Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Skyline Drifter]

24 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

The governing bodies themselves in both sports will have hee haw influence on policy, but forcing the 6 Nations to be played behind closed doors will be viewed very differently by those sitting round the table in St Andrews House to forcing the SPFL to play on behind closed doors I suspect. Just speculation obviously, could be totally wrong.

 

5 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Loving the idea that there’s a deep seated anti-football, pro-rugby agenda at the heart of the Scottish Government. Just fucking mental stuff. 

 

2 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

No one is saying that. 

That's basically exactly what you're saying.

[TheScarf]

5 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

When they handed you half a million pounds to keep the lights on last Xmas?

Where did they get that money from?

[oneteaminglasgow]

11 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

No one is saying that. 

Why mention the rugby at all then?

The restrictions were put in place because Sturgeon is a cautious leader and we weren’t sure what the impact of the omicron variant would be. While they did seem arbitrary and targeted at football, I think it’s clear that had the furlough scheme still been available, they would have gone much further. I would think that they are now being removed because the evidence now shows that they either aren’t effective, or aren’t necessary.

The idea that they’re being removed do that a bunch of people can go drink their own piss at Murrayfield is insane. 

[roverthemoon]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

 

That's basically exactly what you're saying.

“Deep seated anti-football, pro-rugby agenda at the heart of the Scottish Government.”

N

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

 

That's basically exactly what you're saying.

It’s really not. I’m saying I suspect that the 6 Nations looming played a role in the decision to lift restriction and have said all along I may be talking pish. Wouldn’t be the first time. As I said at the start, just happy to be getting back into grounds if what’s been reported is true. How or why they made the decision is irrelevant. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

“Deep seated anti-football, pro-rugby agenda at the heart of the Scottish Government.”

N

It’s really not. I’m saying I suspect that the 6 Nations looming played a role in the decision to lift restriction and have said all along I may be talking pish. Wouldn’t be the first time. As I said at the start, just happy to be getting back into grounds if what’s been reported is true. How or why they made the decision is irrelevant. 

It's not going to have played any more a role than the looming Old Firm match and return of the Premiership. Or the Scottish Cup ties due for next weekend.

 

[roverthemoon]

5 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Why mention the rugby at all then?

Because there’s a 6 Nations looming which would have been forced behind closed doors if the restrictions continued. Pretty sure that would have at least been mentioned in the discussions. Would be weird if it wasn’t tbh. 

[roverthemoon]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It's not going to have played any more a role than the looming Old Firm match and return of the Premiership. Or the Scottish Cup ties due for next weekend.

 

‘In your opinion’. None of us know how the decision was made and how much relative influence looming events played. All just speculation - including my own.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, roverthemoon said:

‘In your opinion’. None of us know how the decision was made and how much relative influence looming events played. All just speculation - including my own.

I'm not the one making a daft assertion that the focus of the Scottish Government is on three sell out Murrayfield rugby internationals over all else though.

[1320Lichtie]

13 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

 

The restrictions were put in place because Sturgeon is a cautious leader and we weren’t sure what the impact of the omicron variant would be. While they did seem arbitrary and targeted at football, I think it’s clear that had the furlough scheme still been available, they would have gone much further.

 

A cautious leader? Who one month before had been telling people to invite random strangers into their homes for COP26. A time when a whole load of the rules went out of the window and the number of people in ICU was actually higher than what it was the day she dreamt up these daft new restrictions.

 

The not getting furlough thing is also another good decision made by the UK government by the way. Thank f**k for that. That was also by the way another political play that backfired. 
 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by 1320Lichtie

[roverthemoon]

5 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I'm not the one making a daft assertion that the focus of the Scottish Government is on three sell out Murrayfield rugby internationals over all else though.

Haha, where on earth have I said that? Anyway this is just reminding me why I stay the f**k out of politics thread. It’s a weird black hole of folk seeing things that simply aren’t there and going round in circles. Will leave it at just being extremely relieved that we’re all getting back inside grounds and I can be there in person when we get promoted   

Edited January 11, 2022 by roverthemoon

[Guest Flash]

Think Covid passports will be needed for crowds of over 1,000. 

[Skyline Drifter]

16 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

Haha, where on earth have I said that? Anyway this is just reminding me why I stay the f**k out of politics thread. It’s a weird black hole of folk seeing things that simply aren’t there and going round in circles. Will leave it at just being extremely relieved that we’re all getting back inside grounds and I can be there in person when we get promoted   

Well here:

1 hour ago, roverthemoon said:

The governing bodies themselves in both sports will have hee haw influence on policy, but forcing the 6 Nations to be played behind closed doors will be viewed very differently by those sitting round the table in St Andrews House to forcing the SPFL to play on behind closed doors I suspect. Just speculation obviously, could be totally wrong.

here:

1 hour ago, roverthemoon said:

Don’t think it’s so much that it’s their preferred sport, it’ll be the potential negative reaction and economic impact they’ll be factoring in. The former isn’t all about numbers, more who they’d be pissing off. 

here:

27 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

“Deep seated anti-football, pro-rugby agenda at the heart of the Scottish Government.”

