David

I recall the claims that this was going to be payback for our part in sending them down to the bottom rung of Scottish football. Their fans were so fucking sure they were "back" and that they'd get to send us down in the process was just icing on their shit cake. I was hoping that we'd maybe win the tie by the odd goal in a few competitive games, but we didn't. We absolutely destroyed them. It's the kind of performances that will long be looked back on with joy, and rightfully so. I'd be lying if I said I hadn't dreamed as a kid of being part of a Motherwell team that did that to a Rangers or Celtic team. The sheer arrogance of the media in Scotland writing us off as an afterthought, as they all eagerly looked forward to the return of the "old firm," only for us to completely fuck it up for them was amazing. So yeah, it's far more than a couple of games to avoid relegation. Context is very much key in this situation in my opinion.

I'm not particularly up to speed on who's staying, going, gone or whatever, but if Grimshaw goes down injured or loses form, who do we have as backup? Is there someone viable for that slot?

As much as players like Tait are definitely coming to the end of their prime, in these uncertain times I'm not sure we should be letting them go. He's part of a team that was good enough to finish 3rd, so that's saying something. Do we have someone who can replace him? Would he have been worth keeping on as a backup?

That's my fears as well. I'm seeing plenty of people on social media enjoying being told to stay home and sunbathe in the garden, but the last time I checked a tan don't pay the mortgage. There's tough times ahead for sure.

They can be found everywhere at the moment. Social media, primarily. They're usually found with little banners on their profile pictures, and using NHS hashtags. To be clear, I'm not downplaying the effects of the virus, or saying we shouldn't be concerned about our loved ones. Again, this is what I'm talking about when I mean the "either/or" approach. Unless you're using a banner, hashtags, and focusing on one aspect of the discussion you're seen as opposing this part of it. It's like the other day on here, I dared to mention the Swedish approach. No one knows if that kind of tactic will work long-term, but it's another way of going about things. Another option. No sooner had I mentioned it than someone replied with some pish talking about injecting bleach. It was assumed that by not taking the "stay indoors, save lives" approach that I was vehemently against it. I'm not, I'm just looking at other options and ways other nations are dealing with the situation. We need to look at all facets of the situation. Like it or not, the economy matters. The effects of a depression of this magnitude is well documented from the 30's. At some point the furlough money is going to run out. We can't keep paying out that kind of dough while there isn't enough businesses paying taxes to support it. It's not going to work. So we need to move on from only looking at one aspect of the situation and start taking into account that measures need to be taken, in the safest way possible, to get things moving again. No approach is ever going to be completely safe. We'll never get to that stage. It's the same with football. If we're looking for a safety level akin to that which was enjoyed before this all happened then we'd be as well packing it in, and shutting clubs down entirely for a few years.

The ones who use such talk as a reason for deflecting chat away from the very real issues we are going to face due to the economy tanking? Yes. If you consider an appropriate response to someone discussing the effects this situation is having on the economy, people's livelihoods, jobs, and future prospects of the nation to be "Is the economy more important than saving lives?!?!" then sadly, I do. Those with any sense would know that this isn't an either/or situation. It's not a choice between shutting ourselves away to save lives or trying to salvage the economy. There's a fine line between dealing with both, and that's where we need to be. Anyone who's familiar with the great depression and the absolute destruction it caused to people for years should be just as concerned with the economy as they are with the virus. Both go hand in hand.

I wouldn't imagine that you're alone in this situation. The biggest threat to our society at present isn't the actual virus itself. And the virus spreading isn't the biggest threat to Scottish football. We're supposedly heading towards 1930's great depression levels of unemployