Jump to content

Donnet

Members
  • Content Count

    797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Donnet last won the day on April 5 2018

Donnet had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

About Donnet

  • Rank
    Senior Player

Recent Profile Visitors

1,446 profile views
  1. The game will go ahead at Pittodrie. The Hamilton game being off "because of the local outbreak" was a red herring. The government wanted to punish the clubs/SPFL by cancelling all that midweeks and this past weekends games. The SPFL/SFA managed to talk them down to just ours and Celtic games being off. If we hadn't had the Soul8 situation none of our games would have been off - local outbreaks or not.
  2. Depends who he's replacing. If Bryson/McGeouch are out he's a good replacement.
  3. So would our guys have if 2 of them hadn't tested positive. Not as if they came in the next morning owning up to their error.
  4. I agree that the Scottish Government shat it and abandoned the agreed protocols for positive tests at the first hurdle but the players' actions caused the Scottish Government to make that decision so that will still be the view of the SFA/SPFL
  5. It makes no sense to stop Hearts from training, but it's hilarious. Even better is the fact Hull are training at Oriam today 😆
  6. The players actions caused a game to be postponed. There will certainly be a SFA/SPFL regulation that allows them to take action against a player who causes postponement of a match. Bringing game into disrepute or some catch-all. There won't be any new rules created today. What they will do is clarify which existing rule this falls under and make it a specifically known punishment for this type of offence - i.e setting a precedent.
  7. Punishments will just entice clubs into hiding these things. Or is it to be trial via social media?
  8. Is he not injured? Was for a large part of pre-season at least.
  9. If we're missing Considine + 8 and some prospects don't come in that's a bit worrying. The bench will at least have to be full of them so they might get a chance for 5 mins if we go 4-0 up....
  10. Its the number of them. I can accept there will be some dumb fucks there but for not one of the 8 to pick up on it. They knew exactly what they were doing and thought they'd get away with it. Agreed on going out after that performance but seems to be the norm these days. Just as disappointed with the clientele of Soul for not making that clear on the night (in a strong but non-abusive way, of course).
  11. When was the last time a game was awarded to a team without it being played? There have been plenty of fuck ups by teams in the past that have caused games to be off without the outcry for forfeiture. Forgetting to put on the undersoil heating, overselling tickets, floodlight failures. With regards to the players I think the apology statement was predictably weak but Hayes' interview made it worse. I just don't believe 8 fully grown men thought that because the worked together they counted as one household with regards to the government guidelines (as Hayes claims in his interview). To apologise "unreservedly" then try to cook up excuses to make yourself look better was ill advised.
  12. I'm not surprised there's been a spike - although it could have been anywhere - considering how many people seem to think that pubs are open = back to normal. I've even seen someone claim the maximum households thing doesn't count with pubs because "whats the point in going to the pub then?". Like it's against the rules to have people from 4 households in your own home but perfectly fine for those folk to go to the pub and be surrounded by people from hundreds more households aswell. Unfortunately some people are dumb and others wilfully ignorant. The 8 players themselves are either dumb or wilfully ignorant. According to McInnes the players have claimed they thought it was ok to go out in a group as they were in a "bubble". They're not allowed to travel to training together, they are split into different changing rooms in groups of 3 and 4, it's 1 person to a table when eating at the training ground - but they thought 8 of them going out to a public area was fine! What a load of bullshit.
  13. If they had only been in contact with the positive players at the training ground then tested negative then yes they would be able to play (as will be the case for the rest of our squad). Its because they were in close contact outside of the training ground to a person who has tested positive for Covid-19 and so are flagged up in the NHS test and protect tracking system and told to isolate for 14 days.
  14. The issue here isn't them breaking any SFA or club rules. They broke the Scottish Government advice that the general public have to follow. Yes pubs are open, but you are still only meant to meet people from 2 other households indoors. Clearly if there was 8 of them this was breached. Any exemptions given to footballers are based on them coming into contact with each other within the training ground with extra measures put in place to minimise the risk. This is why usually if one player tests positive as long as the others who have been in contact with him have a negative test within 48 hours before kickoff they can play. In this case because they broke the Scottish Government guidelines and met in a large group outside of the training ground they are not having the concessions usually made to footballers extended to them. So anyone who was in contact with the 2 positive players outside of the training ground has to isolate for 14 days. Yes the players are entitled to a social life away from football but they still have to follow the same advice the rest of us do. The fucking cunts.
  15. Players can go out for a drink, however ill advised it would seem to some of us. But given their job requires them to be tested twice weekly they should have been being cautious to keep to places where they could socially distance and be following the rest of the guidelines strictly. I believe the SFA/Club guidelines even accommodate this but the player has a responsibility to report that they were in an "at risk" situation and they go through testing procedures before returning to contact training. If it's confirmed that they went out to a non socially distanced bar and then did not follow the correct procedures when returning to training then they should have the book thrown at them.
×
×
  • Create New...