N

It’s really not. I’m saying I suspect that the 6 Nations looming played a role in the decision to lift restriction and have said all along I may be talking pish. Wouldn’t be the first time. As I said at the start, just happy to be getting back into grounds if what’s been reported is true. How or why they made the decision is irrelevant. 

and here:

23 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

Because there’s a 6 Nations looming which would have been forced behind closed doors if the restrictions continued. Pretty sure that would have at least been mentioned in the discussions. Would be weird if it wasn’t tbh. 

for a start.

It's remarkable the way you need to be reminded what you've posted within the last page and hour.

[Paco]

Surely the clubs should be considering shifting Saturday’s fixtures to next Tuesday, in order to get a proper crowd in?

Appreciate it’s short timeframes but surely the common sense solution here.

[Guest Flash]

23 minutes ago, Flash said:

Think Covid passports will be needed for crowds of over 1,000. 

Looks like it. From BBC website. Eta proof of negative LF test also accepted.

"Firstly, our guidance will now stipulate that the organisers of large events of 1,000 or more people should check the certification status of at least 50% of attendees, rather than the current 20%, or at least 1,000 people - whichever figure is higher," Ms Sturgeon explained.

"And, second, from Monday the requirement to be 'fully vaccinated' for the purposes of Covid certification will include having a booster if the second dose was more than four months ago.

BBC Sport

Edited January 11, 2022 by Flash

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Flash said:

Looks like it. From BBC website

"Firstly, our guidance will now stipulate that the organisers of large events of 1,000 or more people should check the certification status of at least 50% of attendees, rather than the current 20%, or at least 1,000 people - whichever figure is higher," Ms Sturgeon explained.

"And, second, from Monday the requirement to be 'fully vaccinated' for the purposes of Covid certification will include having a booster if the second dose was more than four months ago.

BBC Sport

Just posted on the QoS thread but presumably this leaves us either limiting the crowd to 999 or undertaking a pain in the backside checking procedure of at least 1,000 people (given our current crowds that's effectively saying we need to check everyone). Previously vaccine passports were only required at events over 4,000.

I presume even if we were to limit the crowd to 999 it would still only be those with a vaccine passport?

Edited January 11, 2022 by Skyline Drifter

[roverthemoon]

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Well here:

here:

here:

and here:

for a start.

It's remarkable the way you need to be reminded what you've posted within the last page and hour.

None of these are me saying that the SG are focusing on the 6 Nations “over all else” though are they? Anyway, we’re officially back in. Great news. 

[roverthemoon]

5 minutes ago, Paco said:

Surely the clubs should be considering shifting Saturday’s fixtures to next Tuesday, in order to get a proper crowd in?

Appreciate it’s short timeframes but surely the common sense solution here.

Makes sense, but clubs won’t see a huge commercial benefit from this, so I’m guessing they’ll stick to Saturday so as not to disrupt the players and managers preparations. 

[Guest Flash]

5 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Just posted on the QoS thread but presumably this leaves us either limiting the crowd to 999 or undertaking a pain in the backside checking procedure of at least 1,000 people. Previously vaccine passports were only required at events over 4,000.

I presume even if we were to limit the crowd to 999 it would still only be those with a vaccine passport?

I think it is badly worded. I think it means organisers now have to check at least 50% of attendees rather than 20% or 1,000 whichever is the higher. So, I think if the crowd was 1,200 you’d need to check 600 passports or LF test results. Also means if the crowd is 50,000, there would have to be 25,000 checks. I could be wrong, though.
Eta if the crowd is under 1,000 I don’t think you need to do any checks.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Flash

[Double Jack D]

1 minute ago, Flash said:

I think it is badly worded. I think it means organisers now have to check at least 50% of attendees rather than 20% or 1,000 whichever is the higher. So, I think if the crowd was 1,200 you’d need to check 600 passports or LF test results. Also means if the crowd is 50,000, there would have to be 25,000 checks. I could be wrong, though.
Eta if the crowd is under 1,000 I don’t think you need to do any checks.

I read it as if the crowd was 1200 you would need to check 1000.

[Paco]

Makes sense, but clubs won’t see a huge commercial benefit from this, so I’m guessing they’ll stick to Saturday so as not to disrupt the players and managers preparations. 

I do understand that but tough shit in my opinion - fans have paid to be there, and there’s an easy route to getting them in.

Fans have been completely taken for granted for the vast majority of the pandemic. Obviously I understand both clubs would need to agree, and away teams particularly may be reluctant, but if there’s not even an effort to move the games it’s a disgrace.