stewarty

Wigan went into admin for non-Covid reasons in fairness @craig It’s an absolutely clusterfuck btw, arguably much worse than Craig Whyte’s stitch up.

Who is playing the man rather than the ball? You and that the Guido article. The ball in this case, would be to examine what independent SAGE are saying, compare it to the actual SAGE advice and subsequent government decisions. It would also be to examine why they were set up, what their aims and objectives are, and to examine what they are actually saying rather than what you assume they are saying. Regardless of any political views they may hold, they felt the need to set up such a panel and to do the work they are doing because they had significant concerns about the approach this government has taken and the way that the work of SAGE was and continues to be scandalised and politicised. Some of the concens that led to were based on the lack of transparency of the group's work given how significant it is to the actions the government has taken. It also took a number of weeks and a lot of media pressure to get SAGE to publish its minutes and guidance,. Many of SAGE's members did not want to be known publicly for fear of public backlash. The government itself has been given advice on a number of occasions which it did not act upon for a number of weeks. An example is the use of face masks/ coverings in public spaces such as shops - something that was recommended weeks and weeks ago, but has only now been adopted by the UK government. How many lives did that cost in terms of the number of the potential for increasing the spread of the disease? No matter what way you look at it, any group of scientists that are prepared to put their heads above the parapet, transparently publish their findings and recommendations to enable other people to review and scrutinise their work, must surely be a good thing, no? Or is it simply that anyone who doesn't agree with the government's approach should fuck off and get over it?

Behave yourself! I don't speak for ASIL, nor did I mention him, so I'm not sure the relevance of insinuating he or the independent SAGE should eff off. And yes, it was a very Brexity sentiment. Its not like you've been shy in saying this or similar things in the past. In any case, did Guido Fawkes offer any analysis of what Independent SAGE have said, or is it just an attempt to smear those who are critical of the UK government?

"That's little more than a bunch of ASIL's fellow travellers who still can't accept that the country told them and Corbyn to just f*&k off!" Perhaps you didn't say Brexit directly, apologies. Regardless, the point about playing the man/woman stands.

Agreed. We need more tactical flexibility. The last few seasons we have had to contend with very early Europa League qualifiers which may have limited the coaching team's ability to drill different formations, due to the need to get work on our preferred tactics. With the mixed up close season we've had, I'd suggest that excuse wont hold as much weight so I'm looking forward to seeing how we adapt to different situations going forward.

As much as the machinations of Brexit and the approach to Covid-19 are inexorably linked in terms of the key political actors and the absolute shit show with which both are being managed, the criticism of the government's approach is not because of Brexit. A classic case of playing the man/woman rather than the ball.

Agreed. The scientific method is designed to enable people to disagree, and for our understanding of our existence to be enhanced by it over time.

There has been alot of criticism about the politicisation of expert advice by the government who in some cases appear to have ignored a number of warnings and recommendations presented to them by their own advisors through SAGE. The makeup and transparency of SAGE has been criticised - with many saying that they did not have a sufficient public health focus at least initially. One group who have consistently questions the government's approach even formed their own independent SAGE, who met and publicised their expert opinions on the data and what recommendations they would make in response. In turn this appears to have somewhat influenced some government decisions but there remains a lot of disagreement because the government isn't or hasn't followed key areas of recommendation for political and economic reasons of their choosing. I understand you are going through a difficult time, as many others are, but suggesting the Covid-19 is a hoax is not credible. You've made some false assertions in this post too about curing other diseases, although I do agree that there is a very real public health hangover to come once the health service gets back to a more normal footing, with all manner of screenings, tests, operations and diseases that are potentially under reported. But whilst I'm critical about elements of the approach we have taken in the UK (personally I think we should have acted sooner and more strongly at a number of stages), to not have taken the action they did with the likes of the temporary hospitals and putting the NHS on somewhat of a war footing and everyone into lockdown, things would have been far far worse and many more people than yourself would be going through a similar time

Sad news - hoping he recovers and we can see him at Ibrox again soon.

There is zero need for the club to assert anything other than us being a club that is open to all. In my opinion, of course.

You can see clubs pushing to make this a permanent change.

That depends, I think. Defoe is adaptable and has performed well when fit. The issue for Gerrard is that his attributes are different to Morelos who uses his physicality more in terms of leading the line. The challenge is therefore adapting the tactical set up to incorporate Defoe, which I feel we did reasonably well in spells during his loan period.

Stevie G specifically mentioned in the press conference the other day that he didn't want to be blocking McCrorie's development, so I think you are right. A season as a first pick somewhere, say another Premiership club or even somewhere down south, would be ideal for him.

A pointless cul-de-sac then. ?

Another question would be: why Deloitte? I've no issue with them and believe they will act professionally. But how were they appointed? Who else was considered? What criteria were used to select Deloitte ahead of others? Again, from a reputational risk perspective, surely they could envisage being drawn into a shit storm of negative attention if they agree to perform such a seemingly skewed investigation?

I can't see Deloitte doing anything other than carrying out a review that is within the parameters that were set. Reputationally, it just isn't worth the risk not to. So what were the parameters? Why has it been announced at the conclusion only? Who did they speak to? Why has it just been selective elements of the report given to some friendly media outlets (the usual suspects)? This is a further can of worms and further underlines why Doncaster and McLennan are at it.

Have they published the scope and findings? Did they speak to Rangers to assess the evidence they hold? If so, I'm assuming the report answers some of the questions i have. To begin with: Did they question Doncaster and other Board members why they were pressuring clubs to decide this when other options were available? Why was Lawwell involved when he;s not on the board?

Bloody hell that's dark for a Thursday morning.

Tough draw

Dietmar Hamann doing the draw. Surely will have instructions from his old mate Gerrard on who he wants

Goldson for me too. He led the defence very well and positionally the back 4 were excellent all night which stems from good communication, especially against such a fluent attacking team.

I read somewhere that the guys behind taking AJ v Ruiz 2 to Saudi Arabia were at ringside. I wouldn't rule that option out at this stage.

Someone posted on FF who is the centre of stories being broken today in the Times suggest that it is tonight that C4 will begin their "exposé"

Indeed. But even Provan would find it harder to dismiss if there was a walk off.

Would be interesting what would happen if Morelos, or any other player for that matter, walked off when subjected to such abuse.