allyo
-
Posts
4,717 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by allyo
-
-
15 hours ago, dpj said:
Really good blog post.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/04/covid-why-terminology-really-matters/
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
-
1
-
-
I've been away from the forum for a while but thought I'd look in.
But jeez, I'm away again
-
2
-
-
Was worried about Pele there
-
4 hours ago, Norgethistle said:
What’s the point in competing?
We would be as well playing (and paying) only the development squad as effectively its 27 friendlies
I know people threaten it all the time but at that point I genuinely do think I'd give up
-
48 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Yes - because the alternative would be Clubs who were due promotion lost out
League Reconstruction was proposed and rejected by the Member Clubs - thats fair as its a Vote
Then after that you apply the rules agreed by the Member Clubs - which is also fair
I have No idea why the Club is playing up Victimhood - we were treated fairly within the Rules which we agreed to as a Member of the SPFL
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.
-
1 hour ago, exiledjag said:
An official from the Professional Referees Body (can't recall exact name of organisation) has already stated that VAR & GLT errors would not normally be considered grounds for invalidating the result of a game. Cards already being stacked!
Will be surprised if Bournemouth take this further beyond perhaps seeking a legal opinion!
They should just take their medicine!
I don't understand why VAR wasn't able to over rule that decision.
-
1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:
Not doubting the legality of what they did but some Clubs were probably struggling for finance and it was easy option for them , self interest or whatever.
Agree. And the fact that it wasn't illegal shouldn't be somehow confused for a fair and decent solution
-
8 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:
The Clubs were blackmailed into finishing the league early after they were told no prize would be released otherwise.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Garscube Road End said:
After the sterling battle of late, we should call it the J. Low stadium.
It is a Lower league stadium right enough
-
Can't remember
-
15 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:
Yes but the present rhetoric from the Club is that we are victims - we are not - the rules have been applied fairly
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.
-
4
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:
I'm afraid I just don't buy that anything more than a handful of fans are in the position of going to Firhill where permitted this season who would not have done so had we left Hearts to their own devices.
Might be right. Who knows
-
Just now, Woodstock Jag said:
And if this ends up costing us money, weakening our player budget for the promotion push?
I only want what's best for the club. As LIB said, we'll never really know the true cost of this vs the true cost of not pursuing it, and potentially being left with a completely disenfranchised support who'd forever look back and say, we could have fought it but we just didn't bother.
-
In my view the moral high ground isn't very important. Acting morally is, but that's a different thing.
What Covid has demonstrated very clearly is that Scottish football clubs rely very heavily on their fans. By far Thistle's most important audience is Thistle fans. As things stand we have a support that is thoroughly sick of Scottish football, maybe to the extent of some people walking away completely. But what would have been much worse would be if that feeling extended to the club itself. And I think it would have, if the club had thrown in the towel, particularly after being offered the support to challenge.
By challenging the perceived injustice Thistle kept its own fans on board. In the long term I think that's the most important thing to the future of the club.
By the way, I would not have been in favour of Thistle doing something immoral or just purely spiteful simply to satisfy the fans. Which I think other clubs have stooped to in the past. I don't think we've done that; we've only fought our case, which is fair enough in my opinion.
-
13 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:
Yes, good for me.
I was right.
But what do I know? I'm not even a practising lawyer?
Does it feel really good?
-
1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:
The issue at hand is whether it's a projection they were entitled to make given the extraordinary circumstances. On that there is room for reasonable disagreement.
Agreed (that there is room for disagreement ). And I think this is where the details of how things were organised in the background are crucial. Who decided what and with whom etc.
-
8 hours ago, gianlucatoni said:
More speculative Scum stuff
Provan opines...
Instead, a three-man Hampden arbitration panel is odds-on to side with the SPFL.
It's always easy to agree with someone taking your side, but he doesn't half talk a lot of crap
-
5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:
I don’t think the arbitration panel has any politicians or Governments on it, unless you know differently?
I assume nothing sits at the weekend and therefore it's Monday at earliest. You reckon?
-
10 minutes ago, CGJags said:
Bit negative, no?
After the last three years we've had....
-
Maybe they're waiting for Dundee
-
2
-
-
They were reporting six dead in Glasgow city centre attack a few weeks ago. They're maybe not great on a Friday afternoon
-
1
-
-
I object to "woke" being used in the present tense.
-
1
-
-
The accusation against Rangers sounds quite serious. Would that be illegal?
Return to Stadiums in September
in Main Jags forum
Posted
You think that's a lot?