Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

All Swedish models appeal to me

It’s a load of crap and if people don’t believe it’s real, got yourselves scrubbed up and on the ICU at Calderdale Royal, then tell us it isn’t real.

It's not even a party political issue for me. It's about Johnson and those he chose to surround himself with (and the reasons they're there). I can disagree ideologically with Conservatives but am gro

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Wilder Bollox said:

We'd probably need a thousand per game at the ridiculously expensive £20 or 2 thousand per game at the almost acceptable £10

And as has already been pointed out, we are not going to see a household buy multiple streams. It would be stupid for anyone to do so if someone in their household already has it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Flea said:

And as has already been pointed out, we are not going to see a household buy multiple streams. It would be stupid for anyone to do so if someone in their household already has it. 

The big stop gap will be away fans buying to stream the game at The Shay. Likewise how many Town fans would travel to Woking to watch us play against potentially streaming online - Woking will be better off as will we when far more Woking fans pay to stream the game at the shay against how many would pay on the gate.

For it to work, Home teams must take all streaming earnings. So when we stream Torquay away, they get the money just as we will when Torquay fans stream the game at the Shay.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ash said:

The big stop gap will be away fans buying to stream the game at The Shay. Likewise how many Town fans would travel to Woking to watch us play against potentially streaming online - Woking will be better off as will we when far more Woking fans pay to stream the game at the shay against how many would pay on the gate.

For it to work, Home teams must take all streaming earnings. So when we stream Torquay away, they get the money just as we will when Torquay fans stream the game at the Shay.

While I agree, I expect it will be like the efl and they will cap away fans to an amount of 3-500 of which the home team can claim money from. Which means i imagine we would lose out substantially against the notts county’s, stockports and Wrexham’s of the league. Whom would probably have 1000’s of streamers. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, shaymen down under said:

While I agree, I expect it will be like the efl and they will cap away fans to an amount of 3-500 of which the home team can claim money from. Which means i imagine we would lose out substantially against the notts county’s, stockports and Wrexham’s of the league. Whom would probably have 1000’s of streamers. 
 

 

Surely the question is how many Town fans will stream away games of which there are 23 (or22) in a season. If the limit is 300 for the home club providing the stream and the away team gets the rest wouldn’t we be better off with that model? We could have 500 x £10 every away game. £5k x 22 = £110k. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shaymandownsouff said:

For those that can remember the latest accounts, what was the most recent annual expenditure for the club?

they are "abridged" accounts so don't show revenue and income. We do know we lost about £170k (18/19)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riders of Rohan said:

Surely the question is how many Town fans will stream away games of which there are 23 (or22) in a season. If the limit is 300 for the home club providing the stream and the away team gets the rest wouldn’t we be better off with that model? We could have 500 x £10 every away game. £5k x 22 = £110k. 

We would only get 200 of the 500 or so. If the limit is only 300. But still a £1000 a an away game, will go a decent way to covering some of the costs for accommodation/travel etc for away games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 12:27 PM, greg45 said:

Yet Boris and co are trying to scaremonger everyone into believing we must take these types of actions "because of what we see in France and Spain". I guess he assumes the general public isn't even capable of googling actual data.

If you Google 'coronavirus stats' it immediately brings up graphs, which you can sort by either cases or deaths, for any country you choose to select. Obviously not all countries count things the same way, have full data etc. - but it tells you that for yesterday/the most recent date they have:

France had 10,008 new cases, and 78 deaths.

Spain had 14,389 new cases, and 90 deaths.

So pray tell Boris what that tell us? It tells me that we should be worried about deaths more than we should cases, and that he is lying out of his backside trying to legitimise our measures based on what is happening in France and Spain, given they don't exactly seem to be in massive trouble with it.

The problem is that we don’t yet know the long term side effects of the virus. Yes, deaths are low and the vast majority of people do recover, but to what extent? It’s not just a case of you either die or are 100% fine afterwards, there’s a whole scale in between.

