Sportsound Watch

[AndyDD]

10 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

This is just the same point about things being inside and outside the bucket, beign made in a different way. Once the Tier 4 restrictions end there will be thousands of people inside somewhere like Braehead who weren't there this week, but that is still going to be allowed. You'll have staff and customers travelling to these sort of places using a variety of modes of transport, but that has been deemed acceptable.

Those people in Braehead and other shopping centres, or in cinemas or bingo halls or wherever else, will be spending fresh money. Doncaster and Cormack themselves said they'd only be looking for restricted numbers, aka some season ticket holders, to be allowed in. That would mean no fresh money being spent, no fresh money going into the businesses, no economic positive to balance out the increased risk of infection spread. 

People inside shops equates to an increased risk of infection spread whilst fresh economic activity takes place. Season ticket holders inside stadiums equates to a risk of infection without any fresh economic activity. 

Isn't this the fundamental difference? The tangible benefit to folk shopping or going to the pictures from a economic standpoint, balanced against the potential for increased spread, versus no economic benefit to pretty much anyone, balanced against the potential for increased infection spread, from some season ticket holders like us going to games rather than streaming them in the house? 

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, AndyDD said:

Those people in Braehead and other shopping centres, or in cinemas or bingo halls or wherever else, will be spending fresh money. Doncaster and Cormack themselves said they'd only be looking for restricted numbers, aka some season ticket holders, to be allowed in. That would mean no fresh money being spent, no fresh money going into the businesses, no economic positive to balance out the increased risk of infection spread. 

People inside shops equates to an increased risk of infection spread whilst fresh economic activity takes place. Season ticket holders inside stadiums equates to a risk of infection without any fresh economic activity. 

Isn't this the fundamental difference? The tangible benefit to folk shopping or going to the pictures from a economic standpoint, balanced against the potential for increased spread, versus no economic benefit to pretty much anyone, balanced against the potential for increased infection spread, from some season ticket holders like us going to games rather than streaming them in the house? 

That's a short-term economic argument certainly, but it's essentially making the suggestion that community assets such as football clubs have to run on a charitable basis while multinational corporations have free reign to operate their businesses as normal. In the long-term, clubs are not going to be able to generate the same sort of season ticket income in future seasons if the product they're selling isn't actually available.

On top of that, at least 3 Premiership clubs have sold season tickets on a "19 games guaranteed basis" which means that they will have to subsequently refund supporters if they don't get in to games. For those clubs, it very much is fresh money in the till every week if they're allowed fans.

[AndyDD]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

That's a short-term economic argument certainly, but it's essentially making the suggestion that community assets such as football clubs have to run on a charitable basis while multinational corporations have free reign to operate their businesses as normal. In the long-term, clubs are not going to be able to generate the same sort of season ticket income in future seasons if the product they're selling isn't actually available.

On top of that, at least 3 Premiership clubs have sold season tickets on a "19 games guaranteed basis" which means that they will have to subsequently refund supporters if they don't get in to games. For those clubs, it very much is fresh money in the till every week if they're allowed fans.

I don't think that's at all fair; first of all, since the initial lockdown I don't believe any physical business, regardless of size, has been able to operate as normal. Outwith the online retailers, there has been adjustments forced upon all and sundry by governmental approaches to combating community spread. 

At the moment, football as an industry doesn't really have an economic argument to justify the increased risk of infection spread from letting some season ticket holders in. Retail does. The comparison that Cormack and Doncaster and co keep bringing up is on that basis inherently flawed. With vaccine roll outs set to start as early as the impending month, it would appear that any and all restrictions do indeed have a clear shelf-life. It seems highly likely that none of the restrictions in place across any industry will still be in place one year from now. 

I imagine, on the basis of supporter loyalty and the fact that next season looks likely to be 'back to normal' for attendances for most, if not all of the season, that the season ticket sales will keep pace, or even increase. This assumes the vaccines work out as expected, sure, but there is no evidence that they won't as things currently stand.

The 3 clubs that have made that move, yes, they need the fans back financially more than the other top flight clubs, but I mean, that is a pretty weak argument to use if trying to counter the overall economic difference between the industry as a whole and the retail industry. 3 clubs out of 42. That was a silly move by them, it would seem. 

[ropy]

Aberdeen going to Level 3, Cormack delighted

[ewan14]

Gary Caldwell - " cut off for being     

diplomatic "

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

On top of that, at least 3 Premiership clubs have sold season tickets on a "19 games guaranteed basis" which means that they will have to subsequently refund supporters if they don't get in to games. For those clubs, it very much is fresh money in the till every week if they're allowed fans.

It's really not the government's fault that Scottish football clubs are run in such a moronic manner. 

