Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,762 Excellent

1 Follower

About allyo

  • Rank
    Jags fan

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Team

Recent Profile Visitors

2,286 profile views
  1. You don't approve of the rewilding?
  2. It's an interesting read but... When my ex-wife, a nurse of 20 years and forced to step back into ICU to cope with the demand, talks of a level of suffering and death way beyond what she's ever seen, and is visibly strained and nervous about going to work, I tend to think it's something more than flu. His figures seem to suggest that Iceland has already had almost twice as many deaths within its population than his predicted infection mortality rate. (160% of the population of Iceland would have to have been infected) His closing arguments have a strong flavour of conspiracy theory, and sound a bit far fetched to me
  3. I've been away from the forum for a while but thought I'd look in. But jeez, I'm away again
  4. allyo


    Was worried about Pele there
  5. I know people threaten it all the time but at that point I genuinely do think I'd give up
  6. A. Why frame it as a single alternative? Multiple outcomes were possible B. Just because something is voted on does not mean it is "fair". C. Just because something is agreed does not mean it is "fair". I'm sorry, I'm not one for pushing a victim agenda. But I can't go along with your definition of "fair". If eleven teams out of twelve decided tomorrow that, regardless of how the season progresses, Livingston would ultimately be relegated, would that be "fair" in your eyes? It's an extreme and ridiculous example, but it clearly demonstrates that a consensus on something that suits the majority does necessarily result in fairness.
  7. I don't understand why VAR wasn't able to over rule that decision.
  8. Agree. And the fact that it wasn't illegal shouldn't be somehow confused for a fair and decent solution
  9. If that was the case I don't think arbitration would have found against us. I think they were given a convenient option to help themselves and load the damage on to someone else.
  10. It is a Lower league stadium right enough
  11. But there was no rule for what happens when the season is finished early. They had to make something up. To do that they held a vote, in which the clubs could have chosen to mitigate the damage, spread it around. And they chose not to. That was their right; they chose to load the pain on to a few clubs rather than distribute it more evenly. You may argue that clubs, as companies, have a duty to protect their own interests. That may be the case. However if this is strictly applied then it follows that those making the decisions which affect Scottish football cannot act in the wider interest of Scottish football. Without making this a polarised debate, surely you can accept that there is something wrong. Not necessarily in the way that things were conducted, but in the very structure which results in decisions being made in this way. I've always said that our only chance in court was if there had been misconduct; if the process was followed then we were always on to a loser. However, I still think there is something very wrong with the system. And I think to say the "rules" have been applied "fairly" is a stretch.
  12. To be honest, gloating about how right you were on this case is a bit like gloating about predicting that we'd lose a game to Kilmarnock. You called something that most people thought was a likely outcome, but everyone wanted to believe otherwise. Doesn't mean it was inevitable. Doesn't mean it wasn't worth turning up. Doesn't make you an expert.