Sportsound Watch

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, Tynierose said:

We could.  At Linlithgow we are ready to go.  We use an online platform to sell our tickets and also have a database held of all our season ticket holders.

We successfully managed the all ticket Falkirk fixture last year and before that had 2500 against Hibs again all ticket.

We have the ground ready for social distancing, riak assessments completed and just need the go ahead for fans to get in.

That's genuinely fantastic you have that in place. I can see why you'd think you should be allowed to open the gates and do it sensibly.

On the flip side I've been to Highland League fund raisers where they've squeezed in as much folk as possible to a function room as possible. It's teams like that who ruin it for teams like yours.

55 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It's not all about the Premiership - even allowing 300 fans in could be profitable for lower league or non-league clubs. And some Premiership clubs (including Killie) sold their season tickets on the basis that supporters would pay for 19 games and get 19 games, so every home game we miss means we owe our season ticket holders a bigger discount on next season's ticket.

I see your point but it just comes as selfish because it will affect your club.

I commented further in the thread that we're all assuming the lower league teams will cope with whatever demand and do it sensibly. Allegedly Killie had an issue with Covid due to their own negligence (not read anything further today) and that's a professional club. 

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, Tynierose said:

We could.  At Linlithgow we are ready to go.  We use an online platform to sell our tickets and also have a database held of all our season ticket holders.

We successfully managed the all ticket Falkirk fixture last year and before that had 2500 against Hibs again all ticket.

We have the ground ready for social distancing, riak assessments completed and just need the go ahead for fans to get in.

How many paying customers could you get in?

[Junior_Arab]

Do all businesses have to worry about how their customers get to/from their premises or is it just football teams where too many people using public transport is seen as an issue? That’s a genuine question, I’m not trying to be cute either way. I just can’t believe a football match (with limited numbers) is any more high risk than Sauchiehall Street at chucking out time when everyone spills out of the pubs and heads for the takeaways and taxis en masse. So do the pubs and fast food restaurants need to worry about how their clients get home or is it not their problem? 

[EdinburghLivi]

15 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

On the flip side I've been to Highland League fund raisers where they've squeezed in as much folk as possible to a function room as possible. It's teams like that who ruin it for teams like yours.

Recently?

[The Master]

15 minutes ago, Junior_Arab said:

Do all businesses have to worry about how their customers get to/from their premises or is it just football teams where too many people using public transport is seen as an issue? That’s a genuine question, I’m not trying to be cute either way. I just can’t believe a football match (with limited numbers) is any more high risk than Sauchiehall Street at chucking out time when everyone spills out of the pubs and heads for the takeaways and taxis en masse. So do the pubs and fast food restaurants need to worry about how their clients get home or is it not their problem? 

People keep looking at this in the wrong way. It’s isn’t about X being as safe as (or safer than) Y, so if Y is allowed why not X.

There’s an overall amount of risk that the Scottish Government is prepared to take. Everything new that’s allowed or opened up will contribute to the risk, and once the limit is reached that’s it. 

For the sake of argument, let’s say that 10% capacity crowds at all 21 SPFL matches each week has the same risk profile as pubs being open as they are now. But only one of these can happen without going above the current acceptable risk level. And so we have the current situation. 

It’s more or less the same reason for why you can still go to the pub but not have people round your house. Even if the latter were safer (which is debatable), if you want the pubs open you can’t have visitors without the overall risk limit being breached. 

Edited October 3, 2020 by The Master

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

It's not all about the Premiership - even allowing 300 fans in could be profitable for lower league or non-league clubs. And some Premiership clubs (including Killie) sold their season tickets on the basis that supporters would pay for 19 games and get 19 games, so every home game we miss means we owe our season ticket holders a bigger discount on next season's ticket.

An utterly ludicrous commitment for a football club to make when it had precisely zero insight as to if/when crowds would return.

[Junior_Arab]

3 minutes ago, The Master said:

People keep looking at this in the wrong way. It’s isn’t about X being as safe as (or safer than) Y, so if Y is allowed why not X.

There’s an overall amount of risk that the Scottish Government is prepared to take. Everything new that’s allowed or opened up will contribute to the risk, and once the limit is reached that’s it. 

For the sake of argument, let’s say that 10% capacity crowds at all 21 SPFL matches each week has the same risk profile as pubs being open as they are now. But only one of these can happen without going above the current acceptable risk level. And so we have the current situation. 

It’s more or less the same reason for why you can still go to the pub but not have people round your house. Even if the latter were safer (which is debatable), if you want the pubs open you can’t have visitors without the overall risk limit being breached. 

I accept the point you’re making and it’s something that Jason Leitch has explained  very well on a few occasions on Off the Ball, but if a large part of the official reason that football can’t have any fans in is because of the possible dangers associated with travel to & from the matches (which again I’m sure Prof Leitch has at least hinted at) then football clubs would be entitled to wonder why it was only them that this applied to. 

[The Master]

2 minutes ago, Junior_Arab said:

I accept the point you’re making and it’s something that Jason Leitch has explained  very well on a few occasions on Off the Ball, but if a large part of the official reason that football can’t have any fans in is because of the possible dangers associated with travel to & from the matches (which again I’m sure Prof Leitch has at least hinted at) then football clubs would be entitled to wonder why it was only them that this applied to. 

