Don't shoot the messenger and can't guarantee the accuracy of this, but rumour going around that our eight players will tomorrow be hit with a retrospective ban of anything up to four games

Guess we'll soon find out.

 

And rightly so. There's no other way forward than make an example of these swaggering dimwits. Can you imagine being sat at that table with these boring anonymous cunts? They weren't discussing economics.

Wouldn't hear any complaints from me with that, they deserve it.

That'd be fucking ludicrous. Unless they're giving the Tim a 48 match ban. They broke a non-fitba rule, it's up to the club to discipline them as they see fit. 

While I agree that they were stupid and deserve some sort of punishment Im not sure I like the idea of it being decided retrospectively, as I get the feeling if it were 8 first team players from either of the old firm we would be moving on pretty quickly. I would hope the club has already disciplined them via fines to their wages or such like. 

If there were previously agreed sanctions of course I would accept them being applied, as they would apply equally to all clubs. Its something the ever competent SPFL failed to set out though.

Edited August 13, 20206 yr by DantheDon

19 minutes ago, DantheDon said:

While I agree that they were stupid and deserve some sort of punishment Im not sure I like the idea of it being decided retrospectively, as I get the feeling if it were 8 first team players from either of the old firm we would be moving on pretty quickly. I would hope the club has already disciplined them via fines to their wages or such like. 

If there were previously agreed sanctions of course I would accept them being applied, as they would apply equally to all clubs. Its something the ever competent SPFL failed to set out though.

Exactly this. It would be typical of the way the SPFL run things. Except the reason is probably the reverse of what you're suggesting. They probably think that the Tim deserves a punishment for flying to Spain and feel that they can't punish a scum player without applying the same to the dons, despite the offences being night and day in their gravity. All this should have been sorted out up front as you say. 

Be nice to see the lineup with eight missing though. 

I can't imagine that the SPFL would have jurisdiction to hand out bans over this matter. Nor should they. This is a club issue and a wider social issue. If the police aren't charging them with anything then no crime has been committed. Of course they need disciplined but this is an internal club matter and the authorities can fuck right off.

Press article. Looks like this is a done deal. 
 

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/celtic-and-aberdeen-players-could-be-hit-by-new-coronavirus-sanctions-1597340404000

ETA - STV saying club could be punished as well.

https://news.stv.tv/sport/aberdeen-and-celtic-could-face-coronavirus-sanctions?top

 

Club statement which does state players breached clubs own protocols and they have been fined accordingly.

https://www.afc.co.uk/2020/08/14/club-statement-23/

A few games out will do them and the team the world of good.

They were rubbish in the only game they’ve played. Let’s replace them with hungry young players who are not desperate to go out on the drink as soon as the final whistle blows. See what happens.

I think we will see a big improvement.

All 8 charged by SFA with brining the game into disrepute.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/coronavirus-joint-response-group-14-august-2020

Better that than points deduction I suppose.

2 hours ago, Jute said:

All 8 charged by SFA with brining the game into disrepute.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/coronavirus-joint-response-group-14-august-2020

Not really sure why that couldn't have just been announced yesterday.

Would still like to see what regulations were issued to the clubs upon the recommencment of football.

 

2 hours ago, BigAl said:

Not really sure why that couldn't have just been announced yesterday.

Would still like to see what regulations were issued to the clubs upon the recommencment of football.

 

Fuck all, they're making it up as they go along. Certainly the punishment aspect. The Scottish government setting some strange precedents which I can only see them having to row back on, or risk shelving fitba to save face. For example, the cancellation of Celtic's game and the dons v Hamilton and the dons v tims. Those appear to be punitive rather than based in science. I'm not sure why the Scottish government is dictating punishment for the Scottish game. If it's not punitive, then the game is in serious trouble. That would mean that a player getting covid is enough to cause the cancellation of a fixture. That will kill the season. I don't understand it at all.

6 hours ago, tup1 said:

A few games out will do them and the team the world of good.

They were rubbish in the only game they’ve played. Let’s replace them with hungry young players who are not desperate to go out on the drink as soon as the final whistle blows. See what happens.

I think we will see a big improvement.

Exactly, spineless cunts 

9 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

Fuck all, they're making it up as they go along. Certainly the punishment aspect. The Scottish government setting some strange precedents which I can only see them having to row back on, or risk shelving fitba to save face. For example, the cancellation of Celtic's game and the dons v Hamilton and the dons v tims. Those appear to be punitive rather than based in science. I'm not sure why the Scottish government is dictating punishment for the Scottish game. If it's not punitive, then the game is in serious trouble. That would mean that a player getting covid is enough to cause the cancellation of a fixture. That will kill the season. I don't understand it at all.

