|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 2, 2021 10:43:56 GMT
The only option I can see is to void the season. Woking is one of the areas affected by the SA variant , both our games against Woking are likely to be postponed. So even without the funding issues the viability of the season would be called into question. It's a pity it didn't happen before the Eastleigh game. It would have saved us lot of expense on travelling. I don't actually agree. The issue at the moment for our level of football isn't the cases but it is the funding and government support. By the time, for legal reasons, the result of this ballot is known we are more likely to be in a position where the specifics of the first stage of opening after lockdown will more than likely be known, plus the significant majority of the vulnerable population will have at least been vaccinated once. At the time of writing the season is due to end at the end of May, at which point the majority of the adult population should have received at least 1 dose of the vaccine too. By voiding the season, the clubs will need to furlough the playing staff and said scheme is due to end before the end of the season, meaning that the clubs will have to pay staff after that anyway - paying full wages for no income at all for at least a month, and possibly more depending on contracts. That in itself could potentially be more damaging to finances of the clubs than carrying on. We're in a very different position to where we were last March, where of course the season was suspended for many weeks before being called void. I can't see any reason why the season can't continue safely in the same form that has been the case for weeks, and I predict that by Easter we could well be allowed back into the ground in the same way that we were in December. It's just making sure there is enough money to get us, and the other clubs in the league, there. The current general opinion of clubs in Step 1 is that the season continues. Out of those who have spoken out so far, not one club has said "void the season". In fact the most negative has been Dover, who of course were the most vulnerable at the start of the season, placing their entire first team squad on a free transfer list, who have said "League can't continue without funding". And there is the crux of the issue - money. This is why it's important to lobby as hard as we can, and I still urge people to write to their MP. It doesn't matter if your MP isn't the MP of Sutton United. They represent you, and if you want the government to rethink their policy, the mechanism to do it is via your MP. With the resources that clubs at our level and the level below have, it's actually pretty amazing that we've got so far into the season with all the things going on around it. |
|
foxtrot
Youth Team Player
Red Oxide rules
Posts: 208
|
Post by foxtrot on Feb 2, 2021 12:03:45 GMT
The safety of the players is not the issue. It is the transmission of the virus. The players and staff all have families possibly some with children at school or partners having to work. The vaccine only protects the person, it does not prevent the virus being passed on. Plenty of contact during a game, I'd guess only a small chance of infection but still a chance.
I hadn't realised the furlough scheme would be ending that soon. That would cause clubs big problems. For me that poses a question. I desperately want the club to survive obviously but where is that money coming from? Government funds (i.e. Our money) won't be funds they'll be debt. If you thought the 2008 austerity was bad wait till we start paying for all this. Maybe football's bailout will be insignificant against the overall debt but there must be thousands of organisations at the same begging bowl, very many with a far better case than ours. I suppose it's a case of sign the petition and let those in charge debate the validity of the case.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477 
|
Post by trev on Feb 2, 2021 12:13:30 GMT
The safety of the players is not the issue. It is the transmission of the virus. The players and staff all have families possibly some with children at school or partners having to work. The vaccine only protects the person, it does not prevent the virus being passed on. Plenty of contact during a game, I'd guess only a small chance of infection but still a chance. I hadn't realised the furlough scheme would be ending that soon. That would cause clubs big problems. For me that poses a question. I desperately want the club to survive obviously but where is that money coming from? Government funds (i.e. Our money) won't be funds they'll be debt. If you thought the 2008 austerity was bad wait till we start paying for all this. Maybe football's bailout will be insignificant against the overall debt but there must be thousands of organisations at the same begging bowl, very many with a far better case than ours. I suppose it's a case of sign the petition and let those in charge debate the validity of the case. I do not know what evidential basis you have for saying the vaccine does not prevent virus transmission. The most up to date epidemiological research I have seen confirms that the extent to which the vaccine prevents transmission is currently unknown. Indeed, the government's own website (last updated 25 January 2021) confirms as follows: "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus, but we do expect it to reduce this risk." [emphasis added]www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#:~:text=The%20vaccine%20cannot%20give%20you,to%20reduce%20this%20risk. |
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496
|
Post by tonyd on Feb 2, 2021 12:22:58 GMT
The safety of the players is not the issue. It is the transmission of the virus. The players and staff all have families possibly some with children at school or partners having to work. The vaccine only protects the person, it does not prevent the virus being passed on. Plenty of contact during a game, I'd guess only a small chance of infection but still a chance. I hadn't realised the furlough scheme would be ending that soon. That would cause clubs big problems. For me that poses a question. I desperately want the club to survive obviously but where is that money coming from? Government funds (i.e. Our money) won't be funds they'll be debt. If you thought the 2008 austerity was bad wait till we start paying for all this. Maybe football's bailout will be insignificant against the overall debt but there must be thousands of organisations at the same begging bowl, very many with a far better case than ours. I suppose it's a case of sign the petition and let those in charge debate the validity of the case. But surely we will be in the sunlit uplands of post-Brexit? That’s what we were promised! |
|
foxtrot
Youth Team Player
Red Oxide rules
Posts: 208
|
Post by foxtrot on Feb 2, 2021 12:37:37 GMT
