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.

According to the medics they do if they're 80% reliable.

Presumably though, the tests for football aren't coming from the same source as the ones the Government are using, and the Clubs are paying for them themselves so the ability of nursing homes and the NHS to obtain tests is completely unimpeded by and unaffected by anything football does. It might appear slightly unedifying but as I posted above the sport can't be expected to pay for absolutely everything and frankly it has enough on its plate already trying to ensure the professional game survives.

That's down to the Government. You can't expect football to sort out every single aspect of Society

Players seem to be too worried to play but sure as hell don't seem to see a problem about ignoring regulations and going to a party at their mates, crashing their Range Rover into a line of parked cars and fleeing the scene, partying at their house with ladies of questionable repute, or flying to Paris to party with models. And that's just the ones who were caught.

As regards the game itself, I thought it was remarkably good. As a televised viewing experience it was no less enjoyable than with a Crowd and if I was watching a Premier League game with someone beating Man Ure I would similarly enjoy it just as much. If it was Rovers, not sure if I'd enjoy it quite as much as with a crowd, but then again watching on TV with a crowd isn't as good as being there anyway. Hope the product here is similar when it comes and not butchered by too many daft Covid related regulations such as the ludicrous idea of looking away when you make a tackle.

Absolutely Stuart. 100%. I'd even question whether social distancing etc should even be a thing once you emerge from lockdown, people are referring to it "the new normal". It isn't. It's an extremely abnormal measure to cover an unprecedented situation the worst of which is now over. Either you go back to normal or you dont, I think social distancing should be a courtesy and matter of good etiquette extended wherever possible not an automatic expectation or legal requirement. Going back to the specific football example the requirement for players to socially distance on a coach is plainly ridiculous. They've all been tested and cleared to play so there's absolutely no need for them to distance between themselves.

The key to that goal was he made a great run to get into the position to score. Thereafter it doesn't matter if he made perfect contact or not or shinned it in, they all count. 2-0 now, the second was a good move.

I have no emotional investment in either side so it's hard to get too excited but I'd say the game itself is absolutely fine. The highly rated Haaland has just scored for Dortmund to put them one up. The players have obviously worked extremely hard on coming up with a socially distanced goal celebration. Also either the hairdressers are all open in Germany or the players' wives and partners are expert barbers as they all seem to have immaculately coiffeured barnets.

I'm watching it.

It's not a question of feeling "comfortable" with playing games, it's a financial consideration. If there was a chance that games could continue as normal with fans within a reasonable timeframe that would be different matter but everyone is being so overly precious about coming out of lockdown that it's likely to be a very long time, possibly the season after next.

If it's August, you could still fit both in, and if it was next March you would probably only have time to finish this season. The problem I suppose must be that League 1 and 2 Clubs can't afford to stage and play fixtures behind closed doors regardless of when they occur. I'm quite surprised that it would not cost them more in lost revenue from the TV Companies trying to claw money back for not fulfilling fixtures than it would to stage them. Their TV deals can't be very lucrative.

Please define "safe".

It's not a common sense decision, it's one forced by economic necessity. League 1 and 2 Clubs can't afford to stage matches behind closed doors or afford the testing or extra safety measures. The common sense decision would be to complete the decision if finances permit. As it's likely to be quite a long time before fans are allowed back into stadiums, I don't see how the majority of Football League Clubs survive without very substantial assistance from elsewhere.

Tests will pick up asymptomatic carriers though. That's the whole point. The only risk I can see is that one or two players might pick up the virus between the most recent test to playing and the game but I'd imagine private test results can be obtained fairly quickly and that that risk is relatively low. If we're waiting for zero risk or a vaccine before football resumes, we might still be sat here in ten years time. A satisfactory vaccine might never be developed and the virus might be something that is always with us but something we learn to live with as greater herd immunity is achieved.