You seem quite certain that there were no guidelines or protocols issued yet clubs own statement says the players breached the clubs protocols and guidelines issued by the Scottish Government for the restart of football. Are you suggesting the club are not telling the truth when they say this?

2 hours ago, Jute said:

You seem quite certain that there were no guidelines or protocols issued yet clubs own statement says the players breached the clubs protocols and guidelines issued by the Scottish Government for the restart of football. Are you suggesting the club are not telling the truth when they say this?

No I'm not. I said the punishment is being made up as they go along, not the crime. The club have stated that they broke the four households rule (which is the same for everyone). Nobody has suggested any further breaking of the rules. Are you happy that is the only rule that has been broken, or have you got evidence of other rules being broken (I'm more than happy to change my position if I'm wrong)? Working on the basis that I, and the club, are correct then the breaking of the four households rule in and of itself did not cause the two players to get covid, agreed (they could have gone in to three different restaurants or in three separate tables in the same place and caught it)? I'm not trying to legitimise what the players did, they clearly broke the rules, I'm saying that the rule break is reasonably minor and one which many people in the UK will have broken to a greater or lesser degree themselves. It comes with its own ready-made punishment with 14 days isolation, missing of games and on top a deserved club fine and I would suggest that the SPFL add in a minimum 3 games missed for anyone in breach of the rules to even things up (in case players in isolation miss two games, where some miss three). 

The point I was making was regarding the Scottish government's intervention. First, the reaction to the Aberdeen players was way over the top, to the point of hysteria. It called for a measured response that took into account the gravity of the crime. That way when far worse rule breaking occurs, in the case of bolingoli, you have the ability to step up the criticism where required to recognise more serious breaches. The AFC offence could have been used positively to show a small breach can have a big impact. That's what I'd expect from a leader like Sturgeon. Her actual reaction is what I'd expect from Johnson. I accept that is also a minor criticism and new territory for the government. Second, was the cancellation of games. I can forgive the st Johnstone game, the government were caught by surprise, late notice etc. What happened after that showed that punishments were being dished out by the government rather than SPFL and that they were being made up on the hoof. That, for me, sets a ridiculous precedent that could see the cancellation of the season if continued. There is no scientific difference between a person who has caught covid because of a breach of rules and one who's caught it normally. We were led to believe that the testing and protocols in place would allow players to get covid and not result in cancellations. The cancellations suggest that is not the case. The lack of cancellation of the Kilmarnock game after bolingoli played in the prior game suggests it's being made up on the hoof. I think that state intervention into fitba's punitive measures should have us all concerned if that was the case. Which is it? Do you know?

If you're going to make up rules, then you need to expect that these rules will be breached. What to do when those breaches occur should have been strategised as soon as the rules were made, not made up on the fly. It reeks.

That seems like a plausible position Rico. I haven't read anything about it cos I don't really give a fuck but I was taken aback at the strength of Sturgeon's rhetoric. Fuck off bitch, I would've said to her but I thought it might have been futile for me to talk to my telly. It would not surprise me at all if the idiot classes who find themselves in politics and sports administration in this country would make up rules whilst forgetting about the sanctions.

2 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

No I'm not. I said the punishment is being made up as they go along, not the crime. The club have stated that they broke the four households rule (which is the same for everyone). Nobody has suggested any further breaking of the rules. Are you happy that is the only rule that has been broken, or have you got evidence of other rules being broken (I'm more than happy to change my position if I'm wrong)? Working on the basis that I, and the club, are correct then the breaking of the four households rule in and of itself did not cause the two players to get covid, agreed (they could have gone in to three different restaurants or in three separate tables in the same place and caught it)? I'm not trying to legitimise what the players did, they clearly broke the rules, I'm saying that the rule break is reasonably minor and one which many people in the UK will have broken to a greater or lesser degree themselves. It comes with its own ready-made punishment with 14 days isolation, missing of games and on top a deserved club fine and I would suggest that the SPFL add in a minimum 3 games missed for anyone in breach of the rules to even things up (in case players in isolation miss two games, where some miss three). 

