The Falkirk FC Thread

[AndyDD 596]

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. 

[badgerthewitness 2,550]

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.

 

[Cowden Cowboy 812]

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

[AndyDD 596]

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. 

[NewBornBairn 11,773]

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. 

[Shadwell Dog 3,478]

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.

[badgerthewitness 2,550]

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.

[Shadwell Dog 3,478]

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

[badgerthewitness 2,550]

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.

[craigkillie 13,878]

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.

[Harry Kinnear 2,160]

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 by Harry Kinnear

[NewBornBairn 11,773]

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. 

[Dawson Park Boy 246]

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.

 

[NewBornBairn 11,773]

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.

[badgerthewitness 2,550]

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.

[Dawson Park Boy 246]

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.

[NewBornBairn 11,773]

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. 

[kiddy 929]

How much cash is Lord Haughey throwing at Queens Park? I see he's just made Leeann Dempster CEO!

[bairn88 652]

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

[Shadwell Dog 3,478]

19 minutes ago, kiddy said:

How much cash is Lord Haughey throwing at Queens Park? I see he's just made Leeann Dempster CEO!

The SFA flung 5 million quid at them . No idea why as they've put zero money into Hampden over the years and yet have charged the SFA a sizeable sum for rent every season. No idea how 5 million was the sum. If I'd been the SFA I'd have told them to bolt and moved elsewhere. Queen's park would've got desperate as they could never have afforded to run Hampden and the SFA could've got it for peanuts.  To me 5million was far too much but then haughey ponied up some of the cash for the SFA so it's no surprise they went for it.  The other clubs especially at that level should've been fuming though if you ask me as it's given them a huge advantage.