Scottish lower league football locked down for 3 weeks

[jagfox]

National League in England and the North and South teams below that have their National Lottery/ Givenrment grant run out in February.

Their next hand out is to be in the form of loans so there is talk of a lot if clubs wanting to pull the plug on a financial basis but the league want to go ahead.

[Skyline Drifter]

47 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said:

That is the theory behind it but up until the lower leagues were shut down there were as many cases in full time as there were in part time, which brings the self discipline issue to the fore. 

Maybe the part time players are more disciplined than is being perceived. 

Oh come on, people surely aren't still peddling this line out as evidence of anything?

The Premiership is testing everyone. The lower leagues were testing only those who displayed symptoms such as a high temperature or persistent cough or loss of taste or smell. You're not equating like with like. The majority of positive cases are asymptomatic and that's particularly likely to be the case in young athletes.

As I said before, it's like taking two otherwise identical roads, sticking a speed camera on one and not the other, and then using the fact that there are far more speeding fines issued for that one as proof that people drive less responsibly on it. It's absolutely bonkers.

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 minutes ago, jagfox BLM said:

National League in England and the North and South teams below that have their National Lottery/ Givenrment grant run out in February.

Their next hand out is to be in the form of loans so there is talk of a lot if clubs wanting to pull the plug on a financial basis but the league want to go ahead.

The Government money put in to football is a drop in the ocean. They won't be interested in taking it back if lower level clubs clubs anywhere chuck it. I think I they would be congratulated for doing their bit. 

The only thing maintaining football is the  prospect of losing the TV contracts and repaying money already taken from it. The lower league teams don't even have that.

The determination to carry on is from the selfish point of view that "we've got to go up".

[theoriginalhedge]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Oh come on, people surely aren't still peddling this line out as evidence of anything?

The Premiership is testing everyone. The lower leagues were testing only those who displayed symptoms such as a high temperature or persistent cough or loss of taste or smell. You're not equating like with like. The majority of positive cases are asymptomatic and that's particularly likely to be the case in young athletes.

As I said before, it's like taking two otherwise identical roads, sticking a speed camera on one and not the other, and then using the fact that there are far more speeding fines issued for that one as proof that people drive less responsibly on it. It's absolutely bonkers.

I agree entirely with your point in principal regarding testing.  On paper and in an ideal world  that makes perfect sense.

The point I'm making is that even with regular testing there is no accounting for people's personal behaviour or responsibilities.

There was a medical report linked to the Celtic trip saying that Julien sat in more than one seat on a bus journey . If players can't even abide to regulations in a controlled bubble then how are we meant to believe that they are less likely to abide to regulations in their own free time?  

It is all about discipline . You can test all you like but without the discipline it all goes out the window. 

 

[jagsfan57]

Can you elaborate on the cricket and rugby examples? What teams isolated completely and for how long?
 

Full time players are just as much at risk going to training as part time going to their work. Getting a test with a negative test on a Thursday is no guarantee that you don’t have Covid on a Friday. So, yes I am suggesting that.

Pretty sure that during the cricket test matches in the summer, the test teams and broadcasters all stayed in the Covid secure hotels in Manchester and Southampton for the whole period of the test series - 2 or 3 months.
Similarly for the Autumn international rugby, the teams stayed in their hotels for the period of the competition- 4 to 6 weeks.

[jagfox]

3 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

The Government money put in to football is a drop in the ocean. They won't be interested in taking it back if lower level clubs clubs anywhere chuck it. I think I they would be congratulated for doing their bit. 

The only thing maintaining football is the  prospect of losing the TV contracts and repaying money already taken from it. The lower league teams don't even have that.

The determination to carry on is from the selfish point of view that "we've got to go up".

They're not chucking while they've got the grants, just if they have to rely on loans to keep their season going.

Grants were meant to be means tested I.e. average attendances but ended up going in a divisional basis. Sounds familiar.. .

[The Moonster]

Just now, jagsfan57 said:

Full time players are just as much at risk going to training as part time going to their work. Getting a test with a negative test on a Thursday is no guarantee that you don’t have Covid on a Friday. So, yes I am suggesting that.

