Linlithgow Rose - 2019 onwards

[HTG]

28 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Dunno. I imagine we'd have heard if there were any cases. But that took place when there were far fewer cases than now, and the test positive rate was about 1% (it's 7% now). If we had a media that dug into tricky questions and had the time to do legwork they'd have asked to see the reports and minutes from the reviews.

That's just not the right way of seeing it. If you want pubs open then there's even more rationale for closing other things that aren't so important to the economy. If we just leave everything open then within weeks we'll be back where we were in the spring. For example, the main thing we're losing to keep pubs open is visiting each others' houses. It's not what I would choose but I can see why they've done it.

It really doesn't make sense to say "we want pubs open because of the economic impact, and we want everything up to that level of risk to be open too." If you insist on consistency on disease risk then they won't open the football grounds, they'll shut the pubs. 

 

We'll agree to disagree! I know where you're coming from but I'm going to defend the right of the football club to trade safely. The FA has confirmed that the arrangements already in place in England for clubs at our level will stand so they'll continue to have hundreds coming through the gates. 

[newcastle broon]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

Generally agreed, but 2 caveats.

First, a bunch of people caught it at a game in Northumbria recently. It's low risk, but it's still a risk. 

 

What game was this Gordon?

[John S]

Until.......... Who knows, given developments, things could change down there. We'll have to wait and see.

We'll agree to disagree! I know where you're coming from but I'm going to defend the right of the football club to trade safely. The FA has confirmed that the arrangements already in place in England for clubs at our level will stand so they'll continue to have hundreds coming through the gates. 

[Black Dug]

They have stopped you visiting another house but continued letting you go to the pub because there are protocols in place when you visit the pub which have to be adhered to which aren't being followed in private houses. I get that, seems sensible as it is clear people weren't adhering to the guidelines at home.

But, a football ground would also have these protocols, in place in exactly the same way a funfair has.

[Auld Heid]

They have stopped you visiting another house but continued letting you go to the pub because there are protocols in place when you visit the pub which have to be adhered to which aren't being followed in private houses. I get that, seems sensible as it is clear people weren't adhering to the guidelines at home.

But, a football ground would also have these protocols, in place in exactly the same way a funfair has.

Correct.

Any activity I do outside the house is done in a regulated environment.

If I don't feel secure in that environment then I don't go.

We can't hide forever, we need to live with this and take responsibility for our own decisions.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Black Dug said:

They have stopped you visiting another house but continued letting you go to the pub because there are protocols in place when you visit the pub which have to be adhered to which aren't being followed in private houses. I get that, seems sensible as it is clear people weren't adhering to the guidelines at home.

But, a football ground would also have these protocols, in place in exactly the same way a funfair has.
 

As above, that's not the only reason for the difference between homes and pubs.

They haven't banned going to the pub firstly because of the 50,000 jobs, and as is clear from the First Minister's letter this morning, because they can't afford to. It's more to do with finances than with it being safe.

I'd hope a safe way can be found to re-open non-league football but I don't think false equivalences help. Funfairs is a better example but again, that's the livelihoods of those involved.

Apart from those involved in renting out pitches at grounds with 3G, excluding the players how many full-time or part-time employees are there in non-league football? I'm genuinely asking, I don't know.

[Tutankhamen]

29 minutes ago, GordonS said:

As above, that's not the only reason for the difference between homes and pubs.

They haven't banned going to the pub firstly because of the 50,000 jobs, and as is clear from the First Minister's letter this morning, because they can't afford to. It's more to do with finances than with it being safe.

I'd hope a safe way can be found to re-open non-league football but I don't think false equivalences help. Funfairs is a better example but again, that's the livelihoods of those involved.

Apart from those involved in renting out pitches at grounds with 3G, excluding the players how many full-time or part-time employees are there in non-league football? I'm genuinely asking, I don't know.

Football is worth a couple of billion to the Scottish economy from the top of the tree to the office 5 a side team.

[Auld Heid]

Football is worth a couple of billion to the Scottish economy from the top of the tree to the office 5 a side team.

Correct, the domino effect of no football impacts every part of the Scottish economy.

No football, no strips manufactured, no boots bought, pie sales fall and pubs lose income from pre match pints.

Just a small selection, but you get the gist.

By all means set out rules to help regulate. Most people have adapted to the current situation - we know about social distancing, hand sanitizer and Benefits of masks etc.

So like the pub, give clubs the chance and then it's up to the punters to choose if they go or not.

Short of a vaccine and other than a total lockdown we need to learn to live with this.

[HTG]

13 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

Correct, the domino effect of no football impacts every part of the Scottish economy.

No football, no strips manufactured, no boots bought, pie sales fall and pubs lose income from pre match pints.

Just a small selection, but you get the gist.

By all means set out rules to help regulate. Most people have adapted to the current situation - we know about social distancing, hand sanitizer and Benefits of masks etc.

So like the pub, give clubs the chance and then it's up to the punters to choose if they go or not.

Short of a vaccine and other than a total lockdown we need to learn to live with this.
 

200 teams, 20 players plus 5 mgt team = 5000 not training or playing. Not all paid but enough to merit equal treatment with other regulated sectors. 100 matches every week with 100 supporters on average (being conservative here) across 40 weeks = 400,000 through the gates that don't come.  The community impact of not playing football is brutal. Other sectors are being treated much better than we are. Time a loud noise was being made before clubs disappear. 

