Jump to content

West Ender

What if they shut down the season?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

I have just finished reading it and I guess like a lot of reports it covers where we are. But I think the important thing in it is that we are being asked to give our ideas of how best we can live with this until( hopefully) a vaccine is developed.


Nobody yet has a magic bullet for this and we can’t stay cooped up forever.

Well that's where you're wrong...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jagfox said:

Deloitte

The same Deloitte who are going to solve the covid-19 dilema as they've been given the contract to run testing centres?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An enquiry is not credible if you don't advise those affected that it is being run. What was its scope? What would have happened if it had found misdemeanours? Would anyone have been told?

I accept there are more important issues at the moment. But the SPFL appears to suggest that this means the issue should be forgotten. Wouldn't that suit them. But other more serious issues are not a reason for mismanagement. In fact they they make good managenent more essential.

Edited by allyo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No spfl board members gave evidence, no clubs gave evidence , no external evidence was considered.....not anyone’s definition of ‘ forensic’ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Belgium cafes and restaurants will start opening from 8 June

You should post all this useful information in the Nomads forum.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 9:11 PM, jaf said:

A lot of the furloughing that has gone on is because people have refused to work when effective social distancing was in place in workplaces. I have many clients telling me that - usually the spouse is getting the blame.

The fear factor is high, and I worry if the rhetoric leans too far one way, its going to be terribly difficult to nudge people back to working productively,

Whoever said that the first and foremost duty of a government was the health and safety of their population is of course correct, but also there needs to be a realisation death comes in many guises, including economic suicides, and so a balance does need to be found.

All of which shows why Shankly could be wrong - sometimes football is not the most important thing!

 

 

It never has been the most important thing! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, West of Scotland said:

I thought that back in the day, crowds were dwindling due to an overabundance of meaningless games in the larger leagues, which is why the ten team divisions were invented in the first place; not that they stopped the decline, but that's due to a multitude of factors.

Regardless, Scottish clubs probably did better in Europe back then simply because the quality of Scottish football wasn't as absolutely gash as it is now, and I doubt league sizes is going to improve that.

I accepted the meaningless games argument as well for dwindling crowds but now I am more inclined to think the reasons were more complicated and that this was only one of a number of reasons. 

Bigger leagues do allow a bigger comfort zone for middle size clubs like Killie, Dunfermline, Falkirk and The Jags. In the bigger leagues there  is more scope to nurture young talent that that afforded by the smaller leagues. For all their weaknesses, and their is no one perfect solution, bigger eagues  aren't as boring as smaller leagues! 

Let's be honest  whereas the lower leagues can generally be competitive the SPL (like the English PL) is not competitive at the top end!  In Scotland clubs are playing for 3rd place, while in the EPL  they are playing for 3rd/4th place! 

Both leagues are competitive at the bottonm end! 

No for all their weaknesses it's bigger leagues for me! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jaf said:

Its not all about micro-managing though. or employers driving this.

Some people just prefer to come to an office environment for their social interactions, or who just cannot perform adequately from home for one reason or another - why should they be compelled to do something they don't want to?  Don't judge everyone by your own personal preferences. I am guessing a straw poll of our staff would see about an 80/20 split in favour of being in the office. That's actually quite humbling because it demonstrates the positive culture that can be created. How do I know that number? Because I have constantly been communicating making sure people are managing ok, so I am aware of their successes, failures, frustrations. 

In respect of us, we have lots of people on flexible working hours, and who work from home when it suits them (in normal times). So we already embrace home working where it suits. Many staff therefore have 'the best of both worlds'.

I am sure a lot of employers would prefer not to have rent and rates costs, but in some cases the caring approach is to still have an office, because that's what the employees want.  That's why what I hoped for yesterday was some direction as to what I need to do to make the office functional in the long term which in turn will give employees who crave it an opportunity to return to work.

Finally, my wife worked from home for a long time. I know the impact it can have on people's mental health first hand in some cases, and I believe there are lots of studies about this. Quite apart from impact on domestic relationships. So in my opinion, working from home is definitely not a one size fits all solution - like all things, you need to consider the individual circumstances, and the individual.

 

 

From a working perspective an office environment provides a social context which is extremely valuable for mental health purposes as well as psychological perspectives. 

Being able to interact with people on a face to face, individual or team context is good for a number of reasons, for example, feeling involved and valued, being part of something even participating in office gossip and social occasions and events! 

A big problem for organisations and  management in being convinced about working at home is how to organise, monitor and control work and how to ensure  time is utilised effectively - in short, trust! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, exiledjag said:

I accepted the meaningless games argument as well for dwindling crowds but now I am more inclined to think the reasons were more complicated and that this was only one of a number of reasons. 

Bigger leagues do allow a bigger comfort zone for middle size clubs like Killie, Dunfermline, Falkirk and The Jags. In the bigger leagues there  is more scope to nurture young talent that that afforded by the smaller leagues. For all their weaknesses, and their is no one perfect solution, bigger eagues  aren't as boring as smaller leagues! 

Let's be honest  whereas the lower leagues can generally be competitive the SPL (like the English PL) is not competitive at the top end!  In Scotland clubs are playing for 3rd place, while in the EPL  they are playing for 3rd/4th place! 

Both leagues are competitive at the bottonm end! 

No for all their weaknesses it's bigger leagues for me! 

If you count Liverpool as champions this season (which seems reasonable whether it is made official or not) the EPL will have had 5 different champions in the past 7 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jaf said:

Its not all about micro-managing though. or employers driving this.

