Scottish lower league football locked down for 3 weeks

[BallochSonsFan]

20 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

If there are no speed cameras then nobody will ever be caught speeding. Of course anybody exhibiting 'symptoms' of a written off car where they've lost control and hit something might be found out anyway but statistically it won't look like there's much going on.

There's no requirement for speeding drivers to self-report for testing.

There is for anybody displaying Covid symptoms. Unless we believe that every single lower league player is asymptomatic.

[Skyline Drifter]

37 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

@Diamonds are Forever actually makes a pretty inarguable point; Football is not an essential business/service, at any level. 

Presumably the fact that this is an SFA decision, not a Governmental one, is the only reason the top two divisions remain open for now. the top flight is not an essential service or business but it is at less risk of exposure than the lower leagues. Ditto the first division. 

I've said already that I think the distinction between almost completely part time and almost completely full time is a reasonable one and on that basis this suspension, in the hopes that the figures drop over the rest of this month, is probably a kick we need to take.  However, I think it's entirely fair to criticise the way in which the announcement was made and the decision making was handled. The teams in the lower leagues were informed mere moments before it was announced, which is pretty appalling. They should have been brought up to speed well in advance of the announcement to the press and public. Statements from the SPFL and SFA should have been released that sympathised with the lower league clubs, staff, players and supporters, that accepted this would be a blow to them and assuring them that everything will be done to ensure those leagues can restart and complete if at all possible. 

There was none, or precious little, of that. 

Not for the first time, it is hard not to feel treated with  contempt by the SPFL and SFA. As an afterthought at best. It would be such an easy thing to do, as well, to put on a record a fulsome support and sympathy for the teams and supports affected. Instead, Ian Maxwell mentioned that we could at least still watch football on Sky. Thanks, Ian, but I've no real interest in forking out money to watch Hamilton V rangers or Dundee united V rangers or Ross County V rangers or St Mirren V celtic. I want to watch Airdrie (yes, I know, clearly a disorder of some kind, but still). 

In the round, this is the right call for now. The handling, as seemingly ever, has been far from competent. Moonhowling idiots will always cry conspiracy and agenda,  but there's no reason to give them such breathing room. 

In a perfect world you'd have some degree of advance notification if not consultation but realistically we all know that "notification" = leak. With something as important as this I think it's probably more important that a decision is communicated to all very quickly with a single statement than that each club is notified individually that it's under consideration and then the press are tweeting the detail within 15 minutes of the first club being told. Won't disagree on the language of the announcement particularly.

[Skyline Drifter]

27 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

There's no requirement for speeding drivers to self-report for testing.

There is for anybody displaying Covid symptoms. Unless we believe that every single lower league player is asymptomatic.

That conclusion is just so incredibly stupid.

Nobody said every player is asymptomatic. The fact is the majority of the population is though and that's probably more likely to be the case with young, fit athletes. When the Championship is made to start testing regularly we'll see the percentage of cases there ramp up very quickly. So far it's been limited to a few isolated cases and an outbreak at Morton which was only found when one displayed symptoms and the others were tested as a result. We've had two positive cases in the club to date, a coach who was entirely asymptomatic but found when we ran a round of tests before the first week of the season and a player who was tested because his girlfriend was symptomatic and tested positive. He was also found to be positive but symptomless.

The crux of your argument here is that nobody is reporting significant cases in the lower leagues compared to the top division and therefore by inference that part time players are far more compliant with the rules than their top level counterparts. It's a wholly laughable conclusion. If you test one group and not the other unless they happen to register a high temperature, then you are going to get far more positive cases in the tested group. It's logic 101.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[AndyDD]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

In a perfect world you'd have some degree of advance notification if not consultation but realistically we all know that "notification" = leak. With something as important as this I think it's probably more important that a decision is communicated to all very quickly with a single statement than that each club is notified individually that it's under consideration and then the press are tweeting the detail within 15 minutes of the first club being told. Won't disagree on the language of the announcement particularly.

Yeah, That makes sense, I can understand the fear of leaking. 

That being said, a conference call with the clubs in leagues 1 & 2 would have been perfectly reasonable, rather than having to notify them individually. Had doing that as part of their meeting, or in advance of then releasing their statement, led to a leak, well, frankly, so what? All the leak would do is tip off fans a wee bit earlier. I don't see the massive downside to this, especially balanced against the virtue of treating the clubs affected properly. 