A family friend of ours had it early on in lockdown - around 60, retired doctor, very healthy otherwise, took care of herself, and she had it like a bad flu. Not enough to go to hospital, but still pretty bad. It’s been about 6 months since she officially ‘recovered’ but is still feeling the after effects. In her own words, if she hadn’t retired already she would have needed to take 6 months sick leave from work, and counting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riders of Rohan said:

Surely the question is how many Town fans will stream away games of which there are 23 (or22) in a season. If the limit is 300 for the home club providing the stream and the away team gets the rest wouldn’t we be better off with that model? We could have 500 x £10 every away game. £5k x 22 = £110k. 

Uefa have said home teams will keep all monies from streaming according to Notts county

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 11:25 PM, Wilder Bollox said:

We'd probably need a thousand per game at the ridiculously expensive £20 or 2 thousand per game at the almost acceptable £10

I would pay £10 to stream games, and would maybe have got to 1 or 2 home games max this season, so any games that I stream is ‘bonus’ money for the club really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steve lumb said:

they are "abridged" accounts so don't show revenue and income. We do know we lost about £170k (18/19)

So probably about 800k plus to be found through the season...

On that basis and a £10 stream cost (assuming no tax or costs) that’s 3,300 streams a game required to meet that. It just isn’t going to happen.

Gonna need to be a big bailout by the govt..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riccardo259 said:

The problem is that we don’t yet know the long term side effects of the virus. Yes, deaths are low and the vast majority of people do recover, but to what extent? It’s not just a case of you either die or are 100% fine afterwards, there’s a whole scale in between.

A family friend of ours had it early on in lockdown - around 60, retired doctor, very healthy otherwise, took care of herself, and she had it like a bad flu. Not enough to go to hospital, but still pretty bad. It’s been about 6 months since she officially ‘recovered’ but is still feeling the after effects. In her own words, if she hadn’t retired already she would have needed to take 6 months sick leave from work, and counting.

Hearing more and more stories about 'Long Covid'. File on 4 covered it recently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mczc

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riccardo259 said:

The problem is that we don’t yet know the long term side effects of the virus. Yes, deaths are low and the vast majority of people do recover, but to what extent? It’s not just a case of you either die or are 100% fine afterwards, there’s a whole scale in between.

A family friend of ours had it early on in lockdown - around 60, retired doctor, very healthy otherwise, took care of herself, and she had it like a bad flu. Not enough to go to hospital, but still pretty bad. It’s been about 6 months since she officially ‘recovered’ but is still feeling the after effects. In her own words, if she hadn’t retired already she would have needed to take 6 months sick leave from work, and counting.

I (obviously) cannot and do not disagree with anything you are saying, nor do I think the long term effects that some people get are not important.

But we live in a country of over 65 million people - there is very little chance of catching the virus, even if you catch it you might not get symptoms, if you get symptoms then there is (taking the worst case age group) a 95% survival rate, so on and so on.

As with all walks of life and types of illness/injury/accident there will always be horrible stories on small scales and when someone brings them into a debate it's very difficult to argue the opposite point of view as one is simply accused of "not caring about someone dying, being ill etc. etc.".

I agree there is a lot they don't know about the virus - so it just comes down to how risk averse people are willing to be - you can lockdown etc. for how ever many years it takes to fully understand the virus, on the basis of "if it turns out there's lots of terrible things we don't know then it was worth it", on the other hand you can say "if we lockdown for 2, 3 years and then we find out that actually the virus wasn't quite as bad as we thought it might be, but in the meantime tens of thousands of people have died of other diseases that they otherwise might not have, and hundreds of thousands of people have severe mental health and anxiety issues etc. etc.".

As will all debates there will be people on both sides of that fence. My only wish would be that people on both sides of the fence are actually willing to discuss and understand the other side - as ever in this country most are totally incapable of that. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, greg45 said:

I (obviously) cannot and do not disagree with anything you are saying, nor do I think the long term effects that some people get are not important.

