Sportsound Watch

[DA Baracus]

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? 

I believe the thinking is around folk from different areas of the country coming to the same place, for roughly the same time.

If I wanted to go shopping I wouldn't fire down to the Kingsgate in Dunfermline for example.

Not saying that this is wrong or right mind, but I think this is one of the concerns regarding fans at games.

[Archie McSquackle]

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?

Motherwell are doing the same as well.

[Szamo's_Ammo]

8 hours 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.

Educational establishments. 

[Mr Heliums]

9 hours 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.

That doesn't make it a political decision, unless you're of the view that every government decision is political by its nature.

As you say, it's at least partially an economic decision and that's logical: all COVID decisions at the moment are based on the 'four harms' principle, which includes both health and economic considerations. It's all set out in the route map.

For Premiership clubs, health and economy are the two major harms being measured. Fans returning in small numbers triggers a health risk – we're not sure how small – but there's little balancing upside economically: 300 fans number at a game won't help Premiership clubs or wider society financially. No hospitality staff will keep their jobs. I know St Johnstone would certainly lose money.

Like I've said earlier in the thread the only arguably political element of it might be in the decision not to allow lower leagues to open up yet. Here the risk is surely low and the economic harm in continued closure more damaging, but I'd imagine the big clubs would immediately be breathing down the government's neck demanding they were allowed to fully open if the likes of Forfar were.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Mr Heliums

[Green Day]

8 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

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

 

8 hours ago, ropy said:

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.

I know Sportsound has become a bit of a joke, but unless it has morphed into Womens Hour you guys need to have a rethink....................

[ropy]

What is the political agenda against soft play and rally cross or is it just football?

[craigkillie]

What is the political agenda against soft play and rally cross or is it just football?

Why do people keep going on about a "political agenda" as though people are claiming it is a deliberate attack on football? Is it an attempt to create a strawman or just a failure to understand what has actually being said.

None of the people discussing it claimed it was an "agenda" or anything of the sort, they claimed the decision to prioritise some industries over others was politically motivated rather than being for health reasons, which is absolutely the case. The more dangerous but more economically important industries have been given priority.

[ropy]

15 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Why do people keep going on about a "political agenda" as though people are claiming it is a deliberate attack on football? Is it an attempt to create a strawman or just a failure to understand what has actually being said.

None of the people discussing it claimed it was an "agenda" or anything of the sort, they claimed the decision to prioritise some industries over others was politically motivated rather than being for health reasons, which is absolutely the case. The more dangerous but more economically important industries have been given priority.

I equate the terms political agenda and politically motivated, what I see is a choice based on prioritised criteria.  It is for people to determine if that criteria is put in place for political reasons or to keep us safe or to keep the economy going.

[rainbowrising]

2 minutes ago, ropy said:

I equate the terms political agenda and politically motivated, what I see is a choice based on prioritised criteria.  It is for people to determine if that criteria is put in place for political reasons or to keep us safe or to keep the economy going.

Exactly and there are people quite clearly using the political angle as a roundabout way of claiming an anti-football agenda. 

There are a whole bunch of health related rules also in place governing the areas that have, to some extent, reopened.

[ropy]

All of us on here have a vested interest in getting back to the football and feel aggrieved that it is not happening but the more sentient amongst us can see that there are more important things at large.

I do think there is value in looking at people returning to lower league games, these don’t involve the same mass movement from distance and can have a proportionally more positive impact on the clubs involved.  In a parallel world I think this approach could be taken with alcohol in grounds, see if it can work safely in League 2, then try League 1, I have doubts about its success at Premiership level.

[The Master]

13 minutes ago, ropy said:

I equate the terms political agenda and politically motivated, what I see is a choice based on prioritised criteria.  It is for people to determine if that criteria is put in place for political reasons or to keep us safe or to keep the economy going.

The decisions made are political decisions that balance keeping us safe with keeping the economy going.