Pretty sure that during the cricket test matches in the summer, the test teams and broadcasters all stayed in the Covid secure hotels in Manchester and Southampton for the whole period of the test series - 2 or 3 months.
Similarly for the Autumn international rugby, the teams stayed in their hotels for the period of the competition- 4 to 6 weeks.

You're an idiot then, or being deliberately ignorant of what's being said. If you can't understand that attending two places of work makes you more at risk of infection than attending one place of work then we may as well end the discussion here.

Putting entire league squads of football players and staff into isolation for the entire season is fucking bonkers and not remotely comparable to a 4-6 week cricket match involving two countries, or an 8 week rugby tournament. For the Euros I imagine similar protocols will be taken for football, but expecting Morton or Dunfermline players to hole themselves up for 10 months of the year is hilarious.

[Skyline Drifter]

3 hours ago, theoriginalhedge said:

I agree entirely with your point in principal regarding testing.  On paper and in an ideal world  that makes perfect sense.

The point I'm making is that even with regular testing there is no accounting for people's personal behaviour or responsibilities.

There was a medical report linked to the Celtic trip saying that Julien sat in more than one seat on a bus journey . If players can't even abide to regulations in a controlled bubble then how are we meant to believe that they are less likely to abide to regulations in their own free time?  

It is all about discipline . You can test all you like but without the discipline it all goes out the window. 

 

It's also 100% true in the real world we live in.

The rest of your post is fair (I hadn't heard that about Julien) but utterly unrelated to the first post. The conclusion that part time players are at least as disciplined as full time ones based on the postive cases recorded is completely baseless. It may be true, it may not. Positive cases when one lot tests and one lot doesn't proves nothing at all though.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, jagsfan57 said:

Full time players are just as much at risk going to training as part time going to their work.

That's just nonsense, sorry. If both travel to their work in their own cars neither is at any risk at all really  in terms of their actual travel (highly possible some part timers use public transport of course which will increase risk). Once they are at work, depending what they do, there is far greater likelihood of a part timer coming into contact with a member of the public who is carrying covid without detection than there is of a full time footballer doing so with a small number of contacts who are all testing weekly.

[jagsfan57]

You're an idiot then, or being deliberately ignorant of what's being said. If you can't understand that attending two places of work makes you more at risk of infection than attending one place of work then we may as well end the discussion here.
Putting entire league squads of football players and staff into isolation for the entire season is fucking bonkers and not remotely comparable to a 4-6 week cricket match involving two countries, or an 8 week rugby tournament. For the Euros I imagine similar protocols will be taken for football, but expecting Morton or Dunfermline players to hole themselves up for 10 months of the year is hilarious.

It’s not the number of places of work - it’s the number of people you come into contact with. Maybe it’s you that needs to understand how it spreads.

At no point did I say we should put all players in isolation for 9 months - but why not ? That’s what we have done to people in care homes ! If they can do it so can sports people.

[The Moonster]

2 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

 

It’s not the number of places of work - it’s the number of people you come into contact with. Maybe it’s you that needs to understand how it spreads.

At no point did I say we should put all players in isolation for 9 months - but why not ? That’s what we have done to people in care homes ! If they can do it so can sports people.
 

 

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

 

It’s not the number of places of work - it’s the number of people you come into contact with. Maybe it’s you that needs to understand how it spreads.

At no point did I say we should put all players in isolation for 9 months - but why not ? That’s what we have done to people in care homes ! If they can do it so can sports people.
 

 

Fucking Hell!

[jagsfan57]

That's just nonsense, sorry. If both travel to their work in their own cars neither is at any risk at all really  in terms of their actual travel (highly possible some part timers use public transport of course which will increase risk). Once they are at work, depending what they do, there is far greater likelihood of a part timer coming into contact with a member of the public who is carrying covid without detection than there is of a full time footballer doing so with a small number of contacts who are all testing weekly.