The point I was making was regarding the Scottish government's intervention. First, the reaction to the Aberdeen players was way over the top, to the point of hysteria. It called for a measured response that took into account the gravity of the crime. That way when far worse rule breaking occurs, in the case of bolingoli, you have the ability to step up the criticism where required to recognise more serious breaches. The AFC offence could have been used positively to show a small breach can have a big impact. That's what I'd expect from a leader like Sturgeon. Her actual reaction is what I'd expect from Johnson. I accept that is also a minor criticism and new territory for the government. Second, was the cancellation of games. I can forgive the st Johnstone game, the government were caught by surprise, late notice etc. What happened after that showed that punishments were being dished out by the government rather than SPFL and that they were being made up on the hoof. That, for me, sets a ridiculous precedent that could see the cancellation of the season if continued. There is no scientific difference between a person who has caught covid because of a breach of rules and one who's caught it normally. We were led to believe that the testing and protocols in place would allow players to get covid and not result in cancellations. The cancellations suggest that is not the case. The lack of cancellation of the Kilmarnock game after bolingoli played in the prior game suggests it's being made up on the hoof. I think that state intervention into fitba's punitive measures should have us all concerned if that was the case. Which is it? Do you know?

If you're going to make up rules, then you need to expect that these rules will be breached. What to do when those breaches occur should have been strategised as soon as the rules were made, not made up on the fly. It reeks.

The club also said they broke the return to training protocols didn’t they?
 

Isn’t the whole reason the games were postponed because the players returned to training despite having been out and as soon as they did that there was no way of knowing if they’d passed it on to the rest of the squad/staff and therefore control of the biosecure environment they have to maintain to allow training/matches to take place was lost.
 

I'm sure in the initial reports were that it was the Thursday before the extent of what happened became clear and everyone was sent home from training. Surely that’s the more major issue in what they’ve done as it meant the “bubble” they were working in had burst. If they’d followed the proper return to training protocol then the players involved would have isolated, the rest of the squad could have prepared for the games, it would have just been an internal matter and none of this would be happening. 
 

Reading the SFA statements they’re not being punished for going out to a pub it’s not following the rules in place, I.e the return to training protocols and the club not being able to guarantee the rest of the squad isn’t effected which given we’ve now had to have 3 of our games postponed in a season that’s already tight for free dates isn’t completely unreasonable.

2 minutes ago, Edinburghdon said:

The club also said they broke the return to training protocols didn’t they?
 

Isn’t the whole reason the games were postponed because the players returned to training despite having been out and as soon as they did that there was no way of knowing if they’d passed it on to the rest of the squad/staff and therefore control of the biosecure environment they have to maintain to allow training/matches to take place was lost.
 

I'm sure in the initial reports were that it was the Thursday before the extent of what happened became clear and everyone was sent home from training. Surely that’s the more major issue in what they’ve done as it meant the “bubble” they were working in had burst. If they’d followed the proper return to training protocol then the players involved would have isolated, the rest of the squad could have prepared for the games, it would have just been an internal matter and none of this would be happening. 
 

Reading the SFA statements they’re not being punished for going out to a pub it’s not following the rules in place, I.e the return to training protocols and the club not being able to guarantee the rest of the squad isn’t effected which given we’ve now had to have 3 of our games postponed in a season that’s already tight for free dates isn’t completely unreasonable.

Thanks, that makes sense. So how does that differ from normal then? If three groups of three had gone to different Aberdeen nightspots and two had contracted covid, what would happen? What's the difference between broken rules covid and non-broken-rules covid? I don't see how multiple covid cases can be handled within the protocols? 

Just to get this correct, the players were tested and two returned positive for covid. At this point this could have been a "normal" case of covid. One that could have been picked up before Saturday's game (when all 8 players would have been together), so the same measures would surely have taken place either way? The bubble they work in is broken every game surely? 

Just to be clear, are you saying that the players lied about being out together? Or that the club lied about it? 

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

Thanks, that makes sense. So how does that differ from normal then? If three groups of three had gone to different Aberdeen nightspots and two had contracted covid, what would happen? What's the difference between broken rules covid and non-broken-rules covid? I don't see how multiple covid cases can be handled within the protocols? 

Just to get this correct, the players were tested and two returned positive for covid. At this point this could have been a "normal" case of covid. One that could have been picked up before Saturday's game (when all 8 players would have been together), so the same measures would surely have taken place either way? The bubble they work in is broken every game surely? 

Just to be clear, are you saying that the players lied about being out together? Or that the club lied about it? 

I genuinely couldn’t tell you with any certainty how it differs from a normal situation, I was mainly pointing out the club has been pretty clear in the fact they’ve not just broken the government COVID guidance but they’ve also broken the clubs protocols (and by association the SFA’s given they seem to call for protocols of a certain standard to be in place as part of the return to professional football).

