Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

596 Excellent

About AndyDD

  • Rank
    Third Division Apprentice

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Black Lodge
  • Interests
    DC Comics, Elvis, Fitba, Politics, David Lynch and, I suppose, Airdrieonians.
  • My Team

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How often it happens doesn't really matter. If your contention is that a certain amount of part time teams in a league makes it semi-pro, then you are by default saying that the championship could be semi-pro and league 1 professional, so long as an admittedly unlikely (but by no means out of the realms of possibility) series of promotions and relegations took place between the divisions. That's just daft. You're right about most else being discussed here, but that's an untenable position. The four leagues are professional, with the top two full-time leagues bar two exceptions. That's the distinction as well we all know it. I think there's a general acceptance the there really shouldn't be any football until the prevalence of the virus drops. That prevalence is dropping, and we should see that continue with a fair wind from here on out to the end of the month. Worth pointing out as well that, although leagues 1 and 2 were stopped at the same time as amateur, junior and women's football, there's good reason to expect that the two SPFL leagues could and should be returned to playing earlier than the rest, especially with testing as a additional screen, which should really have been a bare minimum from the get go. Given the degree of lockdown across society at the moment, I do wonder how many of the part time players who have other jobs are actually going out to do those jobs. How many are either furloughed, working from home or unable to work at the present time in their non-football job?
  2. Worth remembering that the new strain of the virus, which is very well settled here now having come up from england, and which was not a factor until mid to late December and into January, the period that saw the spikes in infection and caused the suspension in the first place, is much more infectious than the original strain. The prevalence level, then, needs to be even lower than it was in, say, October or November, because this version of the virus spreads more easily and more rapidly. It feels like a moving of the goalposts, given the big drop in prevalence from late december/mid january to now, but every case is now likely to be more infectious, due to the mutation of the strain. That is likely why they want to wait until the cases drop further. Maybe should decide that the team who finishes second should be the one contesting the playoff with the second bottom team in the league above this season, to avoid as big a delay for the championship side as it appears there might be if we play to a finish. Whomever finishes second to us, then... Chuckle.
  3. Heh, bugger, you're probably right. Still terrible journalism.
  4. Football fans would rather lose or draw playing stylish football than ground out narrow wins playing rather conservatively, says John Collins. Would they, aye? Speak for yersel, John.
  5. You're obviously right that they are placing the emphasis on GER as in Gerrard, and you are obviously right about the terrible reading comprehension of those reading it another way, but this is definitely still terrible journalism. It's not even really a pun. It's dreadful stuff. The kind of dreadful stuff they traffic in routinely, but terrible is absolutely apt here.
  6. They were not in a relegation place, though, they were in a playoff place, so it's not really fair to treat them differently than any other side in a playoff place. All teams in automatic relegation spots were relegated. All teams in automatic promotion places were promoted. All playoffs were cancelled, so all teams in playoff positions didn't get to compete in playoffs to go up a division, or to protect their place in their division. Any change to this specific to the team at the bottom of League 2 would have been to punish them in a way the teams in the relegation playoff place of every other division was not punished. Is that what you think should have happened?
  7. Well I'm sure they will still demand 'leadership' and tell all their supporters that the fault for the ensuing chaos lies with the spfl board, but they have effectively guaranteed another bunfight and vote situation should similar circumstance arise around ending season early. That was, in their mind, better than giving them the powers to call it. They've effectively gambled that the season would finish this time and that there'd be no danger of another curtailment. The clubs appoint the board, they appoint the chief exec and they give them the powers they want them to have. The spfl is a weak, rudderless organisation that stumbles from crisis to crisis, with a leadership that struggles to in any discernible way actually lead. They are in this state because the clubs have, deliberately or otherwise, made it so.
  8. To be fair they tried to get the authority to do exactly that. The clubs refused to give it to them. The SPFL board only has the amount of power the clubs allow them.
  9. The 42 club zoom call today would be interesting viewing. "As an ambitious full time team Partick Thistle demand that our wee box on the screen be larger than the part time teams"
  10. I said exactly that. It only applies to those who have not been furloughed in their other job and who are not able to work from home. If they have another job that they still go to, over and above football training and football playing, then more risk of exposure is woven into their day to day working lives than the lives of their full time counterparts. This is a simple fact. Those who work from home or who are furloughed are at no greater risk than their full time counterparts.
  11. That they are at more risk of exposure is a simple fact, because they have a second workplace. Obviously this only applies to those who are not furloughed by their other employer and those who cannot work from home. If you have to go to another workplace you are further exposed than if you do not go to another workplace. This is a fact, and yes it is a simple one. Whether or not this can be compensated with increased vigilance, as @roman_bairn suggests, is definitely worth considering, but it does not change the basic logic that tells us you get more risk from increased exposure to other people. That F/T players breach protocol like inconsiderate morons doesn't change the pretty fundamental differences between part and full time exposure risks.
  12. Without regular testing, it would be impossible to gather evidence. It is a simple fact, though, that part time players are at more risk of exposure than full time players. If you are at more risk of exposure, you are at more risk of spread.
  13. They are inarguably more vulnerable to exposure, by dint of their part time nature. The vast majority will have other jobs, many of which will not be doable from home, meaning they are still going to workplaces or sites and then training and playing. Full time players obviously don't have the same level of potential exposure woven into their day to day lives as part time footballers do.
  14. Perhaps overly pedantic myself here, but both of these things cannot be true. It was not the SPFL who ultimately made the decision, but to say they were not involved, well, that simply cannot be. Doncaster, as you say, is on the JRG and would have been in the meeting which reached this decision. That's involvement. Not responsibility, but involvement.
  • Create New...