Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 Can't see anyway back for football, it's all fucked. IMO. Watched Watford Newcastle in the empty stadium, pathetic, who was it that said without the fans it's nothing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: Can't see anyway back for football, it's all fucked. IMO. Watched Watford Newcastle in the empty stadium, pathetic, who was it that said without the fans it's nothing? Ghandi, 1946. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 57 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said: Ghandi, 1946. Think it was Hitler m8. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 I just can't agree with you, that you can't replace a 10-14 goals a season striker.Tbf I think the issue is going to be that Hemmings goal return was in spite of, rather because of McPake's tactical nous as a manager. That said if McPake can't get even a potentially Hemmings-less team into a play off spot in what will be the weakest second tier for years*, he shouldn't be anywhere near a managerial post ever again. Obvs Hearts are going to win it by a country mile. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 I love Billy Mackenzie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passionate Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 4 hours ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: i.e......the death of football. Look on the brightside, the pubs open on wednesday 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 8 hours ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: Think it was Hitler m8. Little know fact for the day. They were actually the same person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 Can't see anyway back for football, it's all fucked. IMO. Watched Watford Newcastle in the empty stadium, pathetic, who was it that said without the fans it's nothing?I’ve been watching a fair bit of the footie on Sky since it returned. On the Main Event screen with the crowd noise on. I’ve begun to forget that there are no fans actually there. I’m staying a bit more optimistic anyway.We’ll replace Kano no bother, home fans back by October (we will hardly notice the absence of away fans, except against Hearts and they’re boycotting us anyway), and we are going to scoosh the league. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Fifespud said: I’ve been watching a fair bit of the footie on Sky since it returned. On the Main Event screen with the crowd noise on. I’ve begun to forget that there are no fans actually there. I’m staying a bit more optimistic anyway. We’ll replace Kano no bother, home fans back by October (we will hardly notice the absence of away fans, except against Hearts and they’re boycotting us anyway), and we are going to scoosh the league. Take it we’re winning & our demotion is getting scrapped 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 26 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said: Take it we’re winning & our demotion is getting scrapped Immaterial to us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 The arguments put forward to not pay out the insurance: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/bi-insurance-test-case-fca-skeleton-argument.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Bliss Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 31 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said: The arguments put forward to not pay out the insurance: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/bi-insurance-test-case-fca-skeleton-argument.pdf What’s your breakdown of that 300 page document Ludo Just need 1 employee to take 1 for the team and get the virus and all is good! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Yenitit said: What’s your breakdown of that 300 page document Ludo Just need 1 employee to take 1 for the team and get the virus and all is good! Pages 1-11 & 86 are decent wee summaries! The insurers’ Defences have a common theme on causation – namely that the proximate cause or “but for” cause on a counterfactual, was not the “insured peril” (as they define their respective “insured peril”) but something else and that something else is the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19 and the impact of it and/or of the government response to it.191 For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. 215.The FCA’s case as to the correct approach to causation is set out in this section but the principal errors in the Defendants’ approach can be summarised as follows: 215.1.They overlook the need to have regard to the contractual context in which the causation tests are to be applied or to apply the causation tests in a sensible and realistic way. This is legally flawed. 215.2.For those with disease clauses: (a)They artificially proceed on the premise that the outbreak in the relevant locality has to be a self-contained cause, as if the policy responds to outbreaks which are only in the locality (i.e. as if the effect of the causation test is to create an exclusion which is not explicit in the policy in circumstances where losses are caused by a disease outbreak which occurs both within and without the locality). This disregards the fact that such a clause (e.g. one with a 25 mile radius covering almost 2000 square miles) must have contemplated a situation in which, potentially at the very least, there was an outbreak within a 25 mile radius because it forms part of a larger outbreak either regionally or nationally. B)They fail to apply the correct causation analysis, in that they fail to recognise that the presence of COVID-19 in each locality is an integral part of one single broad and/or indivisible cause, being the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively that the outbreak in each locality made its own concurrent causative contribution to the overall picture of a pandemic, which prompted the Government response 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 26 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said: Pages 1-11 & 86 are decent wee summaries! The insurers’ Defences have a common theme on causation – namely that the proximate cause or “but for” cause on a counterfactual, was not the “insured peril” (as they define their respective “insured peril”) but something else and that something else is the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19 and the impact of it and/or of the government response to it.191 For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. 215.The FCA’s case as to the correct approach to causation is set out in this section but the principal errors in the Defendants’ approach can be summarised as follows: 215.1.They overlook the need to have regard to the contractual context in which the causation tests are to be applied or to apply the causation tests in a sensible and realistic way. This is legally flawed. 215.2.For those with disease clauses: (a)They artificially proceed on the premise that the outbreak in the relevant locality has to be a self-contained cause, as if the policy responds to outbreaks which are only in the locality (i.e. as if the effect of the causation test is to create an exclusion which is not explicit in the policy in circumstances where losses are caused by a disease outbreak which occurs both within and without the locality). This disregards the fact that such a clause (e.g. one with a 25 mile radius covering almost 2000 square miles) must have contemplated a situation in which, potentially at the very least, there was an outbreak within a 25 mile radius because it forms part of a larger outbreak either regionally or nationally. B)They fail to apply the correct causation analysis, in that they fail to recognise that the presence of COVID-19 in each locality is an integral part of one single broad and/or indivisible cause, being the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively that the outbreak in each locality made its own concurrent causative contribution to the overall picture of a pandemic, which prompted the Government response So am I reading this right, their defence is that it wasn't Covid-19 that caused the business interruption it was the government? Unless you had some at your premises catch Covid-19? So, for example, Aberdeen might be able to claim for a loss in revenue last week only? What is the extra clause we have? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, johnnydun said: So am I reading this right, their defence is that it wasn't Covid-19 that caused the business interruption it was the government? Unless you had some at your premises catch Covid-19? So, for example, Aberdeen might be able to claim for a loss in revenue last week only? What is the extra clause we have? By my understanding, we have the 'disease' clause that's mentioned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin.Hood Posted July 13, 2020 Share Posted July 13, 2020 Following a further week of difficult but progressive conversations the club would like to provide an update. Two weeks ago we opened dialogue with a number of players and staff regarding wage deductions to support the club in these unprecedented times. We are delighted to say that a high majority of those who entered this process have taken the decision to help safeguard the future of the club. The commitment from these players and members of the coaching staff is hugely appreciated. In other areas of the business, the staff consultation period is in its early stages. The conclusion of the players and football staff consultation as well as the ongoing support of the fans has helped set the stage for the next steps. Nonetheless, these are difficult conversations and any decisions being made are with the long term future of the club in mind. Meh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girth Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 So, if Hemmings is off, any idea where!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossBFaeDundee Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 Youth coaches selflessly willing to work for free for the benefit of the youth players. Times like these are very enlightening on what people are really like. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said: Youth coaches selflessly willing to work for free for the benefit of the youth players. Times like these are very enlightening on what people are really like. Robbie Raeside has had some career at Dens. Player, physio, policed some games and now a youth coach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 This might be rhetorical but did Keyes take a salary cut? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.