Will football survive Covid-19?

[KM Red]

Originally Posted by Haruki

I’m thinking that If the WST maintain full control of WST assets Ltd then that safeguards the racecourse lease and the WST can bill the club on a cost recovery / zero profit basis.
We could then look for some duality in the ownership of Wrexham FC with the Trust owning 50% and one or a collection of private partners owning the other 50%. This gives us some commercial thinking, new ideas and two parties to check each other’s impulses as well as challenge each other’s thinking. The WST maintaining ownership of 50% provides a reasonable security blanket over the future of the club.
I see this solution as giving us the best of both worlds.

Nice to see more good points and rational debate. I could live with 51/49 if the 49 was divided 3 or 4 ways rather than in the hands of one egotist.

[KM Red]

Originally Posted by Rob

Going back to the title of the thread - there is swab data from England that indicates one in four hundred people is infected.

Stats is more complex, but it gives an idea of how perceptions could be... would you go to a game with a crowd of 4,000 with those odds?

Further, if there were people infected such crowds could be a quick transmission method.

I did try that before but it did not go down very well. Covid 19 will have a huge impact on football and very few on here appear to have noticed yet. Do not think there is any chance of playing in front of 4,000 till Jan 21 or much later, so lots of clubs are in serious trouble no matter who owns them.

[jonesfach]

Originally Posted by Haruki

I’m thinking that If the WST maintain full control of WST assets Ltd then that safeguards the racecourse lease and the WST can bill the club on a cost recovery / zero profit basis.
We could then look for some duality in the ownership of Wrexham FC with the Trust owning 50% and one or a collection of private partners owning the other 50%. This gives us some commercial thinking, new ideas and two parties to check each other’s impulses as well as challenge each other’s thinking. The WST maintaining ownership of 50% provides a reasonable security blanket over the future of the club.
I see this solution as giving us the best of both worlds.

Very good points. Don’t think anyone is against these.

[jonesfach]

Originally Posted by KM Red

I did try that before but it did not go down very well. Covid 19 will have a huge impact on football and very few on here appear to have noticed yet. Do not think there is any chance of playing in front of 4,000 till Jan 21 or much later, so lots of clubs are in serious trouble no matter who owns them.

The football landscape might change quite a lot before we kick our next ball in anger. Hopefully for the better and not worse in our case.

[Inside Left]

Originally Posted by ruthinred

Yes definitely., as Im neither old or vulnerable

At some point, we’re going to have to leave choices to individuals rather than this blanket ban on everything

All ages are capable of receiving the virus in its forms. Very much a game of Russian roulette depending on ones genetic form. Maybe odds better if younger but all are vulnerable.
Stay safe and good luck all

[Foxy]

Originally Posted by Rob

Going back to the title of the thread - there is swab data from England that indicates one in four hundred people is infected.

Stats is more complex, but it gives an idea of how perceptions could be... would you go to a game with a crowd of 4,000 with those odds?

Further, if there were people infected such crowds could be a quick transmission method.

Yes. The virus is highly unlikely to transmit outdoors, and the vast majority of people are fine with it. The chances of something happening are much less than if I smoked heavily, drank all day long, and eat unhealthy food. People have got this bug completely out of perspective, partly because they lack common sense and intelligence and partly because government and media have spent the last 8 weeks creating a fear factor. People need to get a grip and stop shrieking “stay home stay safe” .

[ruthinred]

Originally Posted by Foxy

Yes. The virus is highly unlikely to transmit outdoors, and the vast majority of people are fine with it. The chances of something happening are much less than if I smoked heavily, drank all day long, and eat unhealthy food. People have got this bug completely out of perspective, partly because they lack common sense and intelligence and partly because government and media have spent the last 8 weeks creating a fear factor. People need to get a grip and stop shrieking “stay home stay safe” .

[krux]

Originally Posted by Rob

Going back to the title of the thread - there is swab data from England that indicates one in four hundred people is infected.

Stats is more complex, but it gives an idea of how perceptions could be... would you go to a game with a crowd of 4,000 with those odds?

Further, if there were people infected such crowds could be a quick transmission method.

I saw that headline.

Surely "99.99% of people dont have coronavirus" would have made a better headline?
Posted via mobile theme

[ABd]

Originally Posted by Foxy

The chances of something happening are much less than if I smoked heavily, drank all day long, and eat unhealthy food.

What about the chances of something happening to someone else though? Obesity isn't contagious. If you drink way too much, it doesn't increase the risk of someone else getting liver disease.

Also the chance of getting the virus isn't constant with time, unless the R number = 1. That's what lockdown is all about, getting R < 1, so the chance of getting it decreases with time, until the number of new cases is zero.

Anything more than 1 results in exponential growth, i.e. an increasing chance of getting it with time, to the point where most people would eventually have had it until herd immunity starts to kick in.

But it doesn't have to be like this, countries like South Korea and Taiwan have contained their outbreaks without lockdowns.