Obviously still waiting for confirmation of how many fans will be able to attend and the process for allocating tickets.

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?

That is far too sensible a post.

Has it been confirmed fans will be allowed?

Waste of time and hassle in my opinion, as much as I want to go back, and I'd fit the criteria, I'll wait till next Season.

Grumps wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:23 am

Has it been confirmed fans will be allowed?

Waste of time and hassle in my opinion, as much as I want to go back, and I'd fit the criteria, I'll wait till next Season.

I’m thinking same.

We’d have waited 15mths to get back on then we’d have to wait another 3mths for the start of next season to return again

What an atmosphere that’ll be with the old folk of the Bob Lord stand……

Grumps wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:23 am

Has it been confirmed fans will be allowed?

Waste of time and hassle in my opinion, as much as I want to go back, and I'd fit the criteria, I'll wait till next Season.

Yep. Bit like the schools... months and months and months off, then go back for two weeks then have the Easter break....

Good opportunity to test the protocols for the new normal though? I understand why individual people would not bother though.

I don't think being double vaccinated was a condition for City/Spurs fans?

northeastclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:08 am

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated.

I fall into that category.

If I can get a ticket, I'll be there.

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?
[/quote]


This seems very much the current thought process of the older generation so people under 50 have been locked down and off work for over 12 months but now that the vulnerable have been jabbed they can go away on holiday attend football games etc while everyone else continues to be kept at home even though we all stayed in and stuck to rules to help the vulnerable initially all seems quickly forgotten by a few

Imagine spending 15m pounds to provide great facilities for disabled fans, so nearly everyone gets a chance to watch us.

And then going against all our inclusivity morals by suggesting you can't go if you haven't had a vaccine?

Naturalborn, we all stayed in and stuck to the rules, didn't we ? Well, most of us, and the older generations were far better at that than the younger ones.

Getting back to normal life has to begin with someone and somewhere so why not with those who pose the least threat to themselves and others ?

You'll get your turn.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:51 am

Imagine spending 15m pounds to provide great facilities for disabled fans, so nearly everyone gets a chance to watch us.

And then going against all our inclusivity morals by suggesting you can't go if you haven't had a vaccine?

That's illogical. Any disabled fan who has not been vaccinated will be kept away to protect them not punish them. I was under the impression all "at-risk" people had been vaccinated anyway.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:51 am

Imagine spending 15m pounds to provide great facilities for disabled fans, so nearly everyone gets a chance to watch us.

And then going against all our inclusivity morals by suggesting you can't go if you haven't had a vaccine?

This. Personally I won't be getting a vaccine, and if that means i can't attend so be it. I do feel it's wrong to do that though.

Loyalclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:22 am

Good opportunity to test the protocols for the new normal though? I understand why individual people would not bother though.

I don't think being double vaccinated was a condition for City/Spurs fans?

The guidelines and protocols won't be the same for next season though

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:55 am

That's illogical. Any disabled fan who has not been vaccinated will be kept away to protect them not punish them. I was under the impression all "at-risk" people had been vaccinated anyway.

I'm sure they will be grateful if they are kept away from doing something they love, for their own protection.

NaturalBornClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:39 am

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?

This seems very much the current thought process of the older generation so people under 50 have been locked down and off work for over 12 months but now that the vulnerable have been jabbed they can go away on holiday attend football games etc while everyone else continues to be kept at home even though we all stayed in and stuck to rules to help the vulnerable initially all seems quickly forgotten by a few

Of course its the mindset. Everyone has been locked down to protect the older generation, but the minute they are vaccinated they struggle to see why they should continue to be subject to the same restrictions and certainly not because of 'fairness'.

Quicken, isn't that what we've all being doing for the best part of a year ? Weddings, family gatherings, pubs, restaurants, etc...

NaturalBornClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:39 am

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?

This seems very much the current thought process of the older generation so people under 50 have been locked down and off work for over 12 months but now that the vulnerable have been jabbed they can go away on holiday attend football games etc while everyone else continues to be kept at home even though we all stayed in and stuck to rules to help the vulnerable initially all seems quickly forgotten by a few
[/quote]


What ages would you class as the "older generation"?

Don't you realise that people over 50 have also been locked down and off work now for over 12 months?

All the vulnerable who "have been jabbed" can now go away on holiday and attend football games whilst everyone else is being kept at home. Do you really believe that??

What a strange statement!

