They had better only be temporary or life wont really be worth living.

Dear me Paul, you will be struggling if you take such a high handed approach to everyone else. It is not optional not compulsory to re-sanitise your trolley at the supermarket and like the chap you've demonized above I wouldn't even give it a second thought. I take exactly the opposite viewpoint. Maybe it is temporarily acceptable to be OCD and wash your hands 25 times a day whilst the virus is still about but in the long run it will be desperately detrimental to our overall health if everyone insists on living in a totally antiseptic environment. We'll lose all our natural immunity to bacteria and infection.

Herein lies the problem. People have to get it out of their heads that restrictions and social distancing are the norm. They are not.

Amen to that. Nail, hammer, head.

Weren't you (correctly) arguing last weekend that it was ridiculous that footballers in an artificially created bubble should have to social distance between themselves on a team coach and that the virus couldn't have have happened to a worse generation? So if you (correctly) think it's being overly precious that footballers should have to social distance from one another on the way to the game, why do you now appear to think that it's not safe for the same footballers (who have all been tested to within an inch of their lives) to be in close proximity to each other on a football pitch?

I'll have to do an Arsene Wenger there and say "I did not see it." I did see Sky News the other day when it was sunny and they had a reporter at Brighton all day hoping to catch huge crowds of people failing to social distance. There was hardly anyone about and by the end of the day he was reduced to saying how difficult it was to social distance on the pavement by the main road or on the gang ways leading down to the pier on beach. (If there's been anyone about) Then it cut to a Council leader on the beach saying how desperately worried they were about a second peak of the virus and all you could see in the background were people dotted about in groups of two in deckchairs socially distancing perfectly. Must be a better class of punter in Brighton than Southend.

For heavens sake. It doesn't matter that the footballers will be in close proximity to each other, they will all have been regularly tested over a sustained period therefore they are extremely unlikely to either have the virus themselves or pass it on to anyone else by playing.

Other Countries have chosen to finish their seasons too and seem to be either getting on with it or planning for it with considerably less commotion than we are. Do Clubs pay players too much money? Absolutely. Is the mess they are in of their own making? Even less doubt. However when people are talking about maintaining the integrity of the Competition by finishing the season they mean the "sporting" integrity. Not whether it's morally right to pay someone hundreds of thousands of pounds a week for kicking a ball about. Surely if finances permit, it's better for ANY League to complete the season rather than on paper by a points per game basis. And if that is not logistically possible it's still slightly better to hold play offs to decide promotion and relegation. Though not as good as seeing the season out as you don't know who might have tanked or come with a wet sail at the end of the season and moved into or dropped in and out of the relevant positions.

Because the Government have said that football can return under extremely tightly controlled conditions. If hairdressers and the like were able to replicate those conditions, then they"d probably be able to open at a similar time but it's not practical or economically viable for individual customers to test themselves twice a week for a month so they can have a haircut at the end of it.

To be fair, everyone takes every bit of PR guff from the Government as gospel when they're trying to scare the **** out of the Public regarding the virus.

Disagree Paul. The top of the agenda is that Clubs survive. If they can manage that, then they can decide what measures they can take to look after the fans. if Clubs go to the wall, there'll be nothing left for their fans to go and watch in socially distanced conditions or "normal ones".

Great Argument. "If we don't come out of lockdown fast or completely enough everything will go belly up, so football may as well do so as well." So in that scenario, two wrongs DO make a right!

Not sure where your anxiety is coming from really Paul, rightly or wrongly I fear it will be a very long time before fans are allowed back in grounds under conditions we used to consider "normal".

Don't understand your argument at all here Stuart, football restarting and the rest of nor lives getting back to normal are mutually exclusive. Neither is affected by the other so if it's a choice between getting back to some semblance of normality with some football behind closed doors, it's surely better than getting back to exactly the same semblance of normality but without any football at all. Football is returning primarily not for entertainment value but because it is fighting for its future.The Bundesliga were quite candid in admitting that half of their top flight Clubs would go bust if they did not complete their fixtures and thereby fulfill their commitments to TV Companies. In the Premier League many of our top flight Clubs would be struggling if they couldn't finish their fixtures , they'd potentially be looking at having to repay c£35m each. That money will generally already have been budgeted for and spent so if top flight Clubs started folding because the TV money is gone there's no hope whatsoever for the Clubs lower down the Pyramid. At least if the Clubs at the top of the game are secure, you'd imagine that there's a chance more money might be able to percolate down to the lower levels until fans are finally allowed back into stadiums.

