COVID-19 In Scottish Football

[Godric1970]

15 minutes ago, virginton said:

I've voted SNP in every election and will comment on their current clown-car performance as I see fit, champ.

sure you are not getting mixed up with blo Jo and his corrupt clowns  ... the school fiasco was a case that no one can win how do you think employers & uni's think with the current batch school leavers being awarded with grades 15% higher than the average year 

 

back to fitba i don't hold the clubs responsible for fan behaviour either ... i blame the fans ... and i reiterate the players are the people who should be punished 

[ropy]

6 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

20 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

If you think that the SPFL are going to take points off Celtic or Rangers this season for any reason, you must be new to Scottish football. I would imagine that the reason that St Johnstone weren’t given the points for Saturday’s match, was that the SPFL could foresee that it was always a possibility that a similar thing could happen at Celtic and/or Rangers.

There is absolutely no one going to try to claim points because of games getting postponed, that's because there isn't a club in the country confident that their players aren't entirely capable of making as much of a c**t of it as those who have been caught.

I suspect most club’s players have transgressed already, they should confess their sins then we move on.

[Jinky67]

47 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

Plenty of countries have strict liability for their fans. It is almost inconceivable that they don’t have strict liability for their players.

Celtic or Aberdeen may have a very comprehensive due diligence defence, that is they put in place strict protocols, tested them, and routinely checked their efficacy, but as everyone in any senior position of a company knows, you are still responsible for the actions of employees - all you can do is mitigate them.

There is an argument for both personal and collective responsibility, but the idea that any company (or football club) is not responsible is utterly absurd.

2 points/questions regarding Celtic

Celtic would argue Bolingoli acted independently and his trip to Spain was not in the course of his employment so they aren’t liable?

Secondly Bolingoli hasn’t contracted Covid-19 or has passed the infection to anyone so what are they exactly liable for? A postponement of games that will be replayed? If the league was suspended and clubs incurred significantly financial loss then possibly?

The situation regarding Aberdeen may be different because some of them have contracted Covid and subsequently transmitted it to others?

Im not an expert on this so it is just an opinion/questions based on having some involvement with a  previous vicarious liability claim so happy to be corrected and educated 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Jinky67

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

1 hour ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

1 hour ago, ropy said:

Why have they orchestrated a train derailment today?

It's not a funny situation at all but there will Union loving loonies who might like to believe that.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Poor stuff.

[craigkillie]

10 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

2 points regarding Celtic

Celtic would argue Bolingoli acted independently and his trip to Spain was not in the course of his employment so they aren’t liable 

Secondly Bolingoli hasn’t contracted Covid-19 or has passed the infection to anyone so what are they exactly liable for? A postponement of games that will be replayed? If the league was suspended and clubs incurred significantly financial loss then possibly.

The situation regarding Aberdeen may be different because some of them have contracted Covid and subsequently transmitted it to others 

Im not an expert on this so it is just an opinion based on having some involvement with a  previous vicarious liability claim so happy to be corrected and educated 

I'm going to need a citation for that bold claim.

[craigkillie]

3 hours ago, ropy said:

I have no skin in the politics game but the press dictate the questions at these sessions.

The questions journalists are pre-screened and selected. A lot of people already knew that the first questions in yesterday's press conference were going to be about football, because the person holding a press conference generally dictates the agenda too.

Edited August 12, 2020 by craigkillie

[Jinky67]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I'm going to need a citation for that bold claim.

It’s a question more than a claim to be fair, I’ve edited my post to try make that clear. I have no idea if they have transmitted the virus however if proven that they have could Aberdeen be held liable?

Edited August 12, 2020 by Jinky67

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, Jinky67 said:

It’s a question more than a claim to be fair. I have no idea if they have transmitted the virus however if proven that they have could Aberdeen be held liable?

Why would Aberdeen be held liable here? First of all, they don't have the magical power to control their employees outside of their working hours, but more importantly they were just eight of many people out in pubs and restaurants in Aberdeen on that Saturday night, all of whom had the potential to catch the virus. Those eight players choosing to stay at home would most likely have had a negligible effect on the outbreak.

[ropy]

16 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The questions are pre-screened and selected. A lot of people already knew that the first questions in yesterday's press conference were going to be about football, because the person holding a press conference generally dictates the agenda too.

That is not how I understood it, however Sky Sports News applied for a place at that session 

[Jinky67]

16 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Why would Aberdeen be held liable here? First of all, they don't have the magical power to control their employees outside of their working hours, but more importantly they were just eight of many people out in pubs and restaurants in Aberdeen on that Saturday night, all of whom had the potential to catch the virus. Those eight players choosing to stay at home would most likely have had a negligible effect on the outbreak.

Vicarious liability from what I recall is that the employer can be held liable for the negligent actions of their employees if the action was carried out in the course of their employment OR can be connected to what an employee is authorised to do by the employer

If those players weren’t authorised to be out together or given explicit instruction by the club that they hadn’t to go out then that could be seen as negligence. Where it could get interesting is if one of those players has transmitted Covid, could Aberdeen then become liable to any claims for financial losses by an individual/s due to an Aberdeen player breaking club rules and transmitting the virus?

Edited August 12, 2020 by Jinky67

[scottmcleanscontacts]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Poor stuff.

