RicoS321

I'd have thought that because players contracts will run out in June and, unless the SFA offer a bail out for those players' salaries, they will be let go in due course. Unless, they've got something written in that covers for a season extension, which I suppose they might have. You could be talking completely different squads by September/October time unless the players have been given a guarantee of when games will be re-started by the time their contracts expire. All things considered, Hibs would be significantly more likely to be able to hold a squad together for several months than Livingston (and probably Motherwell) and thus will likely finish ahead of them. Several clubs might not even survive months without gate or season ticket receipts. I'd have thought that greater time that passes, the less likely a club's playing staff will resemble that which started the season/post-winter-break. To be honest, if there is a big layoff, then it can really only be a farce whichever way it goes (and I hope/think that it will be completed).

Maybe. What if Motherwell lose 5 players out of contract and we gain 5? We could potentially be finishing this season with an entirely different team to that which we started (or at least after the winter break). I'm in general agreement that we should finish the season, but I think voiding would be the right call if we go into October time with no movement. It'll forever be known as the tainted title otherwise, probably correctly. Obviously, that would face legal challenges from several clubs, fans who didn't get their season ticket's worth and the broadcaster so it would never happen, but I'm just talking from an integrity perspective. Money aside, I think voiding would be the right thing to do if a huge delay occurs. Also, I've always assumed that the hun will tail off and disperse (back to their early 80s crowds, and then bust) if the Tim won 10 in a row and I was sort of hoping that might occur. I think if Celtic are given the title or even if it resumes with vastly different squads then it gives them that glimmer of argument that the Tims cheated or some shite and they might keep returning. If they don't go bust waiting for the season ticket money, I think they come out of this quite well either way. Cunts.

Again, a deliberate call to arms for some of the Brexit supporting businesses, getting their payments for their support. It'll be a big manuacturer of some sort (not of health equipment), or along the lines of thon company they got to run the Brexit ferries.

Yes, schools will likely close by next week at the latest. I suspect head teachers and parents will overtake the government by removing kids etc, just like businesses were already getting people to work from home. What I mean is the overall admission will take a few weeks. They'll slowly unwind everything done to date. I expect testing to increase and increase to get up to (or close to) the levels that should have occurred weeks ago, without admitting that should always have been the case. Similarly, testing on NHS workers. Also, I expect that advice will change from "people shouldn't go to theatres etc" to "theatres are now closed". This will occur after the point at which a significant portion of those establishments, and pubs and so on, will have already gone bust. Thus saving the lobbying insurance companies a fortune in bailout payments that would have been due if the government had done the correct thing from day one. But, again, I could be talking shite. To me, everything just now points to economic decisions being made at every single point, over human decisions. Why would a government be so vague and non-binding about gatherings etc? This isn't incompetence, it's deliberate.

And by not enforcing the cancellation of mass gatherings, businesses won't be able to claim on their insurances (I think???)? Thus another fuck up. All because they don't want to do a u-turn. Instead they'll do an 83 point turn over the next few weeks and pretend that was the plan all along.

I don't think you were supposed to phone 111....

There is only one club in Scotland who could anonymously make that call and have that anonymity respected. If it was Hamilton, for example, they'd just say it was them. Anyway, there should actually be a pay out (or the offer of a payout) based on the top/bottom six split. Basically, pay those that can finish in the bottom six the payment for finishing bottom, and those guaranteed to finish top six the payment for finishing sixth (not us unfortunately but Motherwell are guaranteed top 6). Or they could make a payment based on lowest possible finish, but given that Hearts could still overtake us - by winning all remaining fixtures and us losing all our - that approach would probably be pointless. The bottom placed payment might give a brief bit of relief for struggling clubs.

How long before the UK government roll back their strategy and replace with one that every other country is doing, whilst pretending that was their idea all along? They've already consigned 1000s to die by not acting quick enough as part of their herd strategy which wasn't really their strategy at all it was just something Boris made sound like a strategy by saying it was a plan. The worrying thing for me is that the Scottish government seem to be following suit. There are enough experts saying that is a bucket of absolute horse shite that there should be more dissent from SNP ministers. If Jeremy Fuckstain Cunt can criticise his own government, we surely should be hearing more from our own ministers. Sturgeon will have a lot to answer for too at this rate, I don't think you can hide behind Westminster on something this important.