If I had to guess though the screening they need to go through each morning before being allowed to enter the training ground is designed to highlight if the players have been in higher risk environments or if they’ve not been social distancing outwith training etc and if that’s flagged up it’d mean isolation for the player to ensure the rest of the squad/staff aren’t exposed to risk. Likewise finding out where they’d been, with who and when is probably key in deciding how to handle any positive cases, so if they’d likely picked it up the day before without having been in contact with the squad then it’d be fairly straightforward, if they’d likely picked it up day’s previously and been training normally since (as appears to have been the case) its a more complicated situation. But like I’ve said that’s a guess based on what the clubs said about their return to training protocols previously.  The club would need to publish the protocols in order to be sure. The fact we’d previously had a positive test of a player without any suggestion he broke return to training protocols shows they can differentiate between cases when the rules are followed and cases where they aren’t though when it comes to the risk of spreading to the rest of the squad.

Not sure what part of my post reads like I accused the players or the club of lying about any of this, I’ve not suggested as such...but now you mention it you can probably draw your own conclusions given the club investigated, found the players to have broken protocols and the report that it was the Thursday before any of this kicked off.

Edited August 15, 20206 yr by Edinburghdon

The odd couple who go Greeeeeetings were talking about this, with that Professor Jason cunt who bores me to death. He's full of reassuring common sense for sure but the diligence he puts in to communicating articulately and the effort he puts in to the precision of his words-pronunciation is exhaustingly excruciating.

He did make the point that the rules that the clubs have in place are good but it's the "individual responsibility" aspect that's being compromised. Or that's what I think he said. He was sending me towards sleep whilst driving. 

3 hours ago, Edinburghdon said:

I genuinely couldn’t tell you with any certainty how it differs from a normal situation, I was mainly pointing out the club has been pretty clear in the fact they’ve not just broken the government COVID guidance but they’ve also broken the clubs protocols (and by association the SFA’s given they seem to call for protocols of a certain standard to be in place as part of the return to professional football).

If I had to guess though the screening they need to go through each morning before being allowed to enter the training ground is designed to highlight if the players have been in higher risk environments or if they’ve not been social distancing outwith training etc and if that’s flagged up it’d mean isolation for the player to ensure the rest of the squad/staff aren’t exposed to risk. Likewise finding out where they’d been, with who and when is probably key in deciding how to handle any positive cases, so if they’d likely picked it up the day before without having been in contact with the squad then it’d be fairly straightforward, if they’d likely picked it up day’s previously and been training normally since (as appears to have been the case) its a more complicated situation. But like I’ve said that’s a guess based on what the clubs said about their return to training protocols previously.  The club would need to publish the protocols in order to be sure. The fact we’d previously had a positive test of a player without any suggestion he broke return to training protocols shows they can differentiate between cases when the rules are followed and cases where they aren’t though when it comes to the risk of spreading to the rest of the squad.

Not sure what part of my post reads like I accused the players or the club of lying about any of this, I’ve not suggested as such...but now you mention it you can probably draw your own conclusions given the club investigated, found the players to have broken protocols and the report that it was the Thursday before any of this kicked off.

Apologies, I wasn't suggesting you were saying they were lying, I was asking if that's what you were saying - that wasn't clear.

I assumed that the club's protocol that was broken was the four households rule. Or, more simply, breaking of a general public lockdown rule - by default - is a breach of club protocol (hence the previous case didn't break it). Some good points there though, I hadn't considered they might ask a series of questions about where players had been. That would suggest that the players either lied about it, which I find unlikely, or the person asking the questions failed to pick up that 8 players responded the same (in which case the club would have made the additional suggested return to training error, not the players). That it took until the Thursday isn't surprising to me, as that would have been when the test results were returned. Listening to Hayes' interview, the suggestion was that the players hadn't considered what they'd done was incorrect until that point. The fact he was given that platform on the club's YouTube channel suggests that the club believe that account and that there was no attempt by the players to cover anything up. 

What is clear, is that it really isn't that clear! That's the bit I find the most frustrating. Nobody on here seems to know, yet have been fairly scathing despite that. The only offence we can be certain of is fairly minor. If they lied to the club, that turns it into something different. If the club have fucked up then we need to know too. However, more importantly, if the only breach was the 4 household rule then it appears the protocols in place would never, and could never mitigate for a genuine covid case, alternatively, the cancelling of games was a punitive measure. It has to be one of those two things. 

2 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

The odd couple who go Greeeeeetings were talking about this, with that Professor Jason cunt who bores me to death. He's full of reassuring common sense for sure but the diligence he puts in to communicating articulately and the effort he puts in to the precision of his words-pronunciation is exhaustingly excruciating.