[DukDukGoose]

Just now, The Master said:

The decisions made are political decisions that balance keeping us safe with keeping the economy going.

So it's just a decision then.

[vikingTON]

38 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Why do people keep going on about a "political agenda" as though people are claiming it is a deliberate attack on football? Is it an attempt to create a strawman or just a failure to understand what has actually being said.

None of the people discussing it claimed it was an "agenda" or anything of the sort, they claimed the decision to prioritise some industries over others was politically motivated rather than being for health reasons, which is absolutely the case. The more dangerous but more economically important industries have been given priority.

Well no that's not a 'politically motivated' decision at all then but rather an 'economically motivated' one. Stating that something is 'politically motivated' suggests that the choice is based on either i) the relative power of a sector to lobby and influence the government or more directly ii) the impact that the decision will have at the ballot box in Scotland in May 2021. Neither of those claims stack up in the case of opening a pub - the strange bête-noire of this debate, rather than the full-capacity schools that are actually supercharging the second wave here - as opposed to letting fans into an SPFL ground. 

Mulraney and Doncaster, presumably at the behest of their representing clubs, are absolutely trying to imply that there is a political agenda against Scottish football clubs here. It has been made to try and twist the arm of the SG and deflect attention from the SPFL's pathetic handling of the crisis since June among the particularly gullible section of Scottish football fans - otherwise they would have kept their peace. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by vikingTON

[Ludo*1]

Douglas Ross has a meeting with the top brass of 25 clubs and a few days later the SPFL are suddenly publicly trying to put pressure on the SG. Seems a bit suspect that that's just a coincidence.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Well no that's not 'politically motivated' decision-making then but rather 'economically motivated'. Stating that something is 'politically motivated' suggests that either the choice is based on the relative power of a sector to lobby and influence the government or more directly the impact that the decision will have at the ballot box in Scotland in May 2021. Neither of those claims stack up in the case of opening a pub - the strange bête-noire of this debate, rather than the full-capacity schools that are actually supercharging the second wave here - as opposed to letting fans into an SPFL ground. 

Mulraney and Doncaster, presumably at the behest of their representing clubs, are absolutely trying to imply that there is a political agenda against Scottish football clubs. It is there to try and twist the arm of the SG and gain sympathy for their pathetic handling of the crisis since June from the particularly gullible section of Scottish football fans - otherwise they would have kept their peace. 

Regardless of political or economic reasons, it's not the best policy to play to the gallery as you head in to a meeting with the body you expect to fill your begging bowl.

I might have thought shutting your trap, doing some research and presenting stats to persuade Government that they should release funds and/or reduce restrictions would have been a better option.

[ropy]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Regardless of political or economic reasons, it's not the best policy to play to the gallery as you head in to a meeting with the body you expect to fill your begging bowl.

I might have thought shutting your trap, doing some research and presenting stats to persuade Government that they should release funds and/or reduce restrictions would have been a better option.

As a colleague of mine eloquently described another situation, they have pissed on their chips.

[The Master]

5 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Douglas Ross has a meeting with the top brass of 25 clubs

That seems a bit dodgy given his assistant refereeing responsibilities. 

[Green Day]

Aw naw, Willie Miller is in "cant understand" territory again.........................

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Regardless of political or economic reasons, it's not the best policy to play to the gallery as you head in to a meeting with the body you expect to fill your begging bowl.

I might have thought shutting your trap, doing some research and presenting stats to persuade Government that they should release funds and/or reduce restrictions would have been a better option.

Of course, but I think that yesterday's outbursts are more about getting the beetroot-faced fitba fan demographic on side rather than shifting government policy. The SPFL clearly should not have decided to start the bottom three leagues from October and is waking up to the folly of this decision, so the league executives and no doubt some of the clubs as well want to pass the buck to the government for letting clubs fail. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

Of course, but I think that yesterday's outbursts are more about getting the beetroot-faced fitba fan demographic on side 

@Thereisalight.....Dortmund...how no'?