Sons' sorrow

[Boghead ranter]

The Boghead boardroom went on fire, today in 1993.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Boghead ranter said:

The Boghead boardroom went on fire, today in 1993.

 

Thousands of pounds of improvements...boom, boom!

[microdave]

1 hour ago, Boghead ranter said:

The Boghead boardroom went on fire, today in 1993.

 

I lost a coupon that day because we won. All the other scores were in by half time in our game and I was only waiting on Killie to beat us. A good lesson learned by 18 year old me that day.

[squeezeboxson]

Apologies if I have missed something completely... but when did Danny retire? Still listed on the website in the squad and things.

I may have missed this to be fair, there hasn't been too much to shout about with the football so I haven't been spending all that much time on here recently.

[RandomGuy.]

On 09/02/2021 at 16:08, Boghead ranter said:

1 - it was the SPFL that took the decision to stop all football below the Championship, not the SG. Though, seeing as Nicola Sturgeon had already issued her 'yellow card' to football at the time of the Bolingoli and Aberdeen incidents,  the SPFL would've been shit scared of the SG stepping in with a red in the wake of the Dubai shambles. So they did something to pre-empt that and demonstrate "look, we're in control here". If SG had made the call due to SPFL inaction, it might've been a worse result ie. ALL football suspended.

Always worth reminding folk when stuff like this comes up, that the SPFL/Doncaster cannot do anything without consent of the clubs. They failed to get executive powers last Summer that would've allowed them to do so.

It was a Government decision as they try and keep infection rates as low as possible while the vaccine is rolled out. Full time players training as a group through the week then travelling to games was deemed acceptable, part time players working with the public/others, then training with the squad, then playing against opponents who'd done the same, was deemed too high a risk of spreading it. 

I've no idea why everyone is so determined to make it a conspiracy theory.

Edited February 13, 2021 by RandomGuy.

[The Moonster]

18 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Always worth reminding folk when stuff like this comes up, that the SPFL/Doncaster cannot do anything without consent of the clubs. They failed to get executive powers last Summer that would've allowed them to do so.

It was a Government decision as they try and keep infection rates as low as possible while the vaccine is rolled out. Full time players training as a group through the week then travelling to games was deemed acceptable, part time players working with the public/others, then training with the squad, then playing against opponents who'd done the same, was deemed too high a risk of spreading it. 

I've no idea why everyone is so determined to make it a conspiracy theory.

If it was solely about keeping infection rates down all football should've been suspended. Part time clubs offering to test as much as full time clubs and still we can't even get a plan out of authorities, even when rates are lower than we started the season. It's not a conspiracy but it's venturing into shambles territory.

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

If it was solely about keeping infection rates down all football should've been suspended. Part time clubs offering to test as much as full time clubs and still we can't even get a plan out of authorities, even when rates are lower than we started the season. It's not a conspiracy but it's venturing into shambles territory.

It was about doing as much as they could to keep infection rates down. Full time clubs can control their environment as players should only be at training/matches/home, and all but those at home are with people getting tested 2/3 times a week (I understand there's been breaches, but I think there's only been 3 instances when players have mingled with the public during them? Aberdeen/Celtic/Rangers, technically part time clubs have breached the same guidelines every week by not testing players multiple times + allowing them to mingle with the public...).

Part time clubs couldn't guarantee that, as you'd have players also being at work, mingling with work mates who aren't getting tested multiple times a week, and in some cases mingling with the general public too.

Its surely fairly obvious why they decided one could continue, while the other had a greater risk of spreading infection? 

The only farcical decision made in the whole thing was by part time clubs who decided to not just have an 18 game season, or mothball the entire season, from the get go. It was always going to be a struggle for them when the inevitable surge of cases returned this winter.

[Guest The Phoenix]

32 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

The only farcical decision made in the whole thing was by part time clubs who decided to not just have an 18 game season, or mothball the entire season, from the get go. It was always going to be a struggle for them when the inevitable surge of cases returned this winter.

What utter nonsense. 

I’m sure Falkirk, Thistle and Queen’s Park would have been delighted to have a nine game advantage over their opposition. 

[RandomGuy.]

11 minutes ago, The Phoenix said:

What utter nonsense. 

I’m sure Falkirk, Thistle and Queen’s Park would have been delighted to have a nine game advantage over their opposition. 

What?

The bottom two tiers are dominated by part time sides, who all seemed happy to agree to a 27 game season, judging by the fact, you know, that's what was voted for.

The clubs had from March, when the leagues were shut down, to August to decide what they wanted to do, and then October to change their minds. Part time sides were always liable to be shut down amidst covid spikes simply due to the nature of their staff, if the clubs couldn't see that, I'm not sure why fans have decided to push that blame elsewhere. Falkirk/Partick can complain if they want, but their league position means they're the minority.

[Guest The Phoenix]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

What?

The bottom two tiers are dominated by part time sides, who all seemed happy to agree to a 27 game season, judging by the fact, you know, that's what was voted for.

The clubs had from March, when the leagues were shut down, to August to decide what they wanted to do, and then October to change their minds. Part time sides were always liable to be shut down amidst covid spikes simply due to the nature of their staff, if the clubs couldn't see that, I'm not sure why fans have decided to push that blame elsewhere. Falkirk/Partick can complain if they want, but their league position means they're the minority.

The only reason 27 games has become a challenge is because the SFA chose to make it so. 

[RandomGuy.]