Exactly. As far as I can tell, it's never been in dispute that any player should be able to refuse to play. There doesn't however seem to have been much suggestion to date that players should not be paid if they do refuse which clearly isn't right. Any normal member of the Public taking that stance would only get SSP and there's no reason why footballers should be a special case.

By putting it in those terms he's getting his shot across the bows in early making it look like Watford are the bad guys if they refuse to pay him. Like I say, I've never seen the slightest suggestion that any player Deeney or otherwise, will be forced to play if they feel unhappy with it, so I'm not sure where the issue arises.

That's a glass half empty or glass half full sort of situation. I'd say it was incredibly positive in that less than 1% of the 748 tests on players and staff carried out were positive and that that probably mirrors the situation within the general population. It proves the tests are working and those six people can self isolate for seven days then crack on free of any further worry. It would be far more worrying if tests had revealed no cases, that would tend to indicate the tests weren't working. The Bundesliga apparently had not too dissimilar results in their first round of testing, 10 positive tests out of 1700. That probably reflected the situation in their Country as well.

I'm sure that is a case of Deeney simply trying to justify his position and that he isn't so incredibly stupid he doesn't realise the difference. The fact you can't go for a haircut isn't a pretty regulation brought in to penalise Deeney in particular or footballers in general , it applies to everyone. If Deeney returns to play he'll be in a sanitised environment coming into contact with other players and staff who have been tested over a period and been shown not to have the virus therefore there's exceptionally little risk. If hairdressers were open, Anyone going to a hairdresser has not been tested for the virus, nor do they know if the hairdresser has it, nor do they know if any other customers have it. All the difference in the world although there will come a point when people have to take that sort of risk in general.

I'm going to have to rain on the Deeney love in I'm afraid, he's had plenty to say on the issue but I'm not aware anyone has said players will be forced back to play against their will so I'm not really sure what his problem is, many players will want to be returning to play. Also after many years as a highly paid Premier League or Championshio footballer he's preaching from an ivory tower on the issue of going skint, he's highly unlikely to ever be short of a bob or two, Watford are far more likely to go bust before he does. Apparently he also originally said that he would have no problem returning to phase one of training but when push came to shove he has refused to do so. All he needed to do was say " The health of my son is paramount therefore I won't personally be returning until I'm satisfied that conditions place my son at no risk. However I appreciate that this is not fair on my Club therefore I will not be taking any pay until I return." and I'm sure most people would have applauded him for putting his son first. Bet he hasn't offered to dock his pay though. If he has, my apologies to him.

For the minimal difference in revenue it would make it would be better PR to make it free entry for all to show the Club stood shoulder to shoulder with everyone etc. As long as you thereafter sorted out ST holders.

John Williams was always of that view based on the Club's analysis of people who had let their season ticket lapse. The analysis showed that relatively few people ever returned (at least as ST holders) if they let it go. His view was we are creatures of habit who get used to and are quite happy doing other things once we stop doing something.

Partially disagree, as long as Rovers survive, 'm not going to come to any harm if there's no football for the next five years - I'd rather my favourite Pubs and Restaurants reopened before football, but when the game does restart I'd say the only thing that matters is that we carried on from where we left off to maintain the integrity of the competition. Obviously Clubs lower down the Football League can't afford to complete fixtures behind closed doors so that's just unfortunate and inevitable but not the ideal scenario. Quite where that leaves them for next season when the situation regarding fans is unlikely to be much different is anyone's guess. I still don't think most people appreciate the magnitude of the Crisis facing the game. Many think it's a case of people unreasonably wanting footballers to put their health on the line for their entertainment. It's a lot more serious than that, all but the richest few Clubs at the top of each domestic League face a desperate battle for survival. And even though they are ahead of us regarding the virus in Germany even the Bundesliga have made no bones about the situation regarding their return warning half their top flight Clubs would go bust if they did not return behind closed doors and fulfill their fixtures and contractual obligations to TV Companies.

I would expect that as well given everyone seems to be so overly risk averse to coming out of lockdown.

Spot on, this argument that football is somehow stopping key workers from getting tests by paying for them from a different private source is absolute nonsense. If the NHS had the option to use said private tests they probably wouldn't take it as they will have a huge contract with another supplier.

Anything would be an upgrade on Walton but how can any Club even consider signing new players in the current climate? I'll settle for us still being here by the time fans are allowed back into stadiums.