I'm not in the least bit bothered about a refund myself. It's not Rovers fault they were ordered to stop the normal season. I was anticipating that given the fact the Club can't really afford to give refunds, if they were given now they'd be clawed back by means of a corresponding increase for those who did renew next season. And then some. And if they weren't given now they'd be clawed back anyway in the form of an "unavoidable" increase next season.

Great news about being allowed to socialise outside with a small group as from Monday. I think something like this should have been brought in the last time the restrictions were reviewed but better late than never. I think that by being thick, Cummings has unwittingly done us all the most massive favour imaginable as the Government seem to be throwing us bones in the form of easing of lockdown to cheer us up and divert attention away from the farcical handling of the Cummings issue.

The players will be tested, one or two others may have caught it in which case they will self isolate and make a full recovery within seven days. If any other players do catch it and pass it on to their families, then they will also make a swift and full recovery in the absence of any underlying health conditions.

Question wasn't directed at me so apologies for butting in, but absolutely. Any players found to have the virus can self isolate for seven days then resume as normal. Absolutely not a problem. If it was the situation that we still had two or three players self isolating by the time the games actually restart then that wouldn't really be a great deal different to any normal season when Clubs had players unavailable through injury and suspension. We can sit here wringing our hands forever and come up with excuses about how we can't restart football or not open this type of business or this type of shop. However it is not realistic in the absence of a vaccine to expect no cases of the virus so if you take it to the nth degree and refuse to do anything because a few people are contracting the virus here and there, nothing will ever re-start or re-open.

I really don't understand the argument against football coming back, it's an absolute no brainer. 1) There's no doubt that the primary reason Clubs are coming back is money but they aren't coming back purely to line their own pockets, in the vast majority of cases they're coming back to try and ensure their very survival. 2) On the sporting integrity issue, if you take the view that crowds can't be allowed back into grounds yet, there is no perfect solution which is as fair as it was pre lockdown. Playing the fixtures out in full behind closed doors if finances allow is the least worst option. Finishing the season now, extrapolating the final positions out on a points pet game basis, then holding play offs as normal to decide on promotion and relegation is the next least worst option for me followed by doing the same only without the play offs. The least desirable and most unfair option is imo just scrapping the season and declaring all results null and void. That means if you've had a belting season all your effort has been for nothing and if you've stuck the place out, you've got away with it Scott free. Other non-essential businesses are now being expected to return on the 15th of June and the employees there don't have the luxury of being fully screened for any underlying health conditions and regularly tested that top footballers have. The only possible argument against football returning is that it diverts resources away from other areas and I can't see that there's any problem now with the availability of tests, if there is one, more the mechanics of getting the tests to people and processing the results.

Not perfect but nowhere near as unfair as ending a season on paper according to a mathematical formula.

We'll have to beg to differ. I haven't seen tonight's game (yet) e but I don't get any feeling of proceedings being less important because there isn't a crowd there. Maybe I'd have to see a Rovers game behind closed doors to decide fully. One or 2 commentators have said that since the return there's been much less rolling about trying to feign injury and harassing and back chatting the ref. Maybe players have realised there's more important things going on than trying to cheat at the moment.

When Madame's husband got a snowball in the gob? Damned if they do, damned if they don't on this one. You can't really blame them for not wanting to put up with crap like that and if they take the view that in general (like roversfan99) people will either never forgive them or aren't interested in anything they do or say, they might be justified in keeping a low profile and letting the people they pay to run the Club get on with it. Personally, I'd rather they were at games regularly and we heard a bit more from them about what they were thinking. But I think it's only reasonable to expect that if people were prepared to draw a line in the sand and judge them on what they're doing now rather than on mistakes made years ago.

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.