Granted, I'm now focussing on League 1 and 2 Clubs and rather overlooking Highland and Lowland, junior and Women's teams, so I have to cop to that a bit. They couldn't have them all on a conference call, given the numbers involved. That being said, I'm not really sure that 'we don't word word leaking out a few hours before' is all that strong a justification for the pretty poor treatment of the affected clubs vis a vis advanced notice. 

In a perfect world, they'd not leak it, but the avoidance of a leak being put above respectful and reasonable treatment of members of your organisation and participants in your competitions is pretty indicative of the attitude problem. 

[Skyline Drifter]

7 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

Yeah, That makes sense, I can understand the fear of leaking. 

That being said, a conference call with the clubs in leagues 1 & 2 would have been perfectly reasonable, rather than having to notify them individually. Had doing that as part of their meeting, or in advance of then releasing their statement, led to a leak, well, frankly, so what? All the leak would do is tip off fans a wee bit earlier. I don't see the massive downside to this, especially balanced against the virtue of treating the clubs affected properly. 

Granted, I'm now focussing on League 1 and 2 Clubs and rather overlooking Highland and Lowland, junior and Women's teams, so I have to cop to that a bit. They couldn't have them all on a conference call, given the numbers involved. That being said, I'm not really sure that 'we don't word word leaking out a few hours before' is all that strong a justification for the pretty poor treatment of the affected clubs vis a vis advanced notice. 

In a perfect world, they'd not leak it, but the avoidance of a leak being put above respectful and reasonable treatment of members of your organisation and participants in your competitions is pretty indicative of the attitude problem. 

I don't agree I'm afraid. As soon as you organise such a meeting then it's tweeted by someone and everyone knows what's coming. And then there's criticism for not doing it professionally and allowing it to leak out. It's the world we now live in. Virtually everything is done 'in camera'.

There was no consultation back in March when football was shut down (completely) the first time either, just an announcement about lunchtime on a Friday. We were playing on the BBC live that night and got no tip off. I don't accept the argument that League 1 and below is being treated in a way that the top clubs wouldn't be. They are being notified exactly the same as everyone was last time. There are lots of reasons to criticise football governance right now but I don't think releasing a statement without sending out a message in advance that they are going to release a statement is one of them. Having made a decision they need to get it out asap. Personally, having made a decision, I'm not sure why they then allowed the Camelon game to go ahead last night. I accept Brora may have been more or less in transit but if the decision is to suspend then it should be immediate as it was in March.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[The Moonster]

12 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

There was no consultation back in March when football was shut down (completely) the first time either, just an announcement about lunchtime on a Friday. 

That has absolutely no relevance whatsoever here. Last year we were all at panic stations and had no idea how we'd get the country out of the pandemic - everything was shut down without notice really. Since last summer there have been warnings about a second wave which could be worse than the first given the time of year, yet we're supposed to believe the SPFL just had to make a split decision on Sunday evening to cancel all football? Have they not been consulting on possible outcomes throughout the season? Or are they really so reactionary that they just act when a headline comes out?

Clubs should've been well warned that shutdown in January was not only possible but likely if cases shot up. Not only that, but when the SPFL start discussing when they are going to implement a shutdown, it might be an idea to give a wee heads up to your member clubs. If they do that then Brora don't travel. Communication is clearly something clubs aren't happy with, even Jack Ross felt he had to say something about it on Sky last night.

[AndyDD]

5 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't agree I'm afraid. As soon as you organise such a meeting then it's tweeted by someone and everyone knows what's coming. And then there's criticism for not doing it professionally and allowing it to leak out. It's the world we now live in. Virtually everything is done 'in camera'.

There was no consultation back in March when football was shut down (completely) the first time either, just an announcement about lunchtime on a Friday. We were playing on the BBC live that night and got no tip off. I don't accept the argument that League 1 and below is being treated in a way that the top clubs wouldn't be. They are being notified exactly the same as everyone was last time. There are lots of reasons to criticise football governance right now but I don't think releasing a statement without sending out a message in advance that they are going to release a statement is one of them. Having made a decision they need to get it out asap. Personally, having made a decision, I'm not sure why they then allowed the Camelon game to go ahead last night. I accept Brora may have been more or less in transit but if the decision is to suspend then it should be immediate as it was in March.

That's fair and you make a reasonable point,  but I don't think 'we might be criticised for allowing a leak' is much of a justification. It seems fairly minor. Leaks are a fact of life across governments and organisations the world over. 

