St. Johnstone v Aberdeen (The Massey-Ferguson Main Event)

[DukDukGoose]

Just now, PauloPerth said:

Aren't clubs responsible for the behaviour of their players though, especially in the current situation?  If it's simply a rap on the knuckles then there's no deterrent for others.  It's the live match on sky, and one of their few sporting attractions this weekend.  

I know it's harsh, and I wouldn't like it if it was us, but I don't think the spfl have any choice but to fine Aberfeen £500,000 and deduct them 25 points.

How responsible can they be?

[Robin.Hood]

2 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

So why should the club be punished and not the 8 individuals?

Is there anything in the return to training protocols that suggests this?

Aside from putting the team up at a hotel and operating inside a bubble there's not much the clubs can do if players act like morons 

I agree.

The 8 players don't play and you play whoever you have left? Can't fill the bench? Unlucky 

[capt_oats]

1 minute ago, Widge said:

I'd imagine any fine for Aberdeen would be equal or greater than the amount of any penalty Sky can impose for the game not being one.

The more you think about this, the more you can see the SFA making an example of Aberdeen and harshly at that, even if it is a minority of the players who've gone out. Whether it was 1 or 30 of the employees they'll probably view a breach the same in both cases. As I said previously it's harsh on Aberdeen as a club due to it being a minorities actions, but someones got to be culpable and the SFA only really have jurisdiction over the club. 

You've already had Hibs and Motherwell get a slap on the wrist for late test results and Rangers have questions about how they played the game against United if they were still waiting on results. Those are procedural points though and in the case of the late tests it's kind of out of the hands of the clubs.

If a player/players have just fucked off the rules then you can absolutely see them/Aberdeen being heavily done for it.

[craigkillie]

Just now, Widge said:

I'd imagine any fine for Aberdeen would be equal or greater than the amount of any penalty Sky can impose for the game not being one.

The more you think about this, the more you can see the SFA making an example of Aberdeen and harshly at that, even if it is a minority of the players who've gone out. Whether it was 1 or 30 of the employees they'll probably view a breach the same in both cases. As I said previously it's harsh on Aberdeen as a club due to it being a minorities actions, but someones got to be culpable and the SFA only really have jurisdiction over the club. 

The SFA do have jurisdiction over individual players and can issue fines and suspensions for breaching their rules. If Aberdeen have done everything within their power to follow the rules then I don't think it's fair to punish them.

[PauloPerth]

5 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

So why should the club be punished and not the 8 individuals?

Is there anything in the return to training protocols that suggests this?

Aside from putting the team up at a hotel and operating inside a bubble there's not much the clubs can do if players act like morons 

Doesn't this come under Vicarious liability?  Aberdeen are responsible if the fixture is off, and it's massively unfortunate that this just happens to be the sky game this week.

[LIVIFOREVER]

3 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

Aren't clubs responsible for the behaviour of their players though, especially in the current situation?  If it's simply a rap on the knuckles then there's no deterrent for others.  It's the live match on sky, and one of their few sporting attractions this weekend.  

I know it's harsh, and I wouldn't like it if it was us, but I don't think the spfl have any choice but to fine Aberfeen £500,000 and deduct them 25 points.

Ann Budge is currently in talks with the SPFL wanting Aberdeen punished by demotion to the Championship and Hearts taking their place back in the Premiership.

[RandomGuy.]

6 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

So why should the club be punished and not the 8 individuals?

Because that amount of players isn't acceptable.

If its just one (I see Matty Kennedy being named), then Aberdeen shouldn't face punishment.

[DukDukGoose]

3 minutes ago, G_Man1985 said:

I agree.

The 8 players don't play and you play whoever you have left? Can't fill the bench? Unlucky 

Yeah. A fine for the players and a 1 game ban works perfectly for me. Hits the club where it hurts on the field.

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA do have jurisdiction over individual players and can issue fines and suspensions for breaching their rules. If Aberdeen have done everything within their power to follow the rules then I don't think it's fair to punish them.

Agreed.

[Dons_1988]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

Because that amount of players isn't acceptable.

If its just one (I see Matty Kennedy being named), then Aberdeen shouldn't face punishment.

What's your cut off number for making it the clubs fault?

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

Because that amount of players isn't acceptable.

If its just one (I see Matty Kennedy being named), then Aberdeen shouldn't face punishment.

Are the club operating a babysitting facility?

[Widge]

1 minute ago, G_Man1985 said:

I agree.

The 8 players don't play and you play whoever you have left? Can't fill the bench? Unlucky 

Not really that easy if you've got them integrating into a squad and potentially exposing an entire team/staff.