[diegomarahenry]

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

This is just the same point about things being inside and outside the bucket, beign made in a different way. Once the Tier 4 restrictions end there will be thousands of people inside somewhere like Braehead who weren't there this week, but that is still going to be allowed. You'll have staff and customers travelling to these sort of places using a variety of modes of transport, but that has been deemed acceptable.

You're also making the assumption that these people who are going to football grounds would otherwise be sitting at home, but in reality they're probably going to spend their Saturday engaged in some other form of activity - be it shopping, going to a pub or something else.

Obviously it's only 21 clubs at home, so you can half your figure, albeit the 300 fans is stupidly low for some grounds so you can probably ramp that back up.

It's just very blatantly not true that every single other country in Europe has now changed their mind on fans attending - their are still numerous countries where fans are attending games. Even Northern Ireland had fans at their play-off game a fortnight ago, so we're not purely talking about far away countries with totally different cultures. I don't know how other countries are operating their lower leagues, but I suspect they don't have testing regimes either.

 

I'm not suggesting an alternative approach or even suggesting that what the Scottish government is doing is necessarily wrong. I disagree with their stance on sport and other outdoor events personally, but still mainly understand why it's in place. My issue is the fact that football authorities seem to be getting criticised for having the temerity to put their own case forward publicly, despite pretty much every other affected industry also doing so.

The rules being introduced in England are totally different from ours - they are also being allowed at a higher tier level than is the case here. As you say, 10 of their 20 top flight clubs can bring fans back, while in Scotland there doesn't appear to be any prospect of more than 1 out of 12 having them any time soon, despite the rates being lower in many of our regions than theirs.

The main issue isn't about getting fans back now anyway, it's about having a genuine and realistic plan for allowing their return. England now has some degree of clarity about what their rules are, while ours remain completely vague. Even if a region does get to Level 1 of our system, there is still uncertainty about how many fans they would be allowed, or under what circumstances. There doesn't seem to be any sort of plan as to what needs to happen in order for the numbers allowed to go above 300.

When the restrictions started to lessen back in the summer, sport was given a fairly clear picture of what was happening. They were given a provisional date in October (subsequently brought forward to September) for having supporters back, with the possibility of test events before that. At that stage, there wasn't much grumbling from the SFA, SPFL or anyone else, since they had a clear plan to aim for. The first major murmurings of discontent started when the government began to reject requests for test events, and then subsequently changed their mind on the roadmap dates based on the increasing infection rates. From that point onwards I'd say there's been a total lack of clarity and that is where this latest frustration stems from.

 

As of right now, not a penny of funding has been promised to Scottish football (or any other sport) through this as far as I'm aware. I'm not aware of any actual support that the Scottish government has specifically put in place for sport. They can't operate on ifs, buts and maybes.

Are you Neil Doncaster? 

Tier levels dictate how many people can attend events, so in England, in a certain tier, fans can attend, the same in Scotland, Northern Ireland are using a country wide restriction. This has been made clear yet you pretend not to understand it and want even more clarity. How can the Scottish government predict when infection rates will be low enough in the whole of Scotland to allow the wholesale return of crowds at sport. even with a vaccine. The vaccines has an effectiveness rate of between 70 and 95% but have no data on the length on immunity or resistance to a mutation of this strain, all information given by the clinical director on off the ball. Unless you or Neil Doncaster have data?  England has the exact same clarity as Scotland. So not having fans back in any time soon in Scotland is not the Scottish governments fault if infection rates are still high, unless you want them to close Schools or workplaces so that grounds can re-open? Or retail? put shop workers out a job, cinema workers ? Then what? Theaters and concert venues start complaining because sport has an exception, they want one as well. Football still has the ability to generate cash through streaming, season ticket sales, merchandising etc, it isn't the same amount but if a theater, cinema or bingo hall is closed, they don't make anything.   

Northern Ireland allowing fans in and then no longer allowing fans in is a reverse of an original decision to allow fans in, is it not? This was your example of something that was blatantly untrue bizarrely. Czech Republic allowed gatherings of up to 5000, currently no fans are allowed in, France, non elite football is suspended, Elite teams must now play behind closed doors, Crowds were previously allowed in. Germany, stopped fans at the start of November. Spain, no crowds, Italy, no crowds, Portugal, no crowds. Poland, No crowds. 

Scottish football was given a provisional date to allow fans in, not set in stone. The premier league chose to start back early, knowing that there was no confirmed date. Schools returning combined with eat out to help out ramped up the infection rates and it was clear then that crowds would no longer be allowed back in this year, anyone who thought otherwise from October onwards wasn't looking at the facts. 