It boils down to the same principle - you already have risk associated with people travelling socially, so you don’t want to compound that by also having people travel for football. 

[craigkillie]

17 minutes ago, The Master said:

People keep looking at this in the wrong way. It’s isn’t about X being as safe as (or safer than) Y, so if Y is allowed why not X.

There’s an overall amount of risk that the Scottish Government is prepared to take. Everything new that’s allowed or opened up will contribute to the risk, and once the limit is reached that’s it. 

For the sake of argument, let’s say that 10% capacity crowds at all 21 SPFL matches each week has the same risk profile as pubs being open as they are now. But only one of these can happen without going above the current acceptable risk level. And so we have the current situation. 

It’s more or less the same reason for why you can still go to the pub but not have people round your house. Even if the latter were safer (which is debatable), if you want the pubs open you can’t have visitors without the overall risk limit being breached. 

This is exactly why it is correctly being described as a political decision and not a clinical one. Certain activities are being prioritised for economic reasons rather than public health reasons.

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

It's not all about the Premiership - even allowing 300 fans in could be profitable for lower league or non-league clubs. And some Premiership clubs (including Killie) sold their season tickets on the basis that supporters would pay for 19 games and get 19 games, so every home game we miss means we owe our season ticket holders a bigger discount on next season's ticket.

Maybe I'm stupid but no doubt when the STs go on sale next year I'll think, f**k it the money has gone, and just pay full whack for my ticket again.

[craigkillie]

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

Maybe I'm stupid but no doubt when the STs go on sale next year I'll think, f**k it the money has gone, and just pay full whack for my ticket again.

I suspect this will be the case for many people, and perhaps the club were counting on it. I think United are doing something similar, aren't they?

[The Master]

4 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

This is exactly why it is correctly being described as a political decision and not a clinical one. Certain activities are being prioritised for economic reasons rather than public health reasons.

Yes, although the noises from the Scottish Government suggest that they’d rather not prioritise anything for economic reasons, but the lack of an ongoing UK furlough scheme gives them no choice. 

Which is another reason why it’s not as simple as comparing football to pubs and restaurants. I’m confident pubs would already be closed again if Holyrood had the fiscal powers to fund their own furlough. 

[invergowrie arab]

12 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I suspect this will be the case for many people, and perhaps the club were counting on it. I think United are doing something similar, aren't they?

Yeah they are.

[ropy]

43 minutes ago, The Master said:

People keep looking at this in the wrong way. It’s isn’t about X being as safe as (or safer than) Y, so if Y is allowed why not X.

There’s an overall amount of risk that the Scottish Government is prepared to take. Everything new that’s allowed or opened up will contribute to the risk, and once the limit is reached that’s it. 

For the sake of argument, let’s say that 10% capacity crowds at all 21 SPFL matches each week has the same risk profile as pubs being open as they are now. But only one of these can happen without going above the current acceptable risk level. And so we have the current situation. 

It’s more or less the same reason for why you can still go to the pub but not have people round your house. Even if the latter were safer (which is debatable), if you want the pubs open you can’t have visitors without the overall risk limit being breached. 

Correct, what would people want closed down to allow 500 people at the football.  I would close down beauty parlours and sushi bars.

[ropy]

29 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Maybe I'm stupid but no doubt when the STs go on sale next year I'll think, f**k it the money has gone, and just pay full whack for my ticket again.

I suspect 50% of people will do this but those that can’t afford it should take advantage of the offer.

[invergowrie arab]

11 minutes ago, ropy said:

Correct, what would people want closed down to allow 500 people at the football.  I would close down beauty parlours and sushi bars.

f**k off. That's my big pay day treat every month to myself. no good ones in Dundee though so usually head down to Glasgow to make a day of it. You can shut the sushi bars though.

I would shut any pub that holds more than 100 people. 1 for infection control but 2 because they are highly likely to be awful.

[ropy]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

f**k off. That's my big pay day treat every month to myself. no good ones in Dundee though so usually head down to Glasgow to make a day of it. You can shut the sushi bars though.

I would shut any pub that holds more than 100 people. 1 for infection control but 2 because they are highly likely to be awful.

Favourite treatment?

[IrishBhoy]

1 hour ago, Junior_Arab said:

Do all businesses have to worry about how their customers get to/from their premises or is it just football teams where too many people using public transport is seen as an issue? That’s a genuine question, I’m not trying to be cute either way. I just can’t believe a football match (with limited numbers) is any more high risk than Sauchiehall Street at chucking out time when everyone spills out of the pubs and heads for the takeaways and taxis en masse. So do the pubs and fast food restaurants need to worry about how their clients get home or is it not their problem? 

That’s a very good point. If there was to be an outbreak that could be traced back to supporters mingling with each other after a game, you can guarantee the home club would feel the brunt of Sturgeon, SPFL etc. 

[invergowrie arab]

14 minutes ago, ropy said:

Favourite treatment?

Although I'm joking one of the girls in the office buffed my nails once. It was a revelation. 

[ropy]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Although I'm joking one of the girls in the office buffed my nails once. It was a revelation. 

I had my feet done because it was part of my honeymoon package, never felt so vulnerable and my smooth soles couldn’t cope with the shower floor later in the day.