But we live in a country of over 65 million people - there is very little chance of catching the virus, even if you catch it you might not get symptoms, if you get symptoms then there is (taking the worst case age group) a 95% survival rate, so on and so on.

As with all walks of life and types of illness/injury/accident there will always be horrible stories on small scales and when someone brings them into a debate it's very difficult to argue the opposite point of view as one is simply accused of "not caring about someone dying, being ill etc. etc.".

I agree there is a lot they don't know about the virus - so it just comes down to how risk averse people are willing to be - you can lockdown etc. for how ever many years it takes to fully understand the virus, on the basis of "if it turns out there's lots of terrible things we don't know then it was worth it", on the other hand you can say "if we lockdown for 2, 3 years and then we find out that actually the virus wasn't quite as bad as we thought it might be, but in the meantime tens of thousands of people have died of other diseases that they otherwise might not have, and hundreds of thousands of people have severe mental health and anxiety issues etc. etc.".

As will all debates there will be people on both sides of that fence. My only wish would be that people on both sides of the fence are actually willing to discuss and understand the other side - as ever in this country most are totally incapable of that. 

Almost 1 in 1,000 Brits have died since the pandemic was declared, over and above what would normally have been expected for the same period. Not all have been ascribed to Covid-19 but this figure represents the 'excess' deaths. I'm not discounting the notion that it would be better to carry on as normal and accept that some people will die, I can't in good conscience argue either way, but I do wonder at what figure of excess deaths does everyone accept that a lockdown is necessary? 5 in 1,000? 10 in 1,000? 50? 100? I just wonder if we'd be having the same discussion if excess deaths had reached 100,000 or 250,000 instead of the shockingly high figure of 60,000+ - which, imo, is not being given the attention it deserves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

Almost 1 in 1,000 Brits have died since the pandemic was declared, over and above what would normally have been expected for the same period. Not all have been ascribed to Covid-19 but this figure represents the 'excess' deaths. I'm not discounting the notion that it would be better to carry on as normal and accept that some people will die, I can't in good conscience argue either way, but I do wonder at what figure of excess deaths does everyone accept that a lockdown is necessary? 5 in 1,000? 10 in 1,000? 50? 100? I just wonder if we'd be having the same discussion if excess deaths had reached 100,000 or 250,000 instead of the shockingly high figure of 60,000+ - which, imo, is not being given the attention it deserves.

Very hard to say isn’t it. The ONS have specifically said that not all the excess deaths are due to deaths from COVID-19. So even within that figure you need to try and interrogate why those excess deaths have occurred - and frankly that relies on an understanding of what would generally cause excess deaths in a given year anyway, something I imagine very few people in the country would be aware of and capable of doing (me included).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is obviously an issue with how deaths are recorded. If someone dies and within the previous 28 days they had tested positive for Covid then they become another one added onto the list - whether Covid was the main reason for their death, a contributing factor or unrelated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 12:38 PM, Bubba said:

There is obviously an issue with how deaths are recorded. If someone dies and within the previous 28 days they had tested positive for Covid then they become another one added onto the list - whether Covid was the main reason for their death, a contributing factor or unrelated.

I have said this previously, you get tested positive,  a few days later you get knocked over by a bus and subsequently die in hospital, what goes on the death certificate, and which set of statistics does the computer put you in?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ITMAN said:

I have said this previously, you get tested positive,  a few days later you get knocked over by a bus and subsequently die in hospital, what goes on the death certificate, and which set of statistics does the computer put you in?

If you’ve tested positive for covid what are you doing going out and putting yourself in the situation where you can get hit by a bus?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, riccardo259 said:

If you’ve tested positive for covid what are you doing going out and putting yourself in the situation where you can get hit by a bus?

They might do a test on them when thry're admitted into hospital or take blood when they die and see if Covid is in there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, riccardo259 said:

If you’ve tested positive for covid what are you doing going out and putting yourself in the situation where you can get hit by a bus?

OK, stretch the few days to 14, and you should be over it but still would have been positive within the last 28 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...