited I fear it's unlikely.

Testing completely irrelevant then?

There is not the slightest chance that football would have been given the green light to resume if either: 1) Private testing of footballers had any impact on the availability of tests for the NHS or care homes or 2) The Government thought that by the time football is ready to resume the emergency services couldn't provide cover without leaving the NHS short.

Christ, people want to have their cake and eat it it regarding this crisis. They give the Government all manner of stick about insufficient testing. (Probably with a lot of justification in the early part of the crisis). Then, when testing is available, they're still obsessing over complete irrelevances like whether or not footballers are actually in contact for an average of 88 seconds or whether it is in fact much longer. I.e. The fact the players have been regularly tested over a period and cleared to play is irrelevant and doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways, either testing is of vital importance or it isn't.

Tired of repeating myself on this, but it doesn't matter how long they spend in close proximity to each other if none of them have the virus. The next round of testing of the German players will be very instructive as it will show whether more players than you might expect picked up the virus by playing compared to a similar sized sample of their general population.

I thought I'd heard seven days mentioned in relation to the handful of German players who tested positive and in the event any Premier League players did the same. That would also tie in with the advice for the rest of the population. Seven days self isolation if you display symptoms, fourteen if anyone in your household does.

Is it not seven days?

Hadn't heard that, cheers.

Are we not a bit behind the curve on this or is it in line with other Clubs? I'd have thought if we only have 3-4 weeks to prepare, resuming training a week late could make quite a difference.

It might be the case, I'd expect that people will be a bit hesitant at first then after a while things would get back to normal and eventually it would all be forgotten about. Creatures of habit like Matty says.

So, you don't respect my point of view, but you are having a go at me for putting forward a differing point of view to Paul? That's a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it?