I'm unaware if there was any difference last March, if clubs were given a heads up or not, but I do remember it being widely discussed online as rumour before the announcement. Possibly due to leaks. You're likely right on that front. Regardless, it's my view that this time clubs should have been informed first Not just a message saying there will be a statement, but informing the clubs that they would be suspended for 3 weeks before papping out on Twitter that they would be suspended for 3 weeks. That's a pretty poor way to find out your organisational body is banning you from activity for the rest of the month, and if that was the way all clubs were informed in March, then it was a pretty poor way to handle it then, too. 

If it leaked, it leaked. The sky would remain up. Having made the decision, they should have told the clubs asap. The rest of us don't need to know as quickly as they do, frankly. They have employees to take care of and emergency financial measures to implement. 

Ultimately, of course, they could still have remedied this with the manner in which they announced it, the language they chose to use and the sympathy they displayed to those impacted, a point on which we agree. That is perhaps the way in which League 1 and below are being treated differently from the top clubs.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

That has absolutely no relevance whatsoever here. Last year we were all at panic stations and had no idea how we'd get the country out of the pandemic - everything was shut down without notice really. Since last summer there have been warnings about a second wave which could be worse than the first given the time of year, yet we're supposed to believe the SPFL just had to make a split decision on Sunday evening to cancel all football? Have they not been consulting on possible outcomes throughout the season? Or are they really so reactionary that they just act when a headline comes out?

Clubs should've been well warned that shutdown in January was not only possible but likely if cases shot up. Not only that, but when the SPFL start discussing when they are going to implement a shutdown, it might be an idea to give a wee heads up to your member clubs. If they do that then Brora don't travel. Communication is clearly something clubs aren't happy with, even Jack Ross felt he had to say something about it on Sky last night.

It has every relevance if you are claiming that League 1 clubs are being treated badly compared with others. It's the only similar example.

The SPFL did not cancel football. Brora are not members of the SPFL.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

That's fair and you make a reasonable point,  but I don't think 'we might be criticised for allowing a leak' is much of a justification. It seems fairly minor. Leaks are a fact of life across governments and organisations the world over. 

I'm unaware if there was any difference last March, if clubs were given a heads up or not, but I do remember it being widely discussed online as rumour before the announcement. Possibly due to leaks. You're likely right on that front. Regardless, it's my view that this time clubs should have been informed first Not just a message saying there will be a statement, but informing the clubs that they would be suspended for 3 weeks before papping out on Twitter that they would be suspended for 3 weeks. That's a pretty poor way to find out your organisational body is banning you from activity for the rest of the month, and if that was the way all clubs were informed in March, then it was a pretty poor way to handle it then, too. 

If it leaked, it leaked. The sky would remain up. Having made the decision, they should have told the clubs asap. The rest of us don't need to know as quickly as they do, frankly. They have employees to take care of and emergency financial measures to implement. 

Ultimately, of course, they could still have remedied this with the manner in which they announced it, the language they chose to use and the sympathy they displayed to those impacted, a point on which we agree. That is perhaps the way in which League 1 and below are being treated differently from the top clubs.

We'll have to agree to differ on this I'm afraid. But that's fine, I take your point, I just don't agree with it. I also think with reference to the highlighted part you are arguing with yourself. They did. There's no quicker way to communicate the decision than make a global announcement in public. Your contention here appears to be that the club should be told asap without telling the public at the same time and I don't think that's reasonable or achievable.

[squeezeboxson]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It has every relevance if you are claiming that League 1 clubs are being treated badly compared with others. It's the only similar example.

The SPFL did not cancel football. Brora are not members of the SPFL.

I'd forgotten how pedantic you can be 

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It has every relevance if you are claiming that League 1 clubs are being treated badly compared with others. It's the only similar example.

The SPFL did not cancel football. Brora are not members of the SPFL.

It's not a similar example though, we've literally had 9 months to prepare for this shutdown and a rise in cases has been predicted for months, that's not even remotely similar to last year when every business in the country shut down with immediate effect, and with very little knowledge on when they'd open back up again. All I'm claiming is that communication on these issues could be better and that is borne out by Brora still being allowed to travel when football at their level has been stopped. And the fact that a Premiership manager has said on national TV that those taking decisions should communicate better. 

You knew what I meant, there's no need for the pedantry. 

