Linlithgow Rose - 2019 onwards

[LongTimeLurker]

^^^Ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ...

So it all boils down to who has the numbers rather than some rational strategy based on science when Nicola is deciding how to be a wee bit different from Boris to try to create another wedge issue over the Union. Cannae upset the alkies, there's way too many of thaem so the pubs stay open, cannae stop folk fae getting their nat king on visiting other households if couples are involved after aw they nae rumpy pumpy jokes, that's no gonnae go doon well so better be careful there, you can still dae it ootside on meeting otherwise so whit ur ye moaning aboot, but the junior thickos can aw get tae France as they all support Rangers anyway and won't be supporting us come the glorious day...

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[8MileBU]

2 hours ago, gogsy said:

Load of nonsense on here. The 144 non SPFL league teams(South)  probably see about 10k supporters at the 72 max games every week . That's a tiny amount of the population that actually give a toss about non league football. It's quite rightly very low on the governments priorities at the moment. 

That’s a pish post Gogsy, mon tae f**k...    If the pubs are allowed to stay open cos they’ll die on their arse without customers, why should lower league football clubs be treated any different? Most clubs are small business reliant solely on customers too. The very fact that a far safer environment exists at football (i.e. outdoors, room for social distancing etc) combined with the facility to apply a couple of simple control measures (i.e. limited attendance, distancing markers outside the ground, controlled entrance process, perspex screen, masks at turnstiles, sanitiser station etc), mean it’s borderline criminal that clubs are being denied the opportunity to earn the bare minimum they can in order to try sustain themselves. There’s also a case to be made that with no alcohol served at the football, it’s far less likely to result in any drunken covid-spreading stupidity.

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

^^^Ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ein Schottland und ein fuhrer, ...

So it all boils down to who has the numbers rather than some rational strategy based on science when Nicola is deciding how to be a wee bit different from Boris to try to create another wedge issue over the Union. Cannae upset the alkies, there's way too many of thaem so the pubs stay open, cannae stop folk fae getting their nat king on visiting other households if couples are involved after aw they nae rumpy pumpy jokes, that's no gonnae go doon well so better be careful there, you can still dae it ootside on meeting otherwise so whit ur ye moaning aboot, but the junior thickos can aw get tae France as they all support Rangers anyway and won't be supporting us come the glorious day...

You alright mate?

Edited September 22, 2020 by 8MileBU

[LongTimeLurker]

7 minutes ago, 8MileBU said:

You alright mate?

Feeling fine but like you less than impressed with the contrast on how pubs and lower level football grounds are treated. Think it's time for some twitter feed spamming basically.

Edited September 22, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[Marten]

16 hours ago, gogsy said:

Load of nonsense on here. The 144 non SPFL league teams(South)  probably see about 10k supporters at the 72 max games every week . That's a tiny amount of the population that actually give a toss about non league football. It's quite rightly very low on the governments priorities at the moment. 

The reason why fans are allowed in England was that the clubs came together with a co-ordinated action and presented a plan together. That didn't happen up here. It's not like Boris Johnson cares about non-league football, he doesn't care about anything but himself and his cronies, but strong club action got the attention.

[GordonS]

On 22/09/2020 at 10:47, Auld Heid said:

I agree in part with this.

However for me, the first lockdown showed the importance of having a reward for people.

Sports provided that for many and the return of football (sport) on TV was massive for me.

At Prestonfield of Dreams I stand with the same people every week and probably further apart than when we are back at the bowling club.

Both environments are controlled and I actually feel safer than at Sainsbury's where people think a mask allows them to break social distancing as they push in.

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. 

And shopping for food is essential (as is getting exercise), but watching football in person isn't. They're reducing risk on the less important things before disrupting the more important things.

16 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Feeling fine but like you less than impressed with the contrast on how pubs and lower level football grounds are treated. Think it's time for some twitter feed spamming basically.

50,000 people work in pubs in Scotland. Without a furlough scheme closing the pubs would mean widespread business failure and a big jump in unemployment. 

How many are employed in football grounds below full-time level?

They're trying to reduce the spread of the disease without tanning the economy and ruining people's lives. 

[LongTimeLurker]

They are doing a couple of token things to appear to do something while they are really effectively doing a no lockdown Swedish sort of approach at this point but don't want to tell the punters that after months of having the media telling people that would be the wrong way to go. I would rather that lower level football wasn't part of the collateral damage on going through that whole charade. Can understand and have no problem with the concept that Rangers vs Celtic can't go back to normal right now but a fixture like Lochore Welfare vs Easthouses Lily definitely isn't mission impossible to do in a very low risk sort of way, so it's time to ease up a wee bit on the nanny state mentality.

[AlanCamelonfan]

1 hour 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. 

And shopping for food is essential (as is getting exercise), but watching football in person isn't. They're reducing risk on the less important things before disrupting the more important things.