It’s not nonsense. The only benefit of testing is you can remove people that have tested positive more quickly. I agree with you that it is the number of contacts that is important.

Your also assuming that all part time players actually have to go to work and aren’t either furloughed or working from home. There are some real generalisation going on here.

[Cowden Cowboy]

2 hours ago, jagfox BLM said:

They're not chucking while they've got the grants, just if they have to rely on loans to keep their season going.

Grants were meant to be means tested I.e. average attendances but ended up going in a divisional basis. Sounds familiar.. .

Grants weren't meant to be means tested on average attendances.  That was only a suggested possible methodology and clubs submitted that and other data.  Average attendances of course are skewed by many factors such as some clubs include all season ticket holders in their attendance others exclude non-attending season ticket holders from the attendance figure (my own included).  Then again some clubs issue free season tickets to some groups of supporters or allow kids in free.  All impact on average attendances.  Per division seems a reasonable and justifiable approach. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

5 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

 

It’s not nonsense. The only benefit of testing is you can remove people that have tested positive more quickly. I agree with you that it is the number of contacts that is important.

Your also assuming that all part time players actually have to go to work and aren’t either furloughed or working from home. There are some real generalisation going on here.
 

 

^^^The way to oppose generalisations is to come up with another.

[David W]

19 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Grants weren't meant to be means tested on average attendances.  That was only a suggested possible methodology and clubs submitted that and other data.  Average attendances of course are skewed by many factors such as some clubs include all season ticket holders in their attendance others exclude non-attending season ticket holders from the attendance figure (my own included).  Then again some clubs issue free season tickets to some groups of supporters or allow kids in free.  All impact on average attendances.  Per division seems a reasonable and justifiable approach. 

It is a reasonable and justifiable approach if it is prize money.

There is simply nothing reasonable and justifiable about the fact that Arbroath and Alloa received considerably more money than Partick Thistle and Falkirk.

[Cowden Cowboy]

6 minutes ago, David W said:

It is a reasonable and justifiable approach if it is prize money.

There is simply nothing reasonable and justifiable about the fact that Arbroath and Alloa received considerably more money than Partick Thistle and Falkirk.

There certainly is - my own club when it competed in the Championship had a much larger 'spend'/ cost base than when it was in L2.   That is a competitive issue nothing to do with full time v part time.  A full time team in L1 wouldn't normally be paying the same level of wages as a full time club in the Championship.  A part time team in the Championship would normally be paying an appreciably higher level of wages than a part time team in L1. 

[falkirkthebigclub]

13 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

There certainly is - my own club when it competed in the Championship had a much larger 'spend'/ cost base than when it was in L2.   That is a competitive issue nothing to do with full time v part time.  A full time team in L1 wouldn't normally be paying the same level of wages as a full time club in the Championship.  A part time team in the Championship would normally be paying an appreciably higher level of wages than a part time team in L1. 

There are numerous examples of lower league clubs paying greater wages, than clubs in higher divisions, in the past few seasons. Your point is grossly subjective.

[Cowden Cowboy]

16 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said:

There are numerous examples of lower league clubs paying greater wages, than clubs in higher divisions, in the past few seasons. Your point is grossly subjective.

Well yes Rangers for one did so when there was no need for it.  All the points made on this are subjective but maybe your overall inference could be considered grossly selfish.  Some gratitude for the assistance actually received in these hard times might be more apt rather than casting envious eyes elsewhere. 

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, jagsfan57 said:

 

It’s not nonsense. The only benefit of testing is you can remove people that have tested positive more quickly. I agree with you that it is the number of contacts that is important.

Your also assuming that all part time players actually have to go to work and aren’t either furloughed or working from home. There are some real generalisation going on here.
 

Goodness me!

I'm doing no such thing. I AM assuming that some part timers (probably most of them) DO go to another place of work and aren't furloughed or working from home though. Something that generally isn't the case with full time footballers.

You're ploughing a lone furrow here with this case that part timers have no more interaction with society outside their football squad than full timers. It is nonsense. Plainly.