Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[rovers86]

1 hour ago, I Clavdivs said:

I understand a negative lateral flow test can be used as alternative to vaccination passport…can anyone confirm this ? .

I hope so

[1320Lichtie]

[1320Lichtie]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Eh, it does say that doesn't it?

And that would still mean for a crowd of 1,200 you'd have to check 1,000. For a crowd of 1,001 you'd have to check 1,000 too.

Farce. It really is. 

[Guest Flash]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Eh, it does say that doesn't it?

And that would still mean for a crowd of 1,200 you'd have to check 1,000. For a crowd of 1,001 you'd have to check 1,000 too.

It wasn’t worded exactly like that. My version is much better. 
Probably just me as I didn’t take any time to read it, originally.
Still think it is a bit mental having a minimum which means everybody in a small crowd needs checked, even if they are spread over a large area.

[Parttimesupporter]

20 minutes ago, Rjc-1988 said:

This latest debacle from Sturgeon highlights just how incompetent she and her governmental advisers actually are. With the Premier clubs bringing forward their mid season break the obvious strategy was to leave the lower league clubs to continue as normal safe in the knowledge that very few matches, if any, would get crowds that were going to exceed 20% of the relevant ground capacity. The underlying risk in the open air with very low crowds was negligible. Nobody is expecting Sturgeon to understand football crowd dynamics but there are surely some football minded people in advisory roles that could have applied some common sense. At the very start of the pandemic Jason Leitch was telling viewers on Breakfast TV that his wife was going to a sell out pop concert and he didn’t see why people couldn’t go to the Rangers/Liverpool European matches!!!! 

The imposed crowd embargo has achieved nothing other than piss off football enthusiasts and worse still pile on the financial pressure to clubs by denying them valuable festive income when, as always, every penny is a prisoner. 

 

 

There should be somebody within the SPFL who could make these points to the SG.  However, it appears that very little consideration is given to clubs outside the Premiership.  It is interesting that Neil Doncaster describes today's announcement as "a sensible decision".  As SD has pointed out it introduces real logistical problems for clubs like Queens which are completely unnecessary from a public health point of view.

 Joint Response Group - 11/01/22 | SPFL

[Dev]

34 minutes ago, Rjc-1988 said:

This latest debacle from Sturgeon highlights just how incompetent she and her governmental advisers actually are. With the Premier clubs bringing forward their mid season break the obvious strategy was to leave the lower league clubs to continue as normal safe in the knowledge that very few matches, if any, would get crowds that were going to exceed 20% of the relevant ground capacity. The underlying risk in the open air with very low crowds was negligible. Nobody is expecting Sturgeon to understand football crowd dynamics but there are surely some football minded people in advisory roles that could have applied some common sense. At the very start of the pandemic Jason Leitch was telling viewers on Breakfast TV that his wife was going to a sell out pop concert and he didn’t see why people couldn’t go to the Rangers/Liverpool European matches!!!! 

The imposed crowd embargo has achieved nothing other than piss off football enthusiasts and worse still pile on the financial pressure to clubs by denying them valuable festive income when, as always, every penny is a prisoner. 

 

 

It is surprising how a Government of the People seems to be so completely out of touch with the people.

[parsforlife]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

As did I.

And if your crowd could potentially be anything from 900 to say 1,300 on a walk up basis you're effectively going to have to check all of them because you're not going to know until numbers are collated what the crowd was. It's actually a logistical nightmare for us. Unless we organise in advance to only sell 999 tickets on an all ticket basis. Which causes it's own problem.

Grrrrr.

Is there any mechanism for clubs to pre-check people? For example if you had every season ticket holder checked on purchase(or now for this season) could you then wave them through for the remainder of the season,   or do you need to check every single week?

I've attended a few events needing a passport,  largely organisers are at best acting like they are checking,  sometime not even that. 

Not sure what the legal position is if someone gets caught out not checking enough people.  

 

[Broken Algorithms]

 

30 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Is there any mechanism for clubs to pre-check people? For example if you had every season ticket holder checked on purchase(or now for this season) could you then wave them through for the remainder of the season,   or do you need to check every single week?

I've attended a few events needing a passport,  largely organisers are at best acting like they are checking,  sometime not even that. 

Not sure what the legal position is if someone gets caught out not checking enough people.  

