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.

Sorry, that's absolute nonsense. How are you going to catch the virus by being in close proximity to someone who doesn't have the virus? People outside or down at the supermarket don't have the same luxury of being able to be tested several times per week. Neither will the surroundings be disinfected to the same degree within an inch of their lives. If players don't wish to play because of vulnerable relatives at home then they should be able to opt out but shouldn't expect to be paid for the privilege. In exactly the same way anyone "normal" who has to continue to work but who refuses to do so would not get paid but would only receive £92 p.w. SSP or whatever it is. I don't think a lot of commentators grasp the enormity of the potential crisis facing football. Those who don't seem to think it will ever be safe to come back in the absence of a vaccine accuse those who want to see the game back on of wanting players to put their bodies or lives on the line for their entertainment. There is an element of that of course as we all enjoy the game but first and foremost, Clubs have to survive so that the players who don't want to play now have a job to go back to in due course. Ironically, the main reason the Clubs have to come back earlier than they might otherwise have to is to pay these self same players who seem to think their income should remain the same apart from a few minor wage deferrals even though their Clubs' revenue has been decimated and is likely to be for some time.

I'd go a bit further. Why should the taxpayer fund (an often multimillionaire) footballer who refuses to play. Any agreement should be along the lines that whilst the Club won't object if the player wishes to withhold their services due to the exceptional circumstances, they won't be paid for the relevant period.

Oh come on, the chances of any player dying as a result of football returning is not actually zero, but is so infinitessily small as to not be worth bothering about. They'd be at far more risk by going down to the shops or supermarket.

Indeed, it was a gamble that backfired but at the time everyone was cockahoop thinking we'd put one over on Ferguson and Man Ure.

Great player at Arsenal, Very good at United, I thought he was terrible at Rovers. I spoke about him once to Terry Ibbotson our former Chief Exec at the time. He was as diplomatic as possible but I got the impression he was very disappointed with Stapleton as well.

May be wrong but I thought Kidd signed Ward and Blake. Other dross like £7m Davies, £6m Dahlin, £5m Dailly and Darren Peacock were Hodgson's brainchilds unless my memory is failing me. You're right we had an abysmal run for about nine months under Hodgson from Christmas up until the time he was sacked the following season which would have translated into relegation had it happened over a single season.

For me Everyone's looking back at Hodgson with way too rose tinted glasses. The problem imo was that he brought in a load of dross and split the dressing room down the middle between the remnants of the Premier League winning team who had always done the business and the new arrivals who didn't. I was told at the time that Sherwood was particularly upset that he was on c 12k p.w. and a dolloper like Dahlin who was brought in for £6m was suddenly on 20k. Fine if Dahlin is doing the business but not if he isn't, and especially more so when he's swinging the lead and never off the treatment table. Sherwood asked for a pay rise to bring him into something approaching parity. Uncle Jack said no as Sherwood had only signed a new contract 6-9 months previously. You can understand both their points of view but with the benefit of hindsight I think the most pragmatic decision would have been to give Sherwood a pay rise, avoid relegation and sell him the following summer. The players were I understand also unhappy about extra training sessions introduced by Hosgson taking the view that the sessions did nothing to aid fitness as they were already fit, but merely served to wear them out and exacerbate a bad injury crisis we had at the time. I've always thought Hodgson performs well when there is no real expectation on him to perform at places like Fulham and WBA but if the pressure is on him to succeed he fails miserably ie at Jack Walker's Blackburn, Liverpool and England. I felt sorry for Kidd after he came in. Lacked experience as a no 1 but the players let him down desperately badly and I think that led to Uncle Jack bawling the players out and accusing them of getting Kidd the sack as a poster alluded to above.