50,000 people work in pubs in Scotland. Without a furlough scheme closing the pubs would mean widespread business failure and a big jump in unemployment. 

How many are employed in football grounds below full-time level?

They're trying to reduce the spread of the disease without tanning the economy and ruining people's lives. 

its ruining my life not getting to a game. Getting to the football helps my mental health. As many know how animated I can be at a game how important Camelon Juniors are to me.

I don't think that could be proved that they actually got it from the game 100% guarenteed. They could have both got it from other sources and the link is football ground.

I don't actually know anyone who has had it.

[HTG]

There is zero reason not to be able to have 500 people in Prestonfield. The place will take them comfortably. I don't think any of us would argue with a clause that said home supporters only to reduce car sharing or bus travel. 

The management of the players is considerably more difficult as we move to the winter months. Turning up ready to play and going home a bit sweaty on a dry September day is a different kettle of fish to a miserable day in December where you come off a mud bath of a pitch in freezing conditions. Instinct tells me that players would put up with that though if the alternative was no football. These guys are paid to play but they do it first and foremost because they love playing football. 

As it stands it feels depressingly like the SFA and Scottish Govt are going to adopt a policy built around everyone playing in front of spectators or nobody playing in front of spectators. Yet there is a gulf between the match day environment at Aberdeen or Celtic and that which exists at Linlithgow or Bo'ness.  That's precisely why there are thousands of fans at matches across England who are able to watch their team. In fact a number of people on here are going to places like Carlisle to watch football at Tier 7. They'll be able to play bingo locally with octogenarians who have COPD issues without any difficulty though. 

Accepting what Gordon says about managing the economy alongside health creating some anomalies, there is no science, logic or risk assessment that can adequately explain why you can sit 2 metres apart at Prestonfield and play bingo or have a drink but you can't go out the emergency exit to stand in the fresh air 2 metres apart to watch teams who are already engaged in full contact training and matches. It's a dreadful argument with little or no merit at all. 

[John S]

Winter might also be an issue with fans as they crowd into the covered area out of the rain. I'm surprised at crowds being allowed in the North of England given they recently were put under special measures.

There is zero reason not to be able to have 500 people in Prestonfield. The place will take them comfortably. I don't think any of us would argue with a clause that said home supporters only to reduce car sharing or bus travel. 
The management of the players is considerably more difficult as we move to the winter months. Turning up ready to play and going home a bit sweaty on a dry September day is a different kettle of fish to a miserable day in December where you come off a mud bath of a pitch in freezing conditions. Instinct tells me that players would put up with that though if the alternative was no football. These guys are paid to play but they do it first and foremost because they love playing football. 
As it stands it feels depressingly like the SFA and Scottish Govt are going to adopt a policy built around everyone playing in front of spectators or nobody playing in front of spectators. Yet there is a gulf between the match day environment at Aberdeen or Celtic and that which exists at Linlithgow or Bo'ness.  That's precisely why there are thousands of fans at matches across England who are able to watch their team. In fact a number of people on here are going to places like Carlisle to watch football at Tier 7. They'll be able to play bingo locally with octogenarians who have COPD issues without any difficulty though. 
Accepting what Gordon says about managing the economy alongside health creating some anomalies, there is no science, logic or risk assessment that can adequately explain why you can sit 2 metres apart at Prestonfield and play bingo or have a drink but you can't go out the emergency exit to stand in the fresh air 2 metres apart to watch teams who are already engaged in full contact training and matches. It's a dreadful argument with little or no merit at all. 

[HTG]

2 minutes ago, John S said:

Winter might also be an issue with fans as they crowd into the covered area out of the rain. I'm surprised at crowds being allowed in the North of England given they recently were put under special measures.

Agreed. But I know that we would be prepared to steward that sort of scenario and, again, most supporters at our level will do the right thing if the option is that they don't get in at all. Going home damp is way better than not leaving home in the first place. I'd be confident that every club would do that. 

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, HTG said:

Accepting what Gordon says about managing the economy alongside health creating some anomalies, there is no science, logic or risk assessment that can adequately explain why you can sit 2 metres apart at Prestonfield and play bingo or have a drink but you can't go out the emergency exit to stand in the fresh air 2 metres apart to watch teams who are already engaged in full contact training and matches. It's a dreadful argument with little or no merit at all. 

It's not about placing things on a sliding scale of most risky to least risky, drawing a line and restricting everything above that. It's really important everyone understands that economic factors are important too, because of the impact unemployment and debt has on physical and mental health, and it washes through the economy when people have less to spend. As I said, pubs employ 50,000 people directly in Scotland and a three month closure without furlough would put all of them on the dole. The Scottish Government has no control over furlough - maybe if it gets extended we might see some pub closures.

If it weren't for the negative consequences I'm sure pubs would be closed now anyway.

Alan says above that missing football is harming his mental health, and many more people feel the same way about pubs. Are we actually asking for both pubs and football clubs to be closed?

The Scottish Government have been on the review groups looking at the trials at Pittodrie and Murrayfield and they've obviously decided now's not the time to open up. I don't have a reason to second guess that.

[lithgierose]

9 minutes ago, GordonS said:

It's not about placing things on a sliding scale of most risky to least risky, drawing a line and restricting everything above that. It's really important everyone understands that economic factors are important too, because of the impact unemployment and debt has on physical and mental health, and it washes through the economy when people have less to spend. As I said, pubs employ 50,000 people directly in Scotland and a three month closure without furlough would put all of them on the dole. The Scottish Government has no control over furlough - maybe if it gets extended we might see some pub closures.

If it weren't for the negative consequences I'm sure pubs would be closed now anyway.

Alan says above that missing football is harming his mental health, and many more people feel the same way about pubs. Are we actually asking for both pubs and football clubs to be closed?

The Scottish Government have been on the review groups looking at the trials at Pittodrie and Murrayfield and they've obviously decided now's not the time to open up. I don't have a reason to second guess that.

Have there been figures released about covid been spread at Murray field yet? 

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

its ruining my life not getting to a game. Getting to the football helps my mental health. As many know how animated I can be at a game how important Camelon Juniors are to me.

I don't think that could be proved that they actually got it from the game 100% guarenteed. They could have both got it from other sources and the link is football ground.

I don't actually know anyone who has had it.

At least 28 of the 300-ish people who attended that game tested positive. Obviously it's possible they caught it elsewhere, but there's an explanation that's the most likely. 

Four people I know well have had it (two in Linlithgow), and I loosely know others who've had it, including one who died of it. My wife's cousin had it near the beginning and she's never recovered, she still has breathing difficulties and gets tired quickly. Not a lot of fun when you have three kids, your husband has a demanding job and you're about to run out of sick pay in your own job.

I'm really sorry about how hard this is on you and I won't patronise you by saying we all feel the same, because we don't, we all feel it differently. It just sucks more for some people than others.

[GordonS]

Just now, lithgierose said:

Have there been figures released about covid been spread at Murray field yet? 

Not sure what you mean - I don't think there was a problem in the crowd was there? I know an Edinburgh academy player tested positive after he and some others went to a house party. He'll be lucky if that doesn't wreck his career. 

[HTG]

3 minutes ago, GordonS said:

 

Alan says above that missing football is harming his mental health, and many more people feel the same way about pubs. Are we actually asking for both pubs and football clubs to be closed?

Not me. I'm asking for both to be open. If, economically, pubs need to be open, it's logical to acknowledge that environments which carry a lower risk than a pub should also be open. It cannot be right that Falkirk should play East Stirling behind closed doors on a Tuesday night whilst on the Thursday night at the same location, a funfair operates freely.  In the same way, there were dozens of people with the new lanyard around their necks in our social club to play bingo last night but we can't let a single healthy person into a well ventilated open environment where social distancing is a piece of cake with a bit of organising. 

Football clubs are a huge part of the Scottish community infrastructure. If we're balancing Covid and economics, I don't accept that the risk is increased by any meaningful factor - if at all - as a result of allowing clubs from Lowland League and below to play football in front of up to 500 people. If the risk were so significant, I'm sure the FA would have concluded same in England. 

[HTG]

All that said, the case numbers are flying up and there's no chance we're playing any time soon i suspect. But if you want the numbers down, you shut everything again. They won't though. 

[lithgierose]

3 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Not sure what you mean - I don't think there was a problem in the crowd was there? I know an Edinburgh academy player tested positive after he and some others went to a house party. He'll be lucky if that doesn't wreck his career. 

Just wondering if there were any positive cases after the Glasgow warriors game. Was there not 700 supporters at that game. And were they subject to track and trace? 

[AlanCamelonfan]

24 minutes ago, HTG said:

All that said, the case numbers are flying up and there's no chance we're playing any time soon i suspect. But if you want the numbers down, you shut everything again. They won't though. 

But if you shut everything down you have to open up at sometime and as soon as u do that we would be in the same place.

[HTG]

14 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

But if you shut everything down you have to open up at sometime and as soon as u do that we would be in the same place.

Agreed. Which is why I'm not in favour of that. The current position is designed to balance economics and risk mgt as Gordon suggests. What I'm saying is that non league football doesn't increase risk by a magnitude that merits stopping the game completely - which is what closed doors will probably do. 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, lithgierose said:

Just wondering if there were any positive cases after the Glasgow warriors game. Was there not 700 supporters at that game. And were they subject to track and trace? 

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.

1 hour ago, HTG said:

Not me. I'm asking for both to be open. If, economically, pubs need to be open, it's logical to acknowledge that environments which carry a lower risk than a pub should also be open. 

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.