He did make the point that the rules that the clubs have in place are good but it's the "individual responsibility" aspect that's being compromised. Or that's what I think he said. He was sending me towards sleep whilst driving. 

He's reassuring, without actually saying anything reassuring. I don't trust him. Seemed to quickly turn into a politician when asked difficult questions on the radio a few months back. He suffers from the same issue as most in that the questions he gets asked are shite, so he doesn't have to answer with any particular insight, which is not his fault at all of course. In the Aberdeen case, I've heard both him state that the rules were clear, but not once has either fully articulated those rules and how they were broken. Nor were they asked to, of course.

The questions I'd like him to respond to:

Which rules were broken? What caused the cancellation of the games? What would be different in genuine cases of covid that were not detected until after training had resumed that week (say Thursday)?

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

Apologies, I wasn't suggesting you were saying they were lying, I was asking if that's what you were saying - that wasn't clear.

I assumed that the club's protocol that was broken was the four households rule. Or, more simply, breaking of a general public lockdown rule - by default - is a breach of club protocol (hence the previous case didn't break it). Some good points there though, I hadn't considered they might ask a series of questions about where players had been. That would suggest that the players either lied about it, which I find unlikely, or the person asking the questions failed to pick up that 8 players responded the same (in which case the club would have made the additional suggested return to training error, not the players). That it took until the Thursday isn't surprising to me, as that would have been when the test results were returned. Listening to Hayes' interview, the suggestion was that the players hadn't considered what they'd done was incorrect until that point. The fact he was given that platform on the club's YouTube channel suggests that the club believe that account and that there was no attempt by the players to cover anything up. 

What is clear, is that it really isn't that clear! That's the bit I find the most frustrating. Nobody on here seems to know, yet have been fairly scathing despite that. The only offence we can be certain of is fairly minor. If they lied to the club, that turns it into something different. If the club have fucked up then we need to know too. However, more importantly, if the only breach was the 4 household rule then it appears the protocols in place would never, and could never mitigate for a genuine covid case, alternatively, the cancelling of games was a punitive measure. It has to be one of those two things. 

The way I read it was if it was just the 4 household rule that they broke then surely the statements saying club protocols too would be redundant, makes me believe there were separate club guidelines broken.

The club also made a big song a dance about the cost of the private testing so I’d assume the results would be same day or as near as or it’d be pointless, seem to remember a video the club posted showing that too although I can’t be arsed looking for it anymore.
 

At the end of the day it’s irrelevant how clear it is to us, it’ll have been drilled in to the players and staff so they’ve only themselves to blame really. Although there’s a decent amount of info on the SFA site on the general framework (minimal interaction between players outside games/training etc, testing, screening) even if the specifics of the club policies aren’t published. 
 

The abuse and stick they’re seemingly getting is out of order but the punishments probably aren’t (assuming the standard punishments in line with rule 24 etc are applied).

29 minutes ago, Edinburghdon said:

The way I read it was if it was just the 4 household rule that they broke then surely the statements saying club protocols too would be redundant, makes me believe there were separate club guidelines broken.

The club also made a big song a dance about the cost of the private testing so I’d assume the results would be same day or as near as or it’d be pointless, seem to remember a video the club posted showing that too although I can’t be arsed looking for it anymore.
 

At the end of the day it’s irrelevant how clear it is to us, it’ll have been drilled in to the players and staff so they’ve only themselves to blame really. Although there’s a decent amount of info on the SFA site on the general framework (minimal interaction between players outside games/training etc, testing, screening) even if the specifics of the club policies aren’t published. 
 

The abuse and stick they’re seemingly getting is out of order but the punishments probably aren’t (assuming the standard punishments in line with rule 24 etc are applied).

Yep, very reasonable, it's a shame we only ever get half the story. I think I remember reading it was one or two days to get tests back. Remember, Hibs didn't get tests returned in time for a pre-season game to go ahead? In retrospect, I think you're right,  perhaps 4 game ban wouldn't be that unreasonable because if the games hadn't been cancelled then that's the number of games they could have missed (3 in the dons case, but there are some 14 day periods that have 4 matches). Hopefully they'll sort out the time it takes for future offences as, had the games gone ahead then the players could have faced missing 7 matches in total which would seem mental. 

You'd think that the rules would have been drilled into the players, but that clearly wasn't the case at AFC, given Johnny Hayes explanation. You wonder if the testing part and match day and training protocols have been drilled in, but they didn't pay much attention to the out of office guidelines, which would be basically the same for all of us. They'll definitely be aware of them now.