 

[Brummo]

4 minutes ago, squeezeboxson said:

I'd forgotten how pedantic you can be 

...and frankly rather tedious! Always great to hear from fans of "bigger" clubs condescending to spout voluminous, erudite wisdom in our humble, lower league abode.

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

It's not a similar example though, we've literally had 9 months to prepare for this shutdown and a rise in cases has been predicted for months, that's not even remotely similar to last year when every business in the country shut down with immediate effect, and with very little knowledge on when they'd open back up again. All I'm claiming is that communication on these issues could be better and that is borne out by Brora still being allowed to travel when football at their level has been stopped. And the fact that a Premiership manager has said on national TV that those taking decisions should communicate better. 

You knew what I meant, there's no need for the pedantry. 

 

I already agreed communication could be better but I don't agree that it could be quicker or earlier and the language is probably at least partly as a result of the need for speedy communication. I think that should be at least acknowledged.

I "get" that some League 1 and 2 fans are unhappy and the reaction from Partick Thistle was entirely predictable. Stenhousemuir's chairman has also been vocal in his condemnation. I've also spoken with at least one club who think it's entirely the correct decision. I doubt they are alone. Interestingly at lower levels, certainly down here, we've had clubs CALLING for the SFA to suspend football. Dalbeattie Star and Newton Stewart being two who publicly said in the last week that they didn't think it appropriate for part time footballers to be playing football under the "elite" banner and the South of Scotland League had already called an EGM for Thursday where a vote to suspend football was inevitably going to be passed. Newton Stewart I think had already effectively gone on strike and said they wouldn't fulfil fixtures.

I think there's probably a bit of misconception over who does what here. The SFA is responsible for Governance of football and it is their decision whether football is allowed at all and at what levels, in consultation with the Govt via the JRG. Whilst the clubs are members of the SFA in their own right, the SFA don't run Leagues and aren't directly responsible for how they deal with the resulting fall out. It's a reasonable question to ask how much the SPFL knew about this in advance. I suspect probably not that much given it took them several hours to issue a supporting statement. That said Neil Doncaster is on the JRG and various club reps are also involved in the decision making process. I appreciate there's a degree of pedantry in my point but the distinction is also very important here. There seems to be a perpetuating myth that the SPFL decided to throw their lower leagues to the wolves and protect the big boys and their tv deal. The reality is the SPFL were not involved in the decision and this will have been taken over their heads.

Lord knows there is much to criticise football governance for at the moment and the Celtic thing is right at the top of that. It's dreadful timing unfortunately but anyone who thinks this decision wasn't coming anyway as a result of the massive growth in cases is in cuckoo land. Is it right that the Championship has been given the right to carry on at a cost? I don't know., but I can appreciate the distinction between people for whom football is their main source of income and those for whom it isn't and those levels at which broadcasting is bringing the game into people's homes and those that aren't. It's not a perfect solution and obviously there are a couple of part time sides in the Championship. I don't think they'll hesitate to shut down the Championship either if cases continue to rise, particularly if the next week's or so's round of testing shows a lot of Championship players have it. There are smaller squads in the Championship with many clubs running on squads of 18 to 20 players so losing half a squad will mean games are binned anyway.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[Skyline Drifter]

12 minutes ago, Brummo said:

...and frankly rather tedious! Always great to hear from fans of "bigger" clubs condescending to spout voluminous, erudite wisdom in our humble, lower league abode.

Feel free to use ignore if your attention span struggles then.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

dunno if been said before but it would surely be ok just to change it to an 18 game season now? it doesn't effect the sporting equality since everyone will have played home and away and no one is given an advantage.  Assuming they get the go ahead to resume at some point

[The Moonster]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I already agreed communication could be better but I don't agree that it could be quicker or earlier and the language is probably at least partly as a result of the need for speedy communication. I think that should be at least acknowledged.

I "get" that some League 1 and 2 fans are unhappy and the reaction from Partick Thistle was entirely predictable. Stenhousemuir's chairman has also been vocal in his condemnation. I've also spoken with at least one club who think it's entirely the correct decision. I doubt they are alone. Interestingly at lower levels, certainly down here, we've had clubs CALLING for the SFA to suspend football. Dalbeattie Star and Newton Stewart being two who publicly said in the last week that they didn't think it appropriate for part time footballers to be playing football under the "elite" banner and the South of Scotland League had already called an EGM for Thursday where a vote to suspend football was inevitably going to be passed.