1 minute ago, capt_oats said:

You've already had Hibs and Motherwell get a slap on the wrist for late test results and Rangers have questions about how they played the game against United if they were still waiting on results. Those are procedural points though and in the case of the late tests it's kind of out of the hands of the clubs.

If a player/players have just fucked off the rules then you can absolutely see them/Aberdeen being heavily done for it.

It's a fair point, they've stopped short of actual punishment, but these incidents occurred in the initial stages where we knew there would be issues and thankfully no issues occurred as a result. This is totally different, you've had players clearly going out in the city centre, not socially distancing and as a result exposing an entire teams staff to the infection. Whilst I agree that it should be an internal matter for Aberdeen to discipline the players, if the players have broken rules and guidance (which they appear to have) then the SFA will probably go after the club?

[PauloPerth]

Just now, Merkland Red said:

Yeah. A fine for the players and a 1 game ban works perfectly for me. Hits the club where it hurts on the field.

Deal.  

It'll still be a 1-1 draw.

[Widge]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA do have jurisdiction over individual players and can issue fines and suspensions for breaching their rules. If Aberdeen have done everything within their power to follow the rules then I don't think it's fair to punish them.

Ohh I'm not disagreeing with this, I think first and foremost Aberdeen should discipline the players, I just think the SFA will go over the top of them, especially to be seen by the government to being harsh on the clubs for any breach.

Rightly or wrongly, there's going to be some for of punishment at player level and potentially club level too.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

What's your cut off number for making it the clubs fault?

 

1 minute ago, Merkland Red said:

Are the club operating a babysitting facility?

I'm sure clubs get fined if 6 or more players get booked during a game, so it seems fair that 6 or more players breaching Covid protocols brings a similar punishment.

[Robin.Hood]

1 minute ago, Widge said:

Not really that easy if you've got them integrating into a squad and potentially exposing an entire team/staff.

It's a fair point, they've stopped short of actual punishment, but these incidents occurred in the initial stages where we knew there would be issues and thankfully no issues occurred as a result. This is totally different, you've had players clearly going out in the city centre, not socially distancing and as a result exposing an entire teams staff to the infection. Whilst I agree that it should be an internal matter for Aberdeen to discipline the players, if the players have broken rules and guidance (which they appear to have) then the SFA will probably go after the club?

Can't sort it all out before kick off? 3 points go to the other team. Move to next week.

If it means they are out of action for 2 weeks then next week's team get guaranteed 3 points.

Fines and slaps on the wrists are nae use. Id be bylin if that was my team mates being dickheads and not using due diligence. 

Don't want games postponed just because one team can't stick with the rules or whatever they have done wrong and the other team are fine.

 

 

[Dons_1988]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

 

I'm sure clubs get fined if 6 or more players get booked during a game, so it seems fair that 6 or more players breaching Covid protocols brings a similar punishment.

That's for failing to control your players on the pitch. Whilst they're at their place of work under the club's supervision.

You're talking about the club being held responsible for what they do when they go home from work.

[Golden Gordon]

5 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

How responsible can they be?

Comes down to personal responsibility.  If the club can show that they have made every effort to ensure that the Return to Football protocols have been communicated clearly to the players involved & didn't have a hand in organising the lockdown celebration piss up, then the players involved should be sanctioned.  However, given this is a global  public health issue, can see the Scottish Government putting pressure on the SFA to act against the club to ensure zero tolerance.

[resk]

That's for failing to control your players on the pitch. Whilst they're at their place of work under the club's supervision.
You're talking about the club being held responsible for what they do when they go home from work.

Exactly.

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

That's for failing to control your players on the pitch. Whilst they're at their place of work under the club's supervision.

You're talking about the club being held responsible for what they do when they go home from work.

Fair enough, I still don't think a club can expect to get away with 8 players breaching protocols though. Clubs are being asked to remind players of their responsibilities weekly.

As I say, if its not that high a number then the player should face punishment from both club and league.

[Valentino Bolognese]

Players acting irresponsibly in this case will surely have breached a contract clause covering something like 'acting in the best interests of the club' or 'maintaining professional conduct' or similar. I only know from sponsorship contracts which have 'don't be an idiot' clauses and employment contracts with similar. I'd imagine they would be on the end of a fine and told to take it to a tribunal if they feel hard done by. 

The club could well be sanctioned if they are unable to field a team. I would expect that there would be a blanket rule with few named exceptions. Again, if may be that a sanction is imposed and Aberdeen are directed to whatever the complaints procedure is if they want to challenge it. If so probably better to go to arbitration first rather than the court of session. That would be pretty stupid.