Jump to content

Robin101

Members
  • Posts

    2359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Robin101

  1. 13 minutes ago, Dolman_Stand said:

    Or similarly say a player with no underlying health problems plays and contracts the illness even if they make a full recovery in the short term who know what the long term implications could be i.e. reduced lung capacity, leduction in immunity which could directly shorten their life expectancy (similar to asbestos exposure) how would this beviewed from an insurance / legal aspect? Or even worse if they contract the illness and either die or they pass it onto a family member and they die? What happens then, lawsuts flying left, right and centre I suspect.

    For the players its a moral and financial dilemna particularly those in the last year or 18months of a contract as if they refuse to play they effectively will effectively be making themselves redundant and missing out on £m's over the next few years.

    This is no different to the rest of society though, no? Why would a player have any grounds to sue a football club if they became ill/family member became ill (as awful as that would be) anymore than a retail warehouse worker could sue their employer? It does get exceptionally complicated though I agree - what should happen to a vulnerable worker if they refuse to start working again? 

  2. I thought that testing capacity was over 100k but there currently wasn't the demand for it?

    I disagree with the above posters. Football is coming back, whether we think that's morally acceptable or not. The UK gov has been making it clear that it wants professional football to return as a boost to the country. We'll be living alongside this virus for months if not years to come, so it's a decision of when football returns and not if. Yes, there's a risk - but there's a risk for everyone being asked to return to work around the country too. The government and sporting bodies clearly feel it's an acceptable level of risk.

    As I say, we can debate whether we think mid-June is the right time but now that this ball is rolling I don't think it will stop.

    • Like 4
  3. 8 minutes ago, hodge said:

    WOW the vote in Scottish football whether to end the league early, Dundee originally voted no, a copy of their vote slip was posted online, claimed their vote hadn't been received (how would they know? Scottish source says clubs votes were anonymous and not revealed, just the total) by which time news of a 7-2 total in favour of finishing early had leaked/been announced, Dundee then take another couple of days while 'considering' aka negotiating (they want a league restructure) and then vote yes to end the season. 

    So Partick Thistle apparently will be relegated 2 points behind the team ahead but with a game in hand.... This could get messy given how Dundee have handled it!

    Shambles! Taste of things to come here?

  4. I’m starting to think it’s inevitable that this season will be called off. It won’t be fair, but it seems impossible to finish it without messing up the world football calendar for the next several years. 

    If it is cancelled, I’m confident that the 20/21 season will begin as usual in August. By that time the pendulum of public opinion will have swung back towards saving jobs, livelihoods and the economy if you ask me. 

  5. 21 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

    But but but

    we conceded goals last season because of Flint Jon

    Didnt you hear

    No way Murphy scores if Flint is marking him not Baker

    Watched Baker closely today and doesn’t convince me at all not sure what his ‘strengths’ are

    Id have Flint over two Nathan Bakers

    Awkward on ball gets done in air costing us goals here and there last season and today

    Thought Webster was ok and would liked to have had Webster and Flinf together out of Webster , Flint , Wright , Baker

    I don’t think your post is rubbish, but you’re mad if you think we haven’t conceded scores of similar goals with Flint in the team.

×
×
  • Create New...