Some people just prefer to come to an office environment for their social interactions, or who just cannot perform adequately from home for one reason or another - why should they be compelled to do something they don't want to?  Don't judge everyone by your own personal preferences. I am guessing a straw poll of our staff would see about an 80/20 split in favour of being in the office. That's actually quite humbling because it demonstrates the positive culture that can be created. How do I know that number? Because I have constantly been communicating making sure people are managing ok, so I am aware of their successes, failures, frustrations. 

In respect of us, we have lots of people on flexible working hours, and who work from home when it suits them (in normal times). So we already embrace home working where it suits. Many staff therefore have 'the best of both worlds'.

I am sure a lot of employers would prefer not to have rent and rates costs, but in some cases the caring approach is to still have an office, because that's what the employees want.  That's why what I hoped for yesterday was some direction as to what I need to do to make the office functional in the long term which in turn will give employees who crave it an opportunity to return to work.

Finally, my wife worked from home for a long time. I know the impact it can have on people's mental health first hand in some cases, and I believe there are lots of studies about this. Quite apart from impact on domestic relationships. So in my opinion, working from home is definitely not a one size fits all solution - like all things, you need to consider the individual circumstances, and the individual.

 

 

Jaf,

I think you are in a good position to put your ideas on how to resume,in the new normal, forward for your business.
You should engage in the feedback, if you haven’t already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Jaf,

I think you are in a good position to put your ideas on how to resume,in the new normal, forward for your business.
You should engage in the feedback, if you haven’t already.

The feedback wasn’t on the document when I read it!   I understand it’s now been added later.  So thanks for the suggestion. I am going to.  

Edited by jaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

The introduction of the Premier League in the 70s was primarily down to trying to raise the level of competition. The OF were winning everything in sight (particularly Celtic). The big difference back then was that gate money was split and thus the money was more evenly shared. Couple that with more restriction on contracts it meant that clubs could hold onto key players longer. The OF didn't cherry-pick players from other Scottish clubs as easily as they had previously with these clubs now enjoying the proceeds from twice as many games against Celtic & Rangers. Indeed Aberdeen reportedly paid higher wages than Rangers in any case. 

Even tho' the split gates were done away with in the early 80s it probably had created the climate where Aberdeen & Dundee Utd could challenge and surpass the OF on the field. Once tho' keeping the proceeds from home games eventually kicked in, clubs seriously challenging the OF dropped off. Since then the OF have won every league championship. Lion's share of gate money, TV rights, European cup money.

The irony being the very thing the smaller "four times a season" top tier was introduced for now produces the complete opposite effect.

I take it the Old Firm were the ones behind changing the split gate system entirely for their own benefit - so Aberdeen, Dundee United and the Edinburgh clubs probably thought that it would be good for them too? It would be interesting to see the average historical attendances for every club to really see when the Old Firm pulled away. I found a graph on this forum that charts the champion's average attendance:

http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2566

Obviously the Old Firm have always had higher gates but was it their ability to build larger stadiums, thereby increasing their attendances and their own profits and creating a vicious cycle where they were the only clubs to gain fans where everyone else lost?

Changing split gates was an insane idea as bonkers as the 11-1 vote rule; time and time again I refer to the American franchise system where everyone gets and equal share of everything is the only way to run sporting leagues. Everyone is supposed to make money. Success for one means success for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, West of Scotland said:

I take it the Old Firm were the ones behind changing the split gate system entirely for their own benefit - so Aberdeen, Dundee United and the Edinburgh clubs probably thought that it would be good for them too? It would be interesting to see the average historical attendances for every club to really see when the Old Firm pulled away. I found a graph on this forum that charts the champion's average attendance:

http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2566

Obviously the Old Firm have always had higher gates but was it their ability to build larger stadiums, thereby increasing their attendances and their own profits and creating a vicious cycle where they were the only clubs to gain fans where everyone else lost?

Changing split gates was an insane idea as bonkers as the 11-1 vote rule; time and time again I refer to the American franchise system where everyone gets and equal share of everything is the only way to run sporting leagues. Everyone is supposed to make money. Success for one means success for all.

I have no recollection at all but it obviously suited them. It might just have been aligning ourselves with other European leagues. Could be due to a growth in season ticket holding making split gates less practical? I've no idea and would like to know the history of this and also why it never appeared a big issue at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

I have no recollection at all but it obviously suited them. It might just have been aligning ourselves with other European leagues. Could be due to a growth in season ticket holding making split gates less practical? I've no idea and would like to know the history of this and also why it never appeared a big issue at the time.

And how the owners of Thistle at the time voted ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting listening on sportsound..apparently as Dundee had the deciding vote- if it had been recieved( no) then it would have been called(as the threshold had been reached) and that would of been it final. Basically they would of been unable to retract it and change their mind.

Therefore the argument that Dundee could of retracted their vote and change it,whether it had been recieved or not,within 28 days kind of falls apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, allyo said:

Well that's where you're wrong...

 

I suppose he is right. If you took the disinfectant, the virus wouldn’t bother you again. It might take longer than a minute right enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, javeajag said:

Nice to see the go fund me now over £30k

And are the cafes along the Rhine open now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, javeajag said:

they are shortly .....meanwhile in England ....it’s amazing what you don’t know ....

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-premier-league-football-could-return-within-weeks-with-matches-behind-closed-doors-11978631

Another 800 people died yesterday,but they are still talking about playing Football in May.All the testing and tracing facilities will not be ready by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, javeajag said:

they are shortly .....meanwhile in England ....it’s amazing what you don’t know ....

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-premier-league-football-could-return-within-weeks-with-matches-behind-closed-doors-11978631

Yet the WHO are stating that catching it won’t make you immune so “Immunity passports” are currently a non starter 

 

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×