[Black Dug]

As above, that's not the only reason for the difference between homes and pubs.
They haven't banned going to the pub firstly because of the 50,000 jobs, and as is clear from the First Minister's letter this morning, because they can't afford to. It's more to do with finances than with it being safe.
I'd hope a safe way can be found to re-open non-league football but I don't think false equivalences help. Funfairs is a better example but again, that's the livelihoods of those involved.
Apart from those involved in renting out pitches at grounds with 3G, excluding the players how many full-time or part-time employees are there in non-league football? I'm genuinely asking, I don't know.

I would be willing to bet that football (even if you were to only take the non-league element) is worth more to the economy and provides some income to more people than travelling funfairs.
However, for me its the inconsistencies of the rules which is calling into question the creditability of those setting the rules. In what way is standing watching Stock Cars less risky than standing watching a game of football?

[Auld Heid]

I would be willing to bet that football (even if you were to only take the non-league element) is worth more to the economy and provides some income to more people than travelling funfairs.
However, for me its the inconsistencies of the rules which is calling into question the creditability of those setting the rules. In what way is standing watching Stock Cars less risky than standing watching a game of football?

The sheer Stupidity of how rules differ.

Lochgelly stock cars are ok for spectators at their oval track.

Yet 5 miles along the road Cowdenbeath aren't allowed spectators as their oval track has a football pitch in the middle.

Same principles different outcomes.

[desmond tutu]

2 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

The sheer Stupidity of how rules differ.

Lochgelly stock cars are ok for spectators at their oval track.

Yet 5 miles along the road Cowdenbeath aren't allowed spectators as their oval track has a football pitch in the middle.

Same principles different outcomes.
 

The difference is the fans can social distance the drivers as well but the players can't if I was a player there is no way I would be taking a risk taking coved home just my opinion

[lithgierose]

38 minutes ago, desmond tutu said:

The difference is the fans can social distance the drivers as well but the players can't if I was a player there is no way I would be taking a risk taking coved home just my opinion

Have you ever been in the pits at a stock car meeting? 

[Black Dug]

The difference is the fans can social distance the drivers as well but the players can't if I was a player there is no way I would be taking a risk taking coved home just my opinion

That isn't valid reason for no spectators at football - the players are training and playing full contact friendlies. These aren't conscripted men if they aren't happy with it they can cancel their contracts.

[FairWeatherFan]

4 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

The sheer Stupidity of how rules differ.

Lochgelly stock cars are ok for spectators at their oval track.

Yet 5 miles along the road Cowdenbeath aren't allowed spectators as their oval track has a football pitch in the middle.

Same principles different outcomes.
 

And what about the difference in popularity? I don't know anything about stock car racing, but using a couple of different search engines there's only 4 venues that seem to rate a mention when checking "Stock car racing Scotland". Lochgelly, Cowedenbeath, Knockhill, and the Central Scotland Autograss Club.

There's the better part of around 240+ non-league Senior/Junior clubs plus the SPFL 42.

[desmond tutu]

1 hour ago, Black Dug said:

2 hours ago, desmond tutu said:

The difference is the fans can social distance the drivers as well but the players can't if I was a player there is no way I would be taking a risk taking coved home just my opinion

That isn't valid reason for no spectators at football - the players are training and playing full contact friendlies. These aren't conscripted men if they aren't happy with it they can cancel their contracts.

 

1 hour ago, Black Dug said:

2 hours ago, desmond tutu said:

The difference is the fans can social distance the drivers as well but the players can't if I was a player there is no way I would be taking a risk taking coved home just my opinion

That isn't valid reason for no spectators at football - the players are training and playing full contact friendlies. These aren't conscripted men if they aren't happy with it they can cancel their contracts.

I would not be training either there is people dieing from this they must be mad training in a group if they have not been tested

[Burmah Oil]

Hundreds of teams been training for two months and playing friendlies for one month. Not heard of one single out break in a team? Only some players testing positive who caught it at jobs or from family. And test protect dont even stop team training and playing as not been two metres for quarter of an hour. Chance of catching it out in the fresh air really low. Much more risks at pubs, cafes, schools, bingos, flying on planes. Clubs wont make players play if got a condition or worried about family. For rest its helping physical and mental health.

[LongTimeLurker]

27 minutes ago, desmond tutu said:

I would not be training either there is people dieing from this they must be mad training in a group if they have not been tested

There have been exceedingly few deaths amongst people under 40. As long as sensible precautions are being taken over contact with the elderly and people with compromised immune systems (which everyody should be doing anyway regardless of any football angle) this is not a reason that is likely to scare most younger people off participating.

[8MileBU]

There’s no good reason lower league football shouldn’t be allowed a limited number of fans back if pubs can stay open. 

Whilst a highly unlikely scenario on the whole, I was reading online last week about a lower league player who’d been forced to practically beg his side to keep paying him his wage under the terms of his contract because covid had cost him his full time job and he’d been made redundant. 

Whilst I think 99% of lower league players play for the love of playing, I wouldn’t blame any player forced into upholding the terms of his contract. Similarly I wouldn’t blame clubs if they all banded together and chanced making a case that they’re also operating a wage paying business and therefore are reliant on match day income since “staff” are contractually entitled  to pick up their wage.

Then there’s other wee factors clubs could make a case about, such as if football’s going ahead as of October then games might require floodlight use during the dark months. That electricity doesn’t pay for itself.

Edited September 25, 2020 by 8MileBU

[AlanCamelonfan]

2 hours ago, desmond tutu said:

 

I would not be training either there is people dieing from this they must be mad training in a group if they have not been tested

More people die of the flu than they do with this. If u dont want to go to games dont go. Noone is forcing you. If players dont want to play they don't need too simple as that