It is a fact that those who have been vaccinated are now the least risk to themselves and others so the NHS has, at last, been protected. . If stadia are opened, it is logical the least vulnerable be permitted, if anybody, to attend.
It's nothing to do with fairness, it's just how it is.
You'll just have to wait - one of the advantages of being younger, I guess...

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:13 am

It is a fact that those who have been vaccinated are now the least risk to themselves and others so the NHS has, at last, been protected. . If stadia are opened, it is logical the least vulnerable be permitted, if anybody, to attend.
It's nothing to do with fairness, it's just how it is.
You'll just have to wait - one of the advantages of being younger, I guess...

Thats not a fact at all, the young and unvaccinated are equally of no risk to themselves or the NHS, as was always overwhelmingly the case throughout this. All thats happened is the vaccinated have caught up with the young and are now at the same level of risk.

Those fans that have not been vaccinated will be able, by then, to watch the matches safely with social distancing in the miners, cricket club and other pubs near the ground to still get some of the match day experience and hear the real crowd roar rather than the artificial crowd noises on the tv.

Mealdeal,the data surrounding the vaccination programme suggests the risk to those vaccinated - we're down to the 45s now, aren't we - and the corresponding pressure on the NHS is very low.

I'm assuming the travel and entertainment industries and the scientists advising them are insisting on vaccination proof because they are not as confident as you in the the thinking that the young and old "are now at the same level".

What difference does it it make to allow those that have been vaccinated on first (I'm saying this has a person who's had both jabs)......NOTHING AT ALL, its outside with loads of fresh air and big spaces between the seats, some that haven't had the jab yet will claim discrimination.

Best way to deal with this one off game for this season is to give the few thousand tickets away for free and they go to key workers, you never know they might be a few first time visitors and they get bitten by the claret bug and attend more game's in the future.

northeastclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:08 am

Obviously still waiting for confirmation of how many fans will be able to attend and the process for allocating tickets.

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?

I'd qualify for that, so I very much doubt it will happen.

Vaccination-the panacea passport to utopia.

If it's a passport to Denia and the Turf it will do for starters.

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:30 am

Mealdeal,the data surrounding the vaccination programme suggests the risk to those vaccinated - we're down to the 45s now, aren't we - and the corresponding pressure on the NHS is very low.

And that was always the case with pretty much anyone under 60. The 'older' vaccinated have reduced their risk to the same level of the 'younger' unvaccinated.

I'm assuming the travel and entertainment industries and the scientists advising them are insisting on vaccination proof because they are not as confident as you in the the thinking that the young and old "are now at the same level".

I don't know. It seems to me that they are quite prepared to jump through any hoop they need to, in order to restart trading as best they can, regardless of any actual scientific requirement.

Well, I wouldn't know about that. If the government allow travel and football stadia entry then they are complicit in any recklessness you imply.
We'll see.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:51 am

Imagine spending 15m pounds to provide great facilities for disabled fans, so nearly everyone gets a chance to watch us.

And then going against all our inclusivity morals by suggesting you can't go if you haven't had a vaccine?

It likely won’t be the clubs decision on who can or can’t go. They will be following government guidance.

northeastclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:08 am

Obviously still waiting for confirmation of how many fans will be able to attend and the process for allocating tickets.

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?

How is this is fair to children who have arguable sacrificed the most to protect the vulnerable?

Loyalclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:22 am

Good opportunity to test the protocols for the new normal though? I understand why individual people would not bother though.

I don't think being double vaccinated was a condition for City/Spurs fans?

No. Vaccinated or a negative test was the condition for entry. I know people who went who weren't vaccinated. For Spurs at least the allocation was based on loyalty points.

northeastclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:08 am

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated.

As others are pointing out, logical = yes, safest = most likely, it's the word 'fairest' that I am having difficulty with.

Under 42(?) haven't even been offered the vaccine yet.
Many have had their incomes drop very steeply over the pandemic and where absolutely forced to cancel their direct debits with BFC.
Now, I probably think it's fair they should be rewarded in some way for that loyalty and ability to continue paying. However, BFC need to be careful in how much they 'punish' those who have been badly affected financially by this pandemic.

this whole thread is evidence that the whole passport scenario just wont work in reality

northeastclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:08 am

Obviously still waiting for confirmation of how many fans will be able to attend and the process for allocating tickets.

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?

It may be logical, but you can’t discriminate against those who haven’t had a vaccination just because they’re too young to have been called yet. The logical non discriminatory approach would be to insist those with tickets took a test to prove they weren’t bringing the virus into the stadium, like they did with the snooker at Sheffield.

NaturalBornClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:39 am

But the most logical, safest and fairest way must be to allocate tickets to those fans who kept their season ticket money on account and have been vaccinated. That number may even match the number of tickets allocated?

This seems very much the current thought process of the older generation so people under 50 have been locked down and off work for over 12 months but now that the vulnerable have been jabbed they can go away on holiday attend football games etc while everyone else continues to be kept at home even though we all stayed in and stuck to rules to help the vulnerable initially all seems quickly forgotten by a few
[/quote]

This is far too sensible a post.

Anyone using the phrase 'It's not fair' is likely to be too immature to go to a match alone anyway

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:13 am

It is a fact that those who have been vaccinated are now the least risk to themselves and others so the NHS has, at last, been protected. . If stadia are opened, it is logical the least vulnerable be permitted, if anybody, to attend.
It's nothing to do with fairness, it's just how it is.
You'll just have to wait - one of the advantages of being younger, I guess...

If you have been jabbed, you have next to nothing to worry about.

I assume using the logic that unjabbed people shouldnt go, you wont be going indoors to pubs, cafes, shops, restaurants, trains, doctors, dentists... Just in case you bump into someone who hasnt been jabbed etc.

barba wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:51 am

How is this is fair to children who have arguable sacrificed the most to protect the vulnerable?

mealdeal wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:22 am

Thats not a fact at all, the young and unvaccinated are equally of no risk to themselves or the NHS, as was always overwhelmingly the case throughout this. All thats happened is the vaccinated have caught up with the young and are now at the same level of risk.

Anyone with a Clarets number and shows interest in attending should be put in a ballot for this one off game.

Unless the Government decide otherwise.

All fans should be equal, not if you're rich enough to leave money in a club account over the year. Even Boris wasn't bought that easily.

FeedTheArf wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:45 am

It likely won’t be the clubs decision on who can or can’t go. They will be following government guidance.

You're probably right.

The trouble with guidance is everyone sees it differently.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:45 am

Anyone with a Clarets number and shows interest in attending should be put in a ballot for this one off game.

Unless the Government decide otherwise.

All fans should be equal, not if you're rich enough to leave money in a club account over the year. Even Boris wasn't bought that easily.

Some adult season tickets just over £300, not really a figure that makes someone rich is it ?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:47 am

Some adult season tickets just over £300, not really a figure that makes someone rich is it ?

Being able to just forget about sums of money between 3 and 5 hundred quid in the Burnley area could put you in the rich bracket I would say.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:51 am

Being able to just forget about sums of money between 3 and 5 hundred quid in the Burnley area could put you in the rich bracket I would say.

Not really forgetting about it. Most will be on the direct debit scheme so under £30 a month to pay. Not like they keep forgetting where they have put £300 and replace it with another £300.

According to the Times article the Government are set to allow away fans in to the last two fixtures.

25% attendance with a maximum of 10k. Away supporters is 5%, so maximum 500.

The Turf will be 5.5k with 275 away fans if it's true.

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:16 am

this whole thread is evidence that the whole passport scenario just wont work in reality

Its also evidence that social distancing is a great thing when you realise the sort of folk we were socialising with in the first place

claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:57 am

Not really forgetting about it. Most will be on the direct debit scheme so under £30 a month to pay. Not like they keep forgetting where they have put £300 and replace it with another £300.

I paid mine. But many will have felt blackmailed that they could either continue paying when out of work and having lost most of their income OR not renew and face a price hike when they could return or lose their seat.

£30 isnt a lot to some. To others its the difference between eating when they have lost so much!

I can't wait to see how the club handles this if it comes to fruition !!!

I,for one, won't be participating as I much prefer to wait until next season when there will be an atmosphere.

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:23 pm

I paid mine. But many will have felt blackmailed that they could either continue paying when out of work and having lost most of their income OR not renew and face a price hike when they could return or lose their seat.

£30 isnt a lot to some. To others its the difference between eating when they have lost so much!

Having to pay a higher price for something 12 months later isn’t blackmail, it’s life!

martin_p wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:31 pm

Having to pay a higher price for something 12 months later isn’t blackmail, it’s life!

I said 'felt' blackmailed. Not that they were.

Ultimately they were given the option to renew at £30 a month for something they knew there was no real prospect of being able to use in the immediate future.

Its completely understandable why many wouldnt have renewed.