 

By all accounts, when it was being enforced before for Scotland games the vaccine passport came across as a farce. I got checked before the Moldova and Israel games, but don't know anyone else who got checked. Surely it's impossible for clubs to be audited on it. 

[Guest Flash]

31 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Is there any mechanism for clubs to pre-check people? For example if you had every season ticket holder checked on purchase(or now for this season) could you then wave them through for the remainder of the season,   or do you need to check every single week?

I've attended a few events needing a passport,  largely organisers are at best acting like they are checking,  sometime not even that. 

Not sure what the legal position is if someone gets caught out not checking enough people.  

I think the current requirement to check 20% is only in guidance, which event organisers have to have regard to. It isn’t in the actual legislation. Because it currently says 20% or 1,000, whichever is the higher, I thought they were changing it to a flat 50% and that this would be sufficient. The new guidance isn’t out yet. This is what it currently says.

Large events (1,000 or more attendees)

Event organisers are expected to:

•  have a compliance plan  advising how they will implement certification (see: compliance plan template) 
• provide this plan to an authorised person on request

Event organisers should:

• make a judgement on whether it’s practical to check proof of vaccine status/ record of a negative COVID-19 test/evidence of exemption for everyone attending while maintaining public order, and if not
• carry out as many checks as is reasonably practical taking into account public order considerations and advice from Local Authority Officers

For large events, with 1,000 or more attendees at any one time, event organisers are expected to carry out as many checks as is reasonably practicable, whilst having regard to Scottish Government Guidance, advice from the relevant Local Authority Officers and taking into account public order considerations. The expectation is that 20% spot checks or 1,000 checks (whichever is higher) of every vaccine certificate/ record of a negative COVID-19 test / evidence of exemption should, in most cases, be minimum number of checks. 

Event organiser will also need to consider the level of compliance that checking has identified in assessing whether the proportion of checking being undertaken satisfies the requirement to have a reasonable system.

What is reasonable should be assessed by businesses on a venue by venue and event by event basis. Each venue and event is unique, with, for example, different footprints and number of entry points. We provided guidance to local authorities to support businesses or sectors to implement their plans.

Guidance

Current legislation

 

 

[craigkillie]

It seems a bit weird that the clubs as a group voted to continue playing and then your game vs Ayr was allowed to be moved. 

The clubs didn't vote to ban moving individual games, I don't see why anyone could have a problem with two clubs mutually agreeing to move a game, an option open to everyone.

[Hawkeye the Gnu]

I'm not sure I've got this correct so bear with me.....

Surely if you get checked and you don't have what it takes for entry you're only going to be turned away from the turnstile/checkpoint., what's stopping you going to another turnstile and trying again.

If 50% of the crowd is checked, the more often you try the better chance of not being checked.

I'm not for a minute advocating fans do this but it does make a bit of a mockery of the whole situation.

[1320Lichtie]

11 minutes ago, Hawkeye the Gnu said:

I'm not sure I've got this correct so bear with me.....

Surely if you get checked and you don't have what it takes for entry you're only going to be turned away from the turnstile/checkpoint., what's stopping you going to another turnstile and trying again.

If 50% of the crowd is checked, the more often you try the better chance of not being checked.

I'm not for a minute advocating fans do this but it does make a bit of a mockery of the whole situation.

It’s a farce in the first place. Well past knowing these vaccine passports do f**k all. Once again have mates who are in their twenties considering getting boosters, they’re considering getting them so that they can live their life that is totally wrong. If you’re taking a vaccine it should purely be for health reasons, not so that you can enjoy the freedoms you should already have. It’s ridiculous.
 

I cannot stand this woman (tbf I don’t think I have a single bit of respect for any politician at this moment in time) and I used to be her and her parties biggest cheerleader.

Edited January 11, 2022 by 1320Lichtie

[stevoraith]

Eh, it does say that doesn't it?
And that would still mean for a crowd of 1,200 you'd have to check 1,000. For a crowd of 1,001 you'd have to check 1,000 too.

No, not the way the press are reporting it.

Press reporting that the new rule is 50% of the crowd have to be checked.
The old rule was 20% or 1000, whichever was higher.

The initial announcement was poorly worded and could be read either way, Flash has it spot on [emoji1360]

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, stevoraith said:

No, not the way the press are reporting it.