21 minutes ago, The Phoenix said:

The only reason 27 games has become a challenge is because the SFA chose to make it so. 

Part time clubs playing football during a worldwide pandemic, that always carried a risk of a complete lockdown, was always carrying the risk of being shut down during spikes. Covid was always talked about as spiking during the winter.

Surely this situation was obvious to absolutely everyone? 

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

The only farcical decision made in the whole thing was by part time clubs who decided to not just have an 18 game season, or mothball the entire season, from the get go. It was always going to be a struggle for them when the inevitable surge of cases returned this winter.

 f**k off.

Clubs were told if they didn't play they'd lose their spot in the league. Mothballing the season was never put on the table as a realistic option and your 20/20 hindsight here in saying we should've just played 18 games is laughable - there was absolutely no calls for that last summer or last October before we got going.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

 f**k off.

Clubs were told if they didn't play they'd lose their spot in the league. Mothballing the season was never put on the table as a realistic option and your 20/20 hindsight here in saying we should've just played 18 games is laughable - there was absolutely no calls for that last summer or last October before we got going.

Yes, I'm sure if all 17 part time clubs in League One/Two declared they couldn't complete a 27 game season they would all have been chucked out the league.

That's definitely what would've happened.

The 27 games was brought about because clubs had no idea how to budget so just wanted as much income as possible, which is fair enough considering the circumstances, but to then turn it around and start blaming others for the Government refusing to let untested part time players travel the country during a lockdown is bizarre to me.

[The Moonster]

4 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Yes, I'm sure if all 17 part time clubs in League One/Two declared they couldn't complete a 27 game season they would all have been chucked out the league.

That's definitely what would've happened.

It's literally what the clubs were told

You don't have a scooby what you're talking about so it's best you stop digging this hole.

[Passionate]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Yes, I'm sure if all 17 part time clubs in League One/Two declared they couldn't complete a 27 game season they would all have been chucked out the league.

That's definitely what would've happened.

The 27 games was brought about because clubs had no idea how to budget so just wanted as much income as possible, which is fair enough considering the circumstances, but to then turn it around and start blaming others for the Government refusing to let untested part time players travel the country during a lockdown is bizarre to me.

Leagues one and 2  have only hemselves to blame, we should have pushed for a August start date like the "elite" clubs when the virus was less prevalent,   but decided to ride the furlough scheme for as long as they could,   some clubs in the lower leagues have never been as solvent don't kid ourselves,   200k in hand outs in league 1 and 150k in league 2.....Foot ball and society needs to get off its knees, 

[RandomGuy.]

39 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

It's literally what the clubs were told

You don't have a scooby what you're talking about so it's best you stop digging this hole.

The SPFL cannot chuck clubs out the league unless the rest of the clubs vote for it. If the part time sides had all stuck together theres nothing anyone could've done as you outnumber the full time sides in L1/L2 by a huge amount. Its a total red herring to claim it was "play or die".

[O'Kelly Isley III]

The last ten posts are a microcosm of the problems besetting Scottish football, with little by way of consensus. I was extremely sceptical of the decision to proceed at ANY level this season, but of course commercial dependency affects us all. But to somehow try to blame the Division 1 & 2 clubs for their current situation is taking the piss.

[Jan Vojáček]

Imo the decision over any restrictions (including those on football) should come down to whether or not they will have a notable impact on the overall caseload. Lets not forget that the lockdown is to 'protect the NHS'. 500 tested people going from their home, to a football stadium, to home again, once a week doesn't look like it would pose much of a risk. If anyone has a link to the cases connected with the lower leagues though then I'd be more than happy to eat those words.

I still cannot understand why a restart wasn't geared towards the usual stage of the season in August time when infection rates were around 1.1 per 100,000. But I guess 'Zero Covid' was still being chased then. If we are waiting to get back to those levels then we can wave goodbye to next season, and probably the season after that though. It would be difficult to see clubs surviving that length of a shutdown too. Let alone the pretty catastrophic impact such a move would have on football in this country. Released by Dunfermline or Queen of the South? No more football for you.

[sonsanorak]

I think the timing around the suspension of leagues below the championship fuels the conspiracy theories. If I remember right, some of the junior teams / leagues had publicly raised concerns late in the week before, then the celtic Dubai controversy kicked off over the weekend and the leagues were suspended early in the next week. Easy to suspect that the Celtic issue was a factor in that decision, but not necessarily correct.

[sonsanorak]

Discussion now amongst the experts seems to be about how we live with the virus, so it could well be that restrictions inc social distancing are in place for a good while yet.

Mind the R rate is only one part of the info the experts consider, they also look at hospital capacity and other factors

Imo the decision over any restrictions (including those on football) should come down to whether or not they will have a notable impact on the overall caseload. Lets not forget that the lockdown is to 'protect the NHS'. 500 tested people going from their home, to a football stadium, to home again, once a week doesn't look like it would pose much of a risk. If anyone has a link to the cases connected with the lower leagues though then I'd be more than happy to eat those words.
I still cannot understand why a restart wasn't geared towards the usual stage of the season in August time when infection rates were around 1.1 per 100,000. But I guess 'Zero Covid' was still being chased then. If we are waiting to get back to those levels then we can wave goodbye to next season, and probably the season after that though. It would be difficult to see clubs surviving that length of a shutdown too. Let alone the pretty catastrophic impact such a move would have on football in this country. Released by Dunfermline or Queen of the South? No more football for you.