It really doesn't matter if we want summer fitba. There are two teams that can and will prevent it. A lot of clubs may struggle to make it to the start of the new season (please make it the huns).

Good stuff TC, I'm fairly certain you'll just get thrown back in at the deep end without concern for registration! Good for you like, I wouldn't fancy it (but would do it if I had the ability). Your saying that you don't believe that anywhere near 80% will catch it, but the herd strategy requires that somewhere near that figure get it. Without an NHS-overwhelming number getting it, the herd immunity won't work. In order for it to work, a large number of people must die at a 1% mortality rate. That's fairly fucked up.

To be fair to ten cast, I thought he was explaining the decision rather than agreeing with it. Anyway, I've thought some more and I still don't get it. These guys are scientists, so where the fuck is their published workings? I'm all for listening to experts, of course, but they shouldn't be immune to questioning or scrutiny (not even herd immune). They're suggesting that 60% infections - but perhaps as high as 70% (wtf???) - would be required. If ~13% (based on statista 2018) are 70 or over and probably a few percent more classed as high risk, then they''re pretty much saying that everyone that can conceivably survive it not only needs to get it in order for the plan to work, but should be morally compelled to do so. Simultaneously, they're expected to diligently wash their hands and also isolate if they get the illness, thus preventing others from joining the herd immunity herd. But making sure you only speak to 'al cunts via the internet. The thing that gets me is that we're asking the elderly and ill to isolate from the young. We're not all going to do it. It's the one instance where we all literally could have been "in it together", and we're choosing not to. I think we'll look back on this and see that we've performed a giant form of social/age cleansing. I think that we'll (and the US) be held up as the uncaring, selfish society that we are/have become. It'll be couched in denial and nationalism of course, but we'll all know that we sentenced our most vulnerable to death in order not to panic the markets or some fuck. Because even if you thought this herd bollocks had any chance of working, you'd err on the side of caution. Whilst businesses and sporting bodies will do the government's job mostly for them on this one by telling employees to work at home or cancelling events, the government is needed to make sure folk get paid, mortgage or rent payments suspended and such like, so it's absolutely vital that those in charge get their shit together. They're probably genuinely concerned that the veil of the economic system is thrown off for all to see, where you simply can just say "nobody has to pay their mortgage today" and it happens, and that there is - after all - a magic money tree.

"Some sort" of herd immunity? Surely there's either immunity or not? It suggests that whilst those 60% are gaining their immunity, those not immune could, at worst, die. It's not like you know who's going to be immune in advance. You also don't know how the remaining 40% will act or who they will interact with. You also have foreign people, who aren't part of this ridiculous experiment, still coming in and out of the country. It just sounds like utter horseshit.

How could it work? Surely herd immunity requires global herd immunity? I don't get it. Unless we're closing all borders until there's a vaccine? Is this nae yer basic smallpox training? I'm probably missing something.

FIFY.

I expect that there's a fairly substantial cost saving in reducing the capacity too. I'd give it another 5 years, see if there's any Scottish fitba left after the corona virus and then apply to re-develop Pittodrie. Milne can have the Kingsford site for hooses.

Cormack was asked specifically about it in his interview and he said they were "gathering data" in order to make sure they got the new stadium right. I'm assuming that data gathering exercise will also cover the fact that it's in fucking Westhill, which appears to have gone unnoticed.

Probably, although Cormack seemed to suggest it was about data gathering for the new stadium. Working out what works etc in terms of safe standing and the like. It sounded like it would be used as a barometer for Kingsford capacity to me. He was very non committal when asked about it.

Exactly, we should stop right now and relegate hearts, with our game against Motherwell on Friday being allowed to go ahead as a third place decider. Although given that we have also been given a cup win under this scenario, based on the alphabet, then maybe we can allow the Motherwell tinks their third place trophy.

Top tier to close next season with capacity being reduced to 15.5k. paving the way for reducing Kingsford capacity? I assume so. I'd take a permanent 15.5k stadium at pittodrie over a 17-18k at Kingsford

I've got a bit of a cough after returning from Italy, but assuming it clears up over the next couple of days I'll be heading along.

