This is the worst case of someone telling me how to run my life which is a pretty bizarre thing to come up with, frankly.
We're adults and having the choice to have a drink at football is hardly unreasonable considering the number of other sporting events I can have a drink at also. Yet some of the people who are so vehemently opposed to it aren't even willing to give it a go, as per my previous posts about piloting it.
My point is that nobody knows what will happen and how disruptive it may or may not be.
I simply don't understand how anyone can be so against a trial. We're so far removed from the 1980's. If I fancy a drink at half time, but don't really want to neck it (I can't really neck pints any more), then why can't I take it to my seat? How is that so offensive? Just maybe I'm pretty busy during the day so I don't get much of a chance to have a drink with mates before the game. You don't know me and my life. Yet you, and others, are just stubbornly opposed to something that you cannot predict. How do you or others know that there will be beer showers, constantly having to get up for people to go to the toilet, etc? That's just an assumption but not backed up with any evidence whatsoever.
I've said that I will support the continuation of the ban should the pilot support this. But why not pilot it?
I'm glad I don't take the attitude where I feel compelled to say no to something that's hardly offensive, without trial. Otherwise nothing in my company would ever get done. There would always be something negative to think about any possible decision to be had.
Just trial it. I'll be happy to oppose it once a trial and observations are conducted. But for now, I'd like to see it trialled.