craigkillie Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 23 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said: No that's because the govt suspended all professional sport. They didn't have a choice. That hasn't happened at this time. The SFA chose to suspend all football back in March. At the time, the Scottish government were quite happy to go ahead with an Old Firm match with 50,000 people present. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyDD Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said: I have no desire to engage in a drawn-out discussion but it isn't "a simple fact". There are too many factors to consider and numerous documented examples of F/T players breaching protocol. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falkirkthebigclub Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, AndyDD said: 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. Once again, there are many variables so it is not "a simple fact". Factors include: occupation of spouse; children; the P/T player might WFH; ability to order & process information; etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 33 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Yes, you are correct. The window wasn’t open in December therefore doesn’t apply in practice. It does apply in practice as many clubs have already signed players in January 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyDD Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 Just now, badgerthewitness said: Once again, there are many variables so it is not "a simple fact". Factors include: occupation of spouse; children; the P/T player might WFH; ability to order & process information; etc. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 47 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said: I think he meant because you’ve had time to post nearly 50,000 times That's cos he's married. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Grant228 said: No they won't have. We've sold circa the same number of season tickets as we did last season . Bout 2500 so would be no real difference to a normal year. In fact we may have got more people as virtual walk-ups than normal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falkirkthebigclub Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, AndyDD said: 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. If a F/T player is married to an ICU doctor then (we should assume) they are at more risk than a self-employed roofer who plays football P/T. We're going round in circles, all the best. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said: If a F/T player is married to an ICU doctor then (we should assume) they are at more risk than a self-employed roofer who plays football P/T. We're going round in circles, all the best. Or if a full time side all pile out to Dubai for a jolly they are probably more at risk than your self employed roofer too I reckon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falkirkthebigclub Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Shadwell Dog said: Or if a full time side all pile out to Dubai for a jolly they are probably more at risk than your self employed roofer too I reckon My point was, admittedly, hypothetical pish but a decision to suspend two leagues was made on even weaker hypothetical pish. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 The decision was to suspend all football which doesn't have regular covid testing. Only the top two tiers of the men's game can realistically afford testing. The part-time/full-time thing does play a part in this, but is less important than the ability to test. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Kinnear Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, craigkillie said: The decision was to suspend all football which doesn't have regular covid testing. Only the top two tiers of the men's game can realistically afford testing. The part-time/full-time thing does play a part in this, but is less important than the ability to test. A lot of clubs in the Championship would have struggled to pay for testing if they hadn't been bunged £500k each last week. Edited January 12, 2021 by Harry Kinnear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, craigkillie said: The decision was to suspend all football which doesn't have regular covid testing. Only the top two tiers of the men's game can realistically afford testing. The part-time/full-time thing does play a part in this, but is less important than the ability to test. Were the lower leagues asked if they could afford testing? Serious question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 28 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: It does apply in practice as many clubs have already signed players in January Fair enough but this is an FFC forum. Toddle off back to your dump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Fair enough but this is an FFC forum. Toddle off back to your dump. No it's not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falkirkthebigclub Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 6 minutes ago, craigkillie said: The decision was to suspend all football which doesn't have regular covid testing. Only the top two tiers of the men's game can realistically afford testing. The part-time/full-time thing does play a part in this, but is less important than the ability to test. Is there any evidence suspension of untested P/T football will lower infection rates? If so, why was it allowed to commence in October? In conclusion, Cockwomble owes a public apology to 20 SPFL member clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said: No it's not. Okay, let’s not be pedantic. on the basis that we (FFC) haven’t signed anyone, then, in practice, it doesn’t matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 To be honest, there's folk been scratching their heads about Scottish football continuing with no testing ever since the season re-started. It's as if all the Covid measures were set up in the Premiership and they hoped no-one would notice it wasn't happening anywhere else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 How much cash is Lord Haughey throwing at Queens Park? I see he's just made Leeann Dempster CEO! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bairn88 Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said: To be honest, there's folk been scratching their heads about Scottish football continuing with no testing ever since the season re-started. It's as if all the Covid measures were set up in the Premiership and they hoped no-one would notice it wasn't happening anywhere else. Haha, was thinking exactly this earlier. It’s like the old magician’s favourite. Distract everyone from us doing no testing with the weekly fanfare over positive outbreaks in the prem. Suddenly though the audience has turned and looked at us and we’re standing bollock naked with the reveal in our hands and nowhere to run 3 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.