I didn't think that was inherent in what I wrote, but it's a fair point. I did mean "what they represent" rather than who they are. I agree about the traditional thinking of left v right, but it's difficult to articulate in another fashion that people would get. It's why I mentioned Climate Change, resource use etc. These things are, by definition "correct" targets, that transcend left/right. I'm interested in correct answers to these problems, or as close to/attempting to (I didn't think the green deal was necessarily the answer for example, but it was an attempt at least). I'm interested in freedom rather than living solely to feed a system. As to who owns it in the West, a glance at Biden and his deliberate pace-setters (Buttigegigig, Amy fitshertits and the ither cunt) donations would give a hint. In reality, I don't believe any one person or person(s) own the system anymore. It's owned by its religious followers. There are, of course, still yer players like the Koch (singular), Singer, Bezos (probably) and so on and yer facilitators like yer Pelerins, ERGs, Fox, Telegraph etc. However, I think for the most part the system controls itself, aided by a lack of questioning - deliberate or otherwise.

Looks like Biden set to be the Democrat nominee. I don't know what I'd do if I was in Yankland. I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't vote. When you say that the world can't afford another four years of Trump, do you think that the world can afford 4-8 years of Biden? I'm not convinced. The defining feature of Obama and Blair's eras - who I'd suggest are the easiest comparisons to make with Biden - for me, is what came after. Ignoring Iraq (and for the record, I think he's a total cunt) Blair did a lot of decent work in office (Sure Start, minimum wage etc), but he stopped short of creating a more caring and thoughtful/questioning society. There were few, if any, traditional Labour values (not that I'd necessarily care for those anyway, but it's not about me!) embedded into society that couldn't be ripped up in seconds upon his (or Brown's) departure. Unsurprisingly, that is what happened, with Tory austerity trashing anything good that Blair might have done and with Osborne going further than even Thatcher would have attempted. Similarly in the US, where Obama's Blair years (pandering to Wall St, the centre-right media etc) have easily been unwound - and more - in four years of Trump. It was easy. Not just easy, but inevitable. Four to eight years of Biden won't lead to a better world, they'll lead to another Trump. When you don't challenge the economic norms, when you don't challenge the donor class or the media then the cycle will only ever frequent between Blair and Boris, Obama and Trump/Bush. That's the new cycle, the new wave - you could chart it from G W Bush, moving up and down whilst steadily rightward. Thatcher and Regan set that new normal very succesfully. Unless you're willing to attack that normal and show it for what it is then that cycle continues. In my opinion, there is no avenue for tackling climate change, inequality, resource use, consumption, perpetual war within a hopey change Biden manifesto - things that are actual physical issues that will come to a head this century. Thus, in eight years time you'll just be eight years closer to the limit. Being closer to the limit brings greater Draconianism, greater hatred of the immigrant, greater insularity and greater levels of disaster. Those times call for the next big man, the next populist, and you can be sure as fuck he won't be as thick as Trump. The Sanders's will have been long shot. Biden himself isn't some evil chap, he's significantly better than Trump will be. What he isn't though, is someone who'll change things. Four more years of Trump might be horrendous for quite a few people (if we're honest, we'd probably agree that it hasn't been nearly as bad a four years under Trump as predicted for the majority), but it might just be enough to wake people up too. Otherwise you wait another 12-16 years for the next candidate who puts changing the system and challenging the status quo at the top of their agenda, and fuck knows what things will look like by then.

Aye, great turnaround like. Some top class saves again from Lewis in the first half, and they really deserved their lead. Ferguson maybe unlucky not to get a pen, but I reckon he dived. He did really well to get the ball ahead of Whittaker after great tackling from McGeouch for the sending off and led the team forward superbly. He's had a good 2020 like, really starting to show what he can do. Considine again shows his value in attack but also coping well in difficult conditions. Hopefully Clarke was watching. A good game all round. Lots of goals and a lot of battling in poor weather. Anderson's movement was excellent when he came on to. McLennan wasn't pish for the second game running.

Not overall, no. Just had a poor half. Letting the ball run away from him and the like. Came onto a decent game in the end. Think he'll turn out to be a great signing over the next 18 months. His cross for McLennan was top drawer. If he can work on that, we'll have a player.

Agree with yer analysis TC, however Taylor was booked for dissent I believe rather than the handball. It was simply an incorrect decision as per the rules of the game. It doesn't matter whether the shot was on target or not (according to the rules). There was no daylight between his arm and his body. The ref has made a spur of the moment decision, and he got it totally wrong. He should have taken a second or two to think it through and, if he had, he wouldn't have given it. Hopefully the ref coaches have a word with him. It was a really poor call.