The safety of the players is not the issue. It is the transmission of the virus. The players and staff all have families possibly some with children at school or partners having to work. The vaccine only protects the person, it does not prevent the virus being passed on. Plenty of contact during a game, I'd guess only a small chance of infection but still a chance. I hadn't realised the furlough scheme would be ending that soon. That would cause clubs big problems. For me that poses a question. I desperately want the club to survive obviously but where is that money coming from? Government funds (i.e. Our money) won't be funds they'll be debt. If you thought the 2008 austerity was bad wait till we start paying for all this. Maybe football's bailout will be insignificant against the overall debt but there must be thousands of organisations at the same begging bowl, very many with a far better case than ours. I suppose it's a case of sign the petition and let those in charge debate the validity of the case. I do not know what evidential basis you have for saying the vaccine does not prevent virus transmission. The most up to date epidemiological research I have seen confirms that the extent to which the vaccine prevents transmission is currently unknown. Indeed, the government's own website (last updated 25 January 2021) confirms as follows: "We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus, but we do expect it to reduce this risk." [emphasis added]www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-what-to-expect-after-vaccination/what-to-expect-after-your-covid-19-vaccination#:~:text=The%20vaccine%20cannot%20give%20you,to%20reduce%20this%20risk. Very glad to hear that. I'm less concerned now.( Sorry re reading this it sounded sarcastic it wasn't meant to be) |
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 2, 2021 13:23:18 GMT
As Trev said, there is an expectation that a vaccine will reduce transmission. In very simple terms, when you get the virus it can reproduce in your body. If you've been vaccinated then that reproduction is slowed and eventually stopped quicker than if you've not as it gives your body a head start to attack it. Therefore less virus leads to less chance of spreading. The government and the scientists have been quite cagey (and rightly so in my opinion) to say that it reduces that chance for two reasons - one, they need the scientific data to back that up and two, they need to make sure the message goes out that people shouldn't be free to "act as normal", because even though there is a reduced risk, there is still a risk. But virtually every vaccine that has even been created has reduced that risk simply because there will be less of the stuff around. In one specific high profile example, this sort of mass vaccination programme made Smallpox extinct.
Being vaccinated will reduce the spread. We just don't know how much by yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Feb 2, 2021 15:59:51 GMT
Given that elite football is an occupation that necessitates coming into close proximity with others on a regular basis, my personal view is that footballers and staff should be accorded priority in receiving vaccinations, to enable them to complete the season safely and securely. However, I suspect that such a measure may well prove beyond the collective wit and wisdom of the powers that be... The thing is, even though football is vital to a lot of people's mental health and wellbeing, it's not an essential occupation that society would quickly shut down without. I say this because even though they're prioritised, a large proportion of care workers haven't even been offered the vaccine yet and obviously those people ought to go before footballers. Even if you did prioritise them, it would be a while before it reached them. |
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Feb 2, 2021 16:22:09 GMT
Fair point, although the reason I focussed on footballers is because it's one of the few professions I can think of where their occupation entails a conspicuous absence of social distancing/ppe. Have to say, these days I wince every time I see a pile-on goal celebration.
|
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Feb 2, 2021 16:50:10 GMT
True - but there are a LOT of health and social care workers, carers of young children who need help with things like going to the toilet, and other essential professions that require close physical contact. There might not be a lot of those categories but those categories do contain an awful lot of people!
Then there are all the other close-contact professions that aren't necessarily seen as essential but are still important to a lot of people. Hairdressers and beauticians, alternative therapy workers (such as osteopaths), masseurs, sex workers, to name but a few!
I just can't see footballers getting any particular priority sadly
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Feb 2, 2021 17:03:27 GMT
Hmmm.. I can think of several other situations in which footballers have been positioned behind sex workers, but this is a family forum so I'm saying nothing!
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Feb 2, 2021 17:06:29 GMT
But in all seriousness, you are quite right to highlight those other categories of workers, although there are certain things which some of them can do in order to ahem, practice their trade more safely. I will say no more.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Feb 3, 2021 9:54:59 GMT
Very glad to hear that. I'm less concerned now.( Sorry re reading this it sounded sarcastic it wasn't meant to be) More very encouraging news about the Oxford vaccine's success in reducing the spread of transmission - it's about time we had some good news to celebrate (last night's excellent win aside)! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55913913 |
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 5, 2021 15:06:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Feb 5, 2021 16:33:05 GMT
From following those sides in our division that have expressed their voting intentions, there is only one team so far (Kings Lynn) who want to end the season. Yeovil have asked for a possible delay, but all of the others that have expressed a preference have not only voted to continue the season, but have also voted that the VNL and the VNLN/S decide their own fates.
It's looking like there is a majority to end the seasons in the step 2 leagues, with around 6 or so clubs voting to carry on (Ebbsfleet, Welling, Fylde, Telford, Gloucester and Dorking). Some sides are refusing to play, including Bath who are due to play Ebbsfleet on Saturday, and the latter is suggesting they help with some of the costs so the game can take place.
If it carries on in this direction and there's no major change in sentiment, I get the feeling Dover and Barnet are going to be very lucky this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by garethl on Feb 5, 2021 18:04:00 GMT
Yea seems pretty clear the season is done in NLS/NLN short of last minute u-turn on funding. Even if they are dragged along in resolution 4 they’ll just be too many clubs who will outright refuse to play.
If no relegation I hope we don’t see clubs at bottom light a match to their budget and play kids. Though financially that would almost be a no brainer.
|
|
