AndyDD

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.

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?

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, nothing wrong with that; I understand your point and you mine, we just don't happen to agree. My point regards telling the clubs is that, rather than the SFA needing to tell everyone right away as you suggested, really they needed to tell the clubs right away. They didn't need to tell the media right away. The media did not need to be told at the same time as the clubs. The public did not need to be told at the same time as the clubs. It would have struck me as entirely proper to make the decision, inform the affected clubs/organisations, then publish a statement for the press. Had the clubs leaked it ahead of the statement to the press, well, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. Nor would anyone really moan about that. It is not in my mind unreasonable to expect the SFA to view the lower leagues as being higher up the 'need to know' list than the media, nor would telling them right away, instead of after they had drafted, redrafted, greenlit and published a statement to press, strike me as all that impossible to achieve. We're talking in circles now though, so fair play.

That's fair and you make a reasonable point, but I don't think 'we might be criticised for allowing a leak' is much of a justification. It seems fairly minor. Leaks are a fact of life across governments and organisations the world over. I'm unaware if there was any difference last March, if clubs were given a heads up or not, but I do remember it being widely discussed online as rumour before the announcement. Possibly due to leaks. You're likely right on that front. Regardless, it's my view that this time clubs should have been informed first Not just a message saying there will be a statement, but informing the clubs that they would be suspended for 3 weeks before papping out on Twitter that they would be suspended for 3 weeks. That's a pretty poor way to find out your organisational body is banning you from activity for the rest of the month, and if that was the way all clubs were informed in March, then it was a pretty poor way to handle it then, too. If it leaked, it leaked. The sky would remain up. Having made the decision, they should have told the clubs asap. The rest of us don't need to know as quickly as they do, frankly. They have employees to take care of and emergency financial measures to implement. Ultimately, of course, they could still have remedied this with the manner in which they announced it, the language they chose to use and the sympathy they displayed to those impacted, a point on which we agree. That is perhaps the way in which League 1 and below are being treated differently from the top clubs.

Yeah, That makes sense, I can understand the fear of leaking. That being said, a conference call with the clubs in leagues 1 & 2 would have been perfectly reasonable, rather than having to notify them individually. Had doing that as part of their meeting, or in advance of then releasing their statement, led to a leak, well, frankly, so what? All the leak would do is tip off fans a wee bit earlier. I don't see the massive downside to this, especially balanced against the virtue of treating the clubs affected properly. Granted, I'm now focussing on League 1 and 2 Clubs and rather overlooking Highland and Lowland, junior and Women's teams, so I have to cop to that a bit. They couldn't have them all on a conference call, given the numbers involved. That being said, I'm not really sure that 'we don't word word leaking out a few hours before' is all that strong a justification for the pretty poor treatment of the affected clubs vis a vis advanced notice. In a perfect world, they'd not leak it, but the avoidance of a leak being put above respectful and reasonable treatment of members of your organisation and participants in your competitions is pretty indicative of the attitude problem.

@Diamonds are Forever actually makes a pretty inarguable point; Football is not an essential business/service, at any level. Presumably the fact that this is an SFA decision, not a Governmental one, is the only reason the top two divisions remain open for now. the top flight is not an essential service or business but it is at less risk of exposure than the lower leagues. Ditto the first division. I've said already that I think the distinction between almost completely part time and almost completely full time is a reasonable one and on that basis this suspension, in the hopes that the figures drop over the rest of this month, is probably a kick we need to take. However, I think it's entirely fair to criticise the way in which the announcement was made and the decision making was handled. The teams in the lower leagues were informed mere moments before it was announced, which is pretty appalling. They should have been brought up to speed well in advance of the announcement to the press and public. Statements from the SPFL and SFA should have been released that sympathised with the lower league clubs, staff, players and supporters, that accepted this would be a blow to them and assuring them that everything will be done to ensure those leagues can restart and complete if at all possible. There was none, or precious little, of that. Not for the first time, it is hard not to feel treated with contempt by the SPFL and SFA. As an afterthought at best. It would be such an easy thing to do, as well, to put on a record a fulsome support and sympathy for the teams and supports affected. Instead, Ian Maxwell mentioned that we could at least still watch football on Sky. Thanks, Ian, but I've no real interest in forking out money to watch Hamilton V rangers or Dundee united V rangers or Ross County V rangers or St Mirren V celtic. I want to watch Airdrie (yes, I know, clearly a disorder of some kind, but still). In the round, this is the right call for now. The handling, as seemingly ever, has been far from competent. Moonhowling idiots will always cry conspiracy and agenda, but there's no reason to give them such breathing room.

For pure entertainment value, I'm hoping Low puts out at least one statement a week during this suspension. If some equivalent weapon at Falkirk would like to do the same, that'd be great. 'Enough is enough'. What does that even mean? Resigning membership, Jackie? No? Then what does 'enough is enough' mean? Idiotic, pointless, hand-wringing guff. I Love it.

It was better entertainment than quite a lot of football, that's for sure. And yes, 'Relegate Hearts' is always the answer.

They've suspended the Cup games until at least end of January, I'm sure I read earlier. The suspension kicks in midnight tonight, which means there is a cup game being played tonight. The games set for tomorrow are off, though. As for the progress of the competition itself? I suppose they will wait and see if they can get us back on after the initial three weeks or not.

They asked to be given the authority to make such plans and put things in place. The clubs denied them that. So, if it comes to it, another bun-fight and vote.

It doesn't seem to be government call, as such. SFA JRG, so I suppose some Governmental involvement I guess. Seems to be a consensus position vis a vis the predominantly part time nature of our leagues and I suppose part time players are at greater risk of catching and spreading than full-time players. Kick in the soul, regardless. But here we are.

Every league in world football that IS testing have returned positive cases. Some a lot, some a little, some varying. Had lower leagues here been testing up to now, it is inevitable that we'd have had our share of positive tests, too. There is no logical reason to imagine we'd have been unique in world football. This is a kick in the fucking soul and I hate it, but given that emergency corpse storage units are being set up down south on the back of overflowing morgues, it's a kick we just have to take for now in the hopes that these efforts stop us getting as bad as that up here.

Given the wider context, I can't really argue with the decision. I fucking hate it and it boils my piss, a proper punch to the heart, but hey ho, that's the way the mop flops. Hopefully we see figures drop over the rest of the month. f**k sake this is shite.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-board-confirms-three-week-suspension-of-professional-football-beneath-spfl-championship/?rid=13929 Well. f**k.

Falkirk 1-1 Montrose Clyde 1-0 East Fife Dumbarton 0-0 Forfar Partick 1-1 Cove Peterhead 0-2 Airdrie

Well, seems I picked a no bad one to inadvertently miss. In saying that I did catch the last 20 mins or so. Despite the cries of 'tinkering!', only one change from the last starting XI, the team who scored 4 goals and should have scored a few more, which underlines just how below par that performance yesterday seems to have been. In the previous meeting, Airdrie had 17 shots at goal, 7 on target and missed several glorious chances. That sort of defeat I wasn't too bothered about as on another day Robert puts two or three of his bucket load of chances in, instead of several metres over the bar or wide. He went on to prove he can hit the back of the net, so I expected a similar showing today but with more cutting edge now that we have been up and running and players like him have found more of a solid footing. Looks like instead they were utterly abject. I know it will have been a disruption, not getting a game since Boxing day and losing the rhythm that had been established in the wins over Falkirk and Clyde, but still, from what little I did see and everything I've heard/read, this was a drab, listless performance from the side that, bar one player (Stokes for Richie) was the same as that which slapped Clyde about last time out. Frustration, thy name is Airdrie.