[ewan14]

The two Celtic podcasters on tonight were good

[craigkillie]

34 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

Tier levels dictate how many people can attend events, so in England, in a certain tier, fans can attend, the same in Scotland, Northern Ireland are using a country wide restriction. This has been made clear yet you pretend not to understand it and want even more clarity. How can the Scottish government predict when infection rates will be low enough in the whole of Scotland to allow the wholesale return of crowds at sport. even with a vaccine. The vaccines has an effectiveness rate of between 70 and 95% but have no data on the length on immunity or resistance to a mutation of this strain, all information given by the clinical director on off the ball. Unless you or Neil Doncaster have data?  England has the exact same clarity as Scotland. So not having fans back in any time soon in Scotland is not the Scottish governments fault if infection rates are still high, unless you want them to close Schools or workplaces so that grounds can re-open? Or retail? put shop workers out a job, cinema workers ? Then what? Theaters and concert venues start complaining because sport has an exception, they want one as well. Football still has the ability to generate cash through streaming, season ticket sales, merchandising etc, it isn't the same amount but if a theater, cinema or bingo hall is closed, they don't make anything.   

Northern Ireland allowing fans in and then no longer allowing fans in is a reverse of an original decision to allow fans in, is it not? This was your example of something that was blatantly untrue bizarrely. Czech Republic allowed gatherings of up to 5000, currently no fans are allowed in, France, non elite football is suspended, Elite teams must now play behind closed doors, Crowds were previously allowed in. Germany, stopped fans at the start of November. Spain, no crowds, Italy, no crowds, Portugal, no crowds. Poland, No crowds. 

Scottish football was given a provisional date to allow fans in, not set in stone. The premier league chose to start back early, knowing that there was no confirmed date. Schools returning combined with eat out to help out ramped up the infection rates and it was clear then that crowds would no longer be allowed back in this year, anyone who thought otherwise from October onwards wasn't looking at the facts. 

The only similarity between what they've been doing in Scotland and England is that attendance at football is contingent on what level of a tier system the areas are at. However, the actual practicalities are completely different, both in terms of which tier levels allow attendance and in terms of how many fans are allowed in, with England allowing much bigger numbers at a much higher level.

I'm not failing to understand the basis of clubs being allowed fans in at a certain level a tier system, I'm pointing out that there's no clarity as to how many fans are allowed or to how and when this number can be increased. The Highland teams were allowed 300, for Elgin it was only 220, but this isn't explained anywhere.

Again, I haven't blamed the Scottish government for anything here, I've explained that I understand their reasoning behind what they're doing right now. My point throughout has simply been that the SPFL, SRU and every other industry are well within their rights to lobby for their own interests, because that's more or less exactly why these organisations exist. All the moralising and grandstanding about putting people in other industries out of jobs is not really adding to the conversation here, given that I haven't once suggested closing down any other industries or even that the situation has to change with the infection rates as they are now (however I'd obviously point out that there will be many people in sport and the arts being put out of jobs by that very same decision). The point is that at some point in the future the infection rates will go down again, other things will start to open up, and it would be useful and fair for sport, entertainment and other similar industries to have a wee bit more clarity right now about how their reopening will work.

Northern Ireland was given as one example of a country with a similar culture to ours which has taken a totally different path - they had up to 600 fans at games (and up to 1000 at rugby), and while they have indeed gone BCD temporarily due to NI's natiowide "circuit breaker", the expectation is that they will return once it was finished. This is not a judgement of what is right or wrong, but rather showing that the SPFL are hardly asking to be the only country in Europe to have fans there.

It's quite clear that you aren't following my actual argument here, but rather just what you seem to think I'm saying, so I think it's best to leave it here.

[diegomarahenry]

11 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I'm not failing to understand the basis of clubs being allowed fans in at a certain level a tier system, I'm pointing out that there's no clarity as to how many fans are allowed or to how and when this number can be increased. The Highland teams were allowed 300, for Elgin it was only 220, but this isn't explained anywhere.

There is currently NO standing allowed tier one, It is explained in the governments guidance on the Tier structure. Elgin have 478 seats according to google. This means that attendances will be dictated by available seats and social distancing measures up to 300 people. 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/covid-19-scotlands-strategic-framework/pages/9/

13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

All the moralising and grandstanding about putting people in other industries out of jobs is not really adding to the conversation here, given that I haven't once suggested closing down any other industries or even that the situation has to change with the infection rates as they are now

I mentioned the bucket analogy, you said why was football less important, I asked what should close to allow football to return, you are the one that is moralising here

 

15 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The point is that at some point in the future the infection rates will go down again, other things will start to open up, and it would be useful and fair for sport, entertainment and other similar industries to have a wee bit more clarity right now about how their reopening will work

When a region moves from tier 2 to1, they can have fans back in. A region will move down a level when infection rates and therefor NHS pressure drops. You say you understand this yet here you want more clarity on how reopening works... 