I think there's probably a bit of misconception over who does what here. The SFA is responsible for Governance of football and it is their decision whether football is allowed at all and at what levels, in consultation with the Govt via the JRG. Whilst the clubs are members of the SFA in their own right, the SFA don't run Leagues and aren't directly responsible for how they deal with the resulting fall out. It's a reasonable question to ask how much the SPFL knew about this in advance. I suspect probably not that much given it took them several hours to issue a supporting statement. That said Neil Doncaster is on the JRG and various club reps are also involved in the decision making process. I appreciate there's a degree of pedantry in my point but the distinction is also very important here. There seems to be a perpetuating myth that the SPFL decided to throw their lower leagues to the wolves and protect the big boys and their tv deal. The reality is the SPFL were not involved in the decision and this will have been taken over their heads.

Lord knows there is much to criticise football governance for at the moment and the Celtic thing is right at the top of that. It's dreadful timing unfortunately but anyone who thinks this decision wasn't coming anyway as a result of the massive growth in cases is in cuckoo land. Is it right that the Championship has been given the right to carry on at a cost? I don't know., but I can appreciate the distinction between people for whom football is their main source of income and those for whom it isn't and those levels at which broadcasting is bringing the game into people's homes and those that aren't. It's not a perfect solution and obviously there are a couple of part time sides in the Championship. I don't think they'll hesitate to shut down the Championship either if cases continue to rise, particularly if the next week's or so's round of testing shows a lot of Championship players have it. There are smaller squads in the Championship with many clubs running on squads of 18 to 20 players so losing half a squad will mean games are binned anyway.

Thistle's statement is a complete riddy and I'd hate for people to think I share their opinion. I take your point that clubs will have seen it coming, but obviously things still need communicated properly. 

If the Championship was stopped tomorrow the players would receive furlough the same as part time players, so I'm not sure this line about "main source of income" is relevant. If your full time players weren't to receive any government support then I can understand keeping them playing. 

[AndyDD]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

We'll have to agree to differ on this I'm afraid. But that's fine, I take your point, I just don't agree with it. I also think with reference to the highlighted part you are arguing with yourself. They did. There's no quicker way to communicate the decision than make a global announcement in public. Your contention here appears to be that the club should be told asap without telling the public at the same time and I don't think that's reasonable or achievable.

Yeah, nothing wrong with that; I understand your point and you mine, we just don't happen to agree. 

My point regards telling the clubs is that, rather than the SFA needing to tell everyone right away as you suggested, really they needed to tell the clubs right away. They didn't need to tell the media right away. The media did not need to be told at the same time as the clubs. The public did not need to be told at the same time as the clubs. It would have struck me as entirely proper to make the decision, inform the affected clubs/organisations, then publish a statement for the press. Had the clubs leaked it ahead of the statement to the press, well, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. Nor would anyone really moan about that. It is not in my mind unreasonable to expect the SFA to view the lower leagues as being higher up the 'need to know' list than the media, nor would telling them right away, instead of after they had drafted, redrafted, greenlit and published a statement to press, strike me as all that impossible to achieve. 

We're talking in circles now though, so fair play. 

[AndyDD]

15 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I think there's probably a bit of misconception over who does what here. The SFA is responsible for Governance of football and it is their decision whether football is allowed at all and at what levels, in consultation with the Govt via the JRG. Whilst the clubs are members of the SFA in their own right, the SFA don't run Leagues and aren't directly responsible for how they deal with the resulting fall out. It's a reasonable question to ask how much the SPFL knew about this in advance. I suspect probably not that much given it took them several hours to issue a supporting statement. That said Neil Doncaster is on the JRG and various club reps are also involved in the decision making process. I appreciate there's a degree of pedantry in my point but the distinction is also very important here. There seems to be a perpetuating myth that the SPFL decided to throw their lower leagues to the wolves and protect the big boys and their tv deal. The reality is the SPFL were not involved in the decision and this will have been taken over their heads.

 

Perhaps overly pedantic myself here, but both of these things cannot be true. It was not the SPFL who ultimately made the decision, but to say they were not involved, well, that simply cannot be. Doncaster, as you say, is on the JRG and would have been in the meeting which reached this decision. That's involvement. Not responsibility, but involvement. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

28 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

Yeah, nothing wrong with that; I understand your point and you mine, we just don't happen to agree. 

 

This is shite, batter him.

[AndyDD]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

This is shite, batter him.