Whilst I agree, and I made clear it was bonkers, there will be some who will look to somehow blame the SG. It's just the society we live in.

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

13 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

Vicarious liability from what I recall is that the employer can be held liable for the negligent actions of their employees if the action was carried out in the course of their employment OR can be connected to what an employee is authorised to do by the employer

If those players weren’t authorised to be out together or given explicit instruction by the club that they hadn’t to go out then that could be seen as negligence. Where it could get interesting is if one of those players has transmitted Covid, could Aberdeen then become liable to any claims for financial losses by an individual/s due to an Aberdeen player breaking club rules and transmitting the virus?

What if a second or third or fourth occurrence comes along. SG says enough and no football or no football with crowds. Championship, Divisions 1,2, could potentially investigate if their right to trade has been hampered/killed off by the actions of the employees of other companies i.e. Premiership clubs.

Edited August 12, 2020 by SouthLanarkshireWhite

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

35 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

2 points/questions regarding Celtic

Celtic would argue Bolingoli acted independently and his trip to Spain was not in the course of his employment so they aren’t liable?

Secondly Bolingoli hasn’t contracted Covid-19 or has passed the infection to anyone so what are they exactly liable for? A postponement of games that will be replayed? If the league was suspended and clubs incurred significantly financial loss then possibly?

The situation regarding Aberdeen may be different because some of them have contracted Covid and subsequently transmitted it to others?

Im not an expert on this so it is just an opinion/questions based on having some involvement with a  previous vicarious liability claim so happy to be corrected and educated 

Of course Celtic would make that defence, and yet their response was to publicly criticise his decision making, and stated an investigation and appropriate disciplinary action would be taken. 

They no doubt would have a comprehensive due diligence defence, with the ability to prove protocols had been put in place, were tested, and most importantly, continually checked. Without the checking, the protocols have limited value.

The fear for Celtic and other clubs is that the legal position is a secondary factor, their concern will be the court of public opinion and the patience of the SG, hence offering no defence of the player or the arms’ length involvement which usually happens when moronic players get caught drink driving.

Personally I am very encouraged by the response of clubs and fans who haven’t looked to re-direct or claim foul, which is so often the case. That outlook may do more to save this season than anything else.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

3 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

What if a second or third or fourth occurrence comes along. SG says enough and no football or no football with crowds. Divisions 1,2, and 3 could potentially investigate if their right to trade has been hampered/killed off by the actions of the employees of other companies i.e. Premiership clubs.

Bit of a reach. Equally DF Concerts or SEC might argue that a failure of football clubs and pub landlords has made it impossible for concerts to be held. It’s probably true, but legally not going to happen.

[G51]

15 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

Vicarious liability from what I recall is that the employer can be held liable for the negligent actions of their employees if the action was carried out in the course of their employment OR can be connected to what an employee is authorised to do by the employer

If those players weren’t authorised to be out together or given explicit instruction by the club that they hadn’t to go out then that could be seen as negligence. Where it could get interesting is if one of those players has transmitted Covid, could Aberdeen then become liable to any claims for financial losses by an individual/s due to an Aberdeen player breaking club rules and transmitting the virus?

You will almost certainly never be able to prove this.

[LIVIFOREVER]

2 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

What if a second or third or fourth occurrence comes along. SG says enough and no football or no football with crowds. Divisions 1,2, and 3 could potentially investigate if their right to trade has been hampered/killed off by the actions of the employees of other companies i.e. Premiership clubs.

I'm sure Ann Budge would be up for it.

And just when we thought it was over, Hearts pop up to fund all the lower league teams legal fees, suing the Premiership clubs.

[The Marly]

my take in all of this is there was nothing Celtic or Aberdeen could do the players decided to break the lockdown ... the clubs cannot oversee there players 24/7 ... the players are the ones who should be punished ie losing there licence to play in Scotland
 they are above the lockdown the only alternative is for players to wear trackers on there lower leg just above the ankle like ... i know it sounds drastic ... but the fate of the game in Scotland is at stake due to a group of players and a individual player believing 
 

Their licence to play in Scotland??

[The Marly]

If you think that the SPFL are going to take points off Celtic or Rangers this season for any reason, you must be new to Scottish football. I would imagine that the reason that St Johnstone weren’t given the points for Saturday’s match, was that the SPFL could foresee that it was always a possibility that a similar thing could happen at Celtic and/or Rangers.

We don't want the points. Tainted titles are no good to us.

[Mark Connolly]

48 minutes ago, The Marly said:

2 hours ago, kingjoey said:

If you think that the SPFL are going to take points off Celtic or Rangers this season for any reason, you must be new to Scottish football. I would imagine that the reason that St Johnstone weren’t given the points for Saturday’s match, was that the SPFL could foresee that it was always a possibility that a similar thing could happen at Celtic and/or Rangers.

We don't want the points. Tainted titles are no good to us.

We'll have them if you don't want them

[AndyDD]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The questions are pre-screened and selected. A lot of people already knew that the first questions in yesterday's press conference were going to be about football, because the person holding a press conference generally dictates the agenda too.

The journalists are selected ahead of time on a request basis, so Chris Mclaughlin et al being on the list will have clued them in that the football questions would come up,  but the journalists are not asked to provide their questions in advanced, are they? That seems highly unlikely.