What more clarity do you want? A date? like the projected date in October that some clubs hung their hats on for a return of fans, that is still apparently causing outrage that it wasn't stuck to? Since the majority of the country went in to lockdown, the average daily cases have plummeted from 1080 to 960. Aberdeenshire had 42 new cases today alone, only topped by Glasgow city, so they could well be moving up a tier. How can you possibly have any more clarity when regions are getting worse. 

34 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Northern Ireland was given as one example of a country with a similar culture to ours which has taken a totally different path - they had up to 600 fans at games (and up to 1000 at rugby), and while they have indeed gone BCD temporarily due to NI's natiowide "circuit breaker", the expectation is that they will return once it was finished. This is not a judgement of what is right or wrong, but rather showing that the SPFL are hardly asking to be the only country in Europe to have fans there.

So once infection rates drop, they will allow fans back in because they are to high currently and having mass gatherings is a bad idea at this time?

36 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

It's quite clear that you aren't following my actual argument here, but rather just what you seem to think I'm saying, so I think it's best to leave it here.

I seem to think you are saying it because you keep on saying it. 

[kingjoey]

Having listened to last night’s Sportsound podcast, I’m not sure what was the more embarrassing, the couple of numptie Dons fans that texted the show to say that they want Derek McInnes out, or Kenny McIntyre for reading them out.

[Spam_Valley]

1 minute ago, kingjoey said:

Having listened to last night’s Sportsound podcast, I’m not sure what was the more embarrassing, the couple of numptie Dons fans that texted the show to say that they want Derek McInnes out, or Kenny McIntyre for reading them out.

Kenny Macintyre. The answer is ALWAYS Kenny Macintyre

[Dons_1988]

8 hours ago, kingjoey said:

Having listened to last night’s Sportsound podcast, I’m not sure what was the more embarrassing, the couple of numptie Dons fans that texted the show to say that they want Derek McInnes out, or Kenny McIntyre for reading them out.

Probably Darryl Broadfoot doing that weegie thing where criticism of Mcinnes is dismissed as idiots who expect Aberdeen to win the league and telling them it'll never happen again, so essentially pipe down.

 

[TheScarf]

36 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Probably Darryl Broadfoot doing that weegie thing where criticism of Mcinnes is dismissed as idiots who expect Aberdeen to win the league and telling them it'll never happen again, so essentially pipe down.

 

It does my cunt in when Celtic and Rangers fans say that.  They contradict themselves; they gurn that there's not enough competition, then in the next breath they tell us we're all shite and 3rd is the best we'll ever do and to shut up.

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

It does my c**t in when Celtic and Rangers fans say that.  They contradict themselves; they gurn that there's not enough competition, then in the next breath they tell us we're all shite and 3rd is the best we'll ever do and to shut up.

It's just lazy from a supposed national broadcaster.

I have never been a Mcinnes out man, far from it. But there is absolutely questions to answer, we won 12 games out of 30 last season in the league and we were quite frankly dreadful to watch. That's a 1.5 average PPG, down from 1.76 the season before, where we weren't a great deal better to watch either. We are much better this season though and the reaction to the St Mirren game from some has been way over the top. However, it doesn't justify Broadfoot's dismissive approach.

Btw, that took me less than 2 minutes to gather those statistics, something you might expect someone being paid to talk about it might have taken the time to do.

[mozam76]

Didn't know it was possible, but Kenny MacIntyre has plumbed new depths this week. Having two Celtic podcasters on the show was bizarre, referencing other podcasts since then takes the show into Talksport territory, and then last night stating that Neil Lennon (and other managers) knowingly put their families in the firing line for abuse. Glad to hear McCall pull him up on it, and I'd hope that he went even further after the show.

The sooner he gets his dream move to 1690mw the better.

[Spam_Valley]

I used to really like MacIntyre and it would genuinely please me when I saw he was the host of the latest podcast(s) over David Currie or Geoff Webster because I knew it would be a decent, well balanced show but nowadays I find him impossible to listen to and very much in the Adrian Durham (Talksport) mould. Who nobody should ever try to emulate.

I've stopped listening to the podcasts as of last week because it's just MacIntyre baiting the guests into saying something headline worthy rather than a general discussion which is what it used to be.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Spam_Valley

[paranoid android]

Neil McCann earlier:

"Oh, that's a goal - anyway, as I was saying...", not thinking to say which team had scored until Richard Gordan eventually interrupted to remind him. 

[spalding]

Michael Stewart is an absolute cock 

[Forfinn]

Not interested in stirring up the "due to the ongoing situation with Rangers" debate, but do the BBC get a better deal out of the SPFL and UEFA(?) for not broadcasting commentary from Ibrox?