I'd sooner risk say season ticket holders being allowed in the NYS in September than being sat in a beer garden with the smokers.
I think doing neither is an option
So when they open beer gardens up there'll be no smoking? To me lockdown it's all or nothing. What's difference to beaches & parks not keeping to social distancing & crowds being allowed in football matches. There'll be in the open air. As TH says don't open the pubs up around the grounds.
I don't understand the reasoning behind your 'to me lockdown it's all or nothing' feeling. Clearly, there are degrees of restriction. There was never ever going to be a situation where one day we were in total lockdown and the next back to normal. That can't happen.
I would also suggest that the freedom to do something does not mean that you have to do it. When the beer gardens open, it will be perfectly lawful to not visit them. You have that choice. I for one doubt that I will be visiting any pubs or restaurants (inside or out) for several months to come. Someone else posted recently that this pandemic has created scarring that will live with many people for a long time to come, and I agree with that.
The obvious difference between beaches/parks and sports stadia is the way that they are set out. Generally speaking, people can access a safe spot on a beach or in a park without having to negotiate flights of stairs and extremely narrow rows of streets. Every time I go to my seat in the West Stand I have to shuffle past at least a dozen people who sit on the same row. Unless they adopt a 'one person, one row' strategy (which would give us a capacity of about five hundred) that might be an issue. As soon as you get to, say, using one seat in three - and presumably with nobody sitting directly in front of or behind anyone else - you have real potential for non-distancing and still only have a four thousand capacity at most.
Much as I have missed going to the matches, I will not be taking any risks for the sake of rushing back.
Back to OP there seems to be another suggestion being made now for an extended play off that would include 8 teams (us and Coventry still up auto) to pander to the cry babies who were going to miss out. I think it's nonsense and should be the 4 clubs in those places 3-6 when they have decided on the formula to use. Can't even see how they will fit in the games given it will take a month to get players match fit and then a week between games and final. Also seems incredibly unfair given they haven't kicked a ball since March and all form and fitness is lost. Just picking 123 to go up would have been more fair imo.
Said that from the start top 3 in league 1 when this season was suspended should be promoted if this season is cancelled. Crazy playing play-offs when there's no plan to restart for any sides in this league. There's calls for no relegations but bottom 2 in this league are relegated in all but confirmed so on merit that should be the case.
Reading today. League 1 State of play. Play-offs expected by end of June. EFL chiefs have given clubs until 2pm today to agree to a proposal to promote Coventry & Rotherham with Bolton, Sothend & Tranmere relegated & a four-team play-off. D-Day is Monday.
Will we hear anything today I doubt it what I have seen in the paper EFL are pushing for that proposal. As for not going anywhere been to Wicks can't get in the carpark rammed coming back a couple who live on my street risking it on the bus. I will get my season ticket all you have to do is what the real leader of this country unelected Mr. ***mings says I am going to watch the game I need to test my eyesight I might have to drive to B&Q donny sorted.
Tranmere are proposing a margin of error added to ppg whereby sides can only be automatically promoted or relegated when that is applied. Tranmere their argument is they are 3 pts behind Wimbledon with a game in hand for the last relegation place. Problem is Tranmere have a worse GD than Wimbledon. So if that got passed Roth U can't go up. Wycombe would be on the same no. of points with their game in hand. Another distraction to what appears to be getting more complicated the longer it goes on.
Gwru the Tranmere proposal would still have us promoted with Coventry or so I believe even with the marginal error method.
The proposal also extended the play offs to around 8th or 9th place and would see Tranmere stay up with Southend and Bolton getting relegated and an extra team being promoted from League Two.
Just been reading the Tranmere proposal. How I read it just Coventry go up automatic. Roth U would be one of 8 or 9 sides in the play-offs from which 2 are promoted. 2 sides are relegated from League 1. Dafter things have happened! If that is being considered could be a close vote against EFL proposal.
Could Rotherham play Doncaster we are currently 2nd and they are 9th. I can see the courts being busy Anyway with with our manager and elite team of athletes no problem. If we have to play make the rest of div1 pay our costs going to get messy.
Tranmere's proposal promotes us. However, Peterboro's amendment to Tranmere's proposal puts us in the playoffs.
It doesn't actually matter, the League One season is finished and we will be promoted on 9th June (should have been 8th June but the ELF didn't manage to get the voting information out on time). Our promotion is entirely fair. We are the only club to have been in a promotion spot throughout 2020 and just before the football stopped, the bookies had Coventry and the Millers as odds-on favourites for automatic promotion with Oxford at 2-1 and Peterborough bringing up the rear at 6-1.
I haven't a clue what is going on from what I understand the meeting on Monday is to change the regulations and all 71 clubs vote on it. Then there is another vote on Tuesday to vote on the proposals how it will go is anyone's guess. I am going for another lie down my head hurts.
We will be up and no amendment will be allowed that drags the club in second into the plat off pot; if that is the case then Coventry would also need to be in it as they might have been in front but could have easily slipped back - all hypothesis but that's all you can go on if you discount 1) league position at termination, 2) AVG PPG and 3) Weighted PPG. You either have an algorithm that looks at the data and decides or you allow personal opinion on what might have happened obviously biased by each club to their own fortune or predicament. If PTFC or anyone else is allowed to obfuscate the clear and fair rules suggested by the FA then we are bug gered.
Send Mr Mcanthony to a hospital and a care home football is not very high on the pecking order. Have seen the proposals have given up on it just end the season move on. As our chairman has said the people at the top of the EFL are very well paid earn your money this is going to drag on and on and on. If they have this vote next week put it on the telly we could all do with a good laugh.
Its irresponsible in the extreme from MacAnthony. We have kicked the butt of this disease so massively that we have the worst death toll in Europe and 250 people a day are still dying from it. It also has the potential to flare up again if we arent very careful. He should be ashamed of himself. Tranmere are being better than that, but their proposal isnt good either. You cant start introducing ifs and buts, margins of error and weighted points per game etc. It's got to be decided on what is known, not what might have been. Unfortunately for Peterborough and Tranmere they were marginally on the wrong side of the promotion and relegation lines when the lockdown started. Being brutal about it they had thirty some games to establish the best position they could in the league and sadly for them over that number of games they weren't good enough to be where they would have liked to have been. It isnt ideal but that's how it is and they need to live with it.