Press reporting that the new rule is 50% of the crowd have to be checked.
The old rule was 20% or 1000, whichever was higher.

The initial announcement was poorly worded and could be read either way, Flash has it spot on

The JRG update issued after the speech today is perfectly clear:

Quote

While the attendance restrictions for football matches will be removed from next week, the entry requirements have been strengthened to ensure:

1. That all supporters must either a) be fully vaccinated, which will include a booster vaccine for those who had a second dose more than four months ago; or b) provide proof of a negative Lateral Flow Test.
2. That clubs must increase spot-checking from 20% of attendees prior to admittance, to at least 1000 supporters or 50% of the attendance, whichever number is greater.

 

Again, as that stands, if we have a crowed of 1,001 in our next home match v Dunfermline we'll be required to check vaccine passports for 1,000 of them.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Skyline Drifter

[Ro Sham Bo]

5 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

The JRG update issued after the speech today is perfectly clear:

 

Again, as that stands, if we have a crowed of 1,001 in our next home match v Dunfermline we'll be required to check vaccine passports for 1,000 of them.

What a ridiculous situation. As you say, for clubs that hover between 1000 to 1500 for home gates, the whole thing will become farcical. 

[madton]

3 hours ago, jagsfan57 said:

We’ve already missed 2 home games - Ayr and Morton

My post was about missed revenue with games actually played with 500 crowds 

The fact you shat playing Morton( potentially Ayr too)will benefit you as it will be back to normal crowds.

 

 

[Tattie36]

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

The JRG update issued after the speech today is perfectly clear:

 

Again, as that stands, if we have a crowed of 1,001 in our next home match v Dunfermline we'll be required to check vaccine passports for 1,000 of them.

I know it’s a pain in the hole and a bit OTT but it’s not that much of an inconvenience - just a quick check/cursory glance, it’s not like a passport check at an airport.

The important thing is we’re getting full crowds back to games.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, Ro Sham Bo said:

What a ridiculous situation. As you say, for clubs that hover between 1000 to 1500 for home gates, the whole thing will become farcical. 

Whole thing isn't designed to deal with events staged on a walk up basis where you don't necessarily know the attendance beforehand. Effectively if you might have a gate between say 800 and 1,400 you are going to have to check everyone as they arrive as there doesn't on the face of it appear to be practical alternative. You can't Not check them in case the crowd does end up over 1,000.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Tattie36 said:

I know it’s a pain in the hole and a bit OTT but it’s not that much of an inconvenience - just a quick check/cursory glance, it’s not like a passport check at an airport.

The important thing is we’re getting full crowds back to games.

It's not that big a deal for fans though some will either refuse to comply, not know that they need to (we still had fans rocking up at Palmerston on Saturday not aware they needed to have pre-registered for a ballot for an eticket to get in), or not understand the whole thing.

For the club it means sourcing more staff to check the things. A thankless task to get people who will just be the ones to get it in the neck from the above categories of fans. It's ridiculous for an outdoor event in a stadium which will be 15% of capacity at best and where even this weekend they are happily allowing up to 200 people to sit indoors behind glass to watch games without any checking. It's nuts.

[Tattie36]

17 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It's not that big a deal for fans though some will either refuse to comply, not know that they need to (we still had fans rocking up at Palmerston on Saturday not aware they needed to have pre-registered for a ballot for an eticket to get in), or not understand the whole thing.

For the club it means sourcing more staff to check the things. A thankless task to get people who will just be the ones to get it in the neck from the above categories of fans. It's ridiculous for an outdoor event in a stadium which will be 15% of capacity at best and where even this weekend they are happily allowing up to 200 people to sit indoors behind glass to watch games without any checking. It's nuts.

I’m not sure how all clubs operate but at Arbroath it’s all online ticket sales or season tickets. These are scanned by staff at the gates with hand scanners (I’m sure we’ll change to turn-style scanners eventually but, as this is our first season doing all online ticketing, it’s being done manually). I can’t see how the Covid passports or negative LFTs can’t just be “checked” by the same staff at the same time. Don’t think there’s normally any more than 10-12 individuals doing the scanning for crowds of 1500 or so so not exactly a massive staffing issue.

A minor, temporary, inconvenience to be able to get back to unlimited crowds.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Tattie36