what are they being made to do?

there will be no fans so of course it will be 'neutral', what advantage do you expect for the 'home' teams in most games?
Yes travelling to France is a little bit more than travelling than for UK based games but it's not that much of a hardship is it, done properly this doesn't have any effect on match preparation does it? Not all teams are clearly going to play at their home ground , in fact you could potentially have all teams not playing at their home venue and always having 'away' teams.

Of course there should be balance, personally I think all matches should be played at their original venues unless there is a significant cost reduction across the board that can be fed back to those teams travelling the furthest, but I don't see that happening. So what is the reasoning behind matches played at a smaller number of venues instead of simply playing the games at the correct venue per the fixture list?

Aside from the non science based lunacy of playing matches without fans, games should have started ages ago given the risk of death FROM supposed C.19 as actual cause of death for under 40s (using NHS stats) is THREE times less than just the road casualty deaths in the 20-39 age groups (DfT figures for 201icon_cool.gif

'science based lunacy'? are you one of those that think Covid-19 hassuddenly got bored and packed up and gone home?

Aside from the fact that amazingly some over 40s go to rugby league games deaths from RTAs are not infectious unlike Covid-19.

you do have to wonder about the education system when someone uses the word 'supposed' in relation to a virus that has become endemic, has killed 540K, or at least paid a part in their deaths, a further 6.5M have recovered from it.

For me I don't see what the reasoning or justification is for neutral venues unless there are huge savings to be made from this. If clubs still have to pay rent/upkeep etc on their current grounds surely playing at a neutral ground isn't going to generate significant savings for clubs. I can only see it being an advantage and cost saving for SKY in terms of televising the matches, has that been part of the agreement with SKY regarding financial package etc.
For clubs whose grounds are chosen to be the 'Neutral' venue's, I feel they should not have any of their own games played at their home grounds. This is the only way you can fully level the playing field and call it neutral and remove any advantage.

4 venues from Salford/Saints/Warrington and Leeds/Wakefield/HKR using 2 from each group would have been the best option as the 4 venues. Huddersfield,Wigan if no football was being played would have been an option but its an added risk both covid wise and in terms of injury than can be caused due to heavy use of the playing surface.
That way every club faces the same circumstances and challenges of travelling and playing at 'neutral' ground.

As far as Catalans is concerned......



Any one know which planet 48756c6c20 524c4643 comes from, he's certainly well out of touch with reality?

My statement regards age related to players and was fairly obvious, it was your misunderstanding.

What's with the snide remark, the governments own websites, specifically ONS and the compiled data regards deaths from respiratory diseases, proves without a shadow of doubt that the threat from a virus was never greater than others for any of at least the last 5 years.

Would you like me to show you the actual numbers of deaths FROM respiratory diseases as underlying cause of death for the last 6 years?

It's not a case of C.19 "suddenly getting bored and packed up and gone home" whatever that means, it's the fact that the threat from that virus was never what has being made out in the first instance and even despite the 'fiddling' by government by changing how you count a death, forcing doctors to put C.19 down instead of or as well as pneumonia and the fudging of numbers using a test that we know is wildly inaccurate*, the numbers still never rose above previous years influenza/pneumonia deaths, in fact they have been lower than last years 'good' flu year and significantly lower than 2018 and 2014/15 and further back 2009.

*this was even admitted by WHO and many, many top immunologists, including the Chairman of the Immunology dept at Bern University, Professor Beda Stadler.

all I can can hope is that you and yours never exposed to the virus, personally, the sunny side of caution suits. (and if you ever get it, or spread it, please stay away from the NHS, it is there for the people that are doing their best)

There's caution and there's an insane belief in something that has no data to prove it even exists in the form that is being made out, and from that massively greater damage done to society and individuals by reacting the way the government have.

There were 45% fewer deaths from respiratory diseases at the so called peak of C.19 - 1,968 in April 2020 compared to 3,521 in 2nd week Jan 2015, where were you in terms of wanting to shut down going to the rugby, locking down everyone in the name of caution? What about all the other years when we've had more people dying FROM viruses and respiratory diseases, did you voice your concerns regards shutting down everything then on the back of public health concerns, why not?

Did you wear a face covering, anti bac your hands every couple of minutes and everywhere you went, did you stay away from work (unless of course key worker like myself), not go to the rugby and not live life normally, not see people at all during those times when people were dying in greater numbers than at any time during this supposed epidemic, or, like everyone, did you actually live a normal life without doing any/most of those things, thus contributing to hospitals being at breaking point and vulnerable people dying from respiratory diseases in greater numbers?
Last year respiratory deaths as underlying cause numbered over 71,000 just in England and wales alone, the number trotted out by gov for C.19 deaths is not and never has been based on underlying cause of death, which is the only lawful way to record/code a death on the register of deaths, the vast majority of people dying are not from a virus at all but their underlying health issues, there are no excess deaths FROM respiratory diseases incl C.19, rather there are fewer respiratory disease deaths than at least any of the last 5 years.

Respiratory Deaths by underlying cause

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015

3January 2141 1736 2361 2321 2046 2418
10/01/20 2477 2214 3075 2690 1835 3521
17/01/20 2189 1972 2829 2625 1775 3251
24/01/20 1893 1942 2672 2373 1810 2734
31/01/20 1746 1931 2479 2147 1748 2278
07/02/20 1572 1918 2197 2093 1730 2115
14/02/20 1602 1931 2081 1932 1700 1985
21/02/20 1619 1890 2128 1872 1734 1994
28/02/20 1547 1786 1900 1766 1774 1931
06/03/20 1583 1657 2302 1660 1768 1806
20/03/20 1508 1559 2271 1561 1709 1744
27/03/20 1546 1486 1946 1436 1485 1642
03/04/20 1539 1314 1657 1324 1688 1550
10/04/20 1968 1412 1761 1378 1971 1393
17/04/20 1777 1396 1971 1143 1809 1525
24/04/20 1794 1262 1641 1311 1597 1730
01/05/20 1597 1406 1426 1435 1396 1550
08/05/20 1294 1581 1369 1154 1261 1469
15/05/20 947 1239 1055 1423 1447 1250
22/05/20 1152 1355 1248 1325 1328 1404
29/05/20 946 1324 1179 1286 1248 1325
05/06/20 788 1105 1065 1076 982 1074
12/06/20 941 1290 1270 1229 1292 1256

... let's hope you're fit and healthy, with no underlying health conditions, then you'll have nothing to worry about.

You’re using the wrong measures and I think, although it is difficult to tell, inappropriate comparisons. Plus you are ignoring the impact of the measures to limit spread.

Why would you hope that I am fit and healthy when it's clear your comment is a veiled threat of wishing harm! Is this the level of discussion here that because people don't agree/can't understand you wade in with passive-aggressive responses or just plain insults?

you're more likely to die from any underlying health condition if we continue to lockdown and stay away from being on the terraces and acting as normal, this has been proven with the massive excess deaths that have not occurred FROM respiratory diseases, quite the opposite.

How is it inappropriate, please expand? Death toll mortality rate was the main factor in locking down was it not? A death rate that was in essence plucked out of thin air by WHO on the back of ridiculously weak/poor methodology and even more flawed tests, which has not only never come to pass, it's not come even close to their initial mortality rate, in fact a factor of 30x less, or the same as influenza ...

But what measures are there other than deaths, you're ignoring the grievous impact from locking down which is demonstrably proven to have done massively more harm than any minor virus strain. locking down has had amnegative impact not a positive one for goodness sakes. You'll be stating next that the number of deaths FROM respiratory diseases are lower because of lockdown, that would be completely false. The death toll is in line with what was happening before C.19 arrived here and any cases tested. the only excess deaths have occured from people dying other than FROM respiratory diseases.

Why would the government use any mention on a death certificate, even if with zero proof of any virus and use that death along with tens of thousands of others to create a death toll that is criminally a lie/fake news to justify lockdown/measures when they knew that the actual death toll FROM respiratory diseases was already significantly lower than previous years and remained lower through the so called peak of C.19?

My stepdaughters friend is now going to die because she was forced to stop her cancer treatment due to lockdown and told to isolate, her tumour was shrinking and very positive prognosis, 12 weeks on, it's now grown and it's all too late. One anecdotal example that you could repeat tens of thousands of times where people have died from their underlying health condition because of lack of health care, whether that be in/from a hospital, within the community, care homes, even by families not being there for their relatives as much as they were before. I know this happens as I and my colleagues work within the community aiding the elderly/vulnerable.

Crikey, you've taken the definition of "persecution complex" to a new level.

Fixtures announced..... https://www.hullfc.com/blog/2020/07/16/ ... confirmed/ Quote ....all of the first 21 games will be broadcast live on Sky Sports throughout August to ensure supporters can still watch the matches whilst government restrictions mean that the sport has to continue behind closed doors.'" ......unless you don't subsribe to sky.

Fixtures announced..... https://www.hullfc.com/blog/2020/07/16/ ... confirmed/ Quote ....all of the first 21 games will be broadcast live on Sky Sports throughout August to ensure supporters can still watch the matches whilst government restrictions mean that the sport has to continue behind closed doors.'" ......unless you don't subsribe to sky.

Quote ="ccs"Fixtures announced..... https://www.hullfc.com/blog/2020/07/16/ ... confirmed/ ......unless you don't subsribe to sky.'" Which I don't, but I am a passholder. Pffft.

Quote ="ccs"Fixtures announced..... https://www.hullfc.com/blog/2020/07/16/ ... confirmed/ ......unless you don't subsribe to sky.'" Which I don't, but I am a passholder. Pffft.

Now TV do a month's Sky Sports pass for £34, that's £1.62 a game.

Or £17 for each of the hull games, none of it going to the club.

I'd willingly pay the club the extra £17 pounds, even though I'm a passholder, but..............



Edit: It looks like you can easily watch using a pc (and cast to your tv if it's capable).

Are the club working on streaming access for passholders ?

A 30 day pass from our first game would actually cover 4 games (all of which are likely to be televised), you can also have 3 people watching at the same time so if you split the cost it would be less than £3 each per game, less than it would cost for most people to travel to the KCOM.

As I understand its been discussed, tough ask to get SKY to give away their product for free though.

Yes, I had it my head that it was 2 home games per month I'd be missing.



Families watching would be an issue for the club, as it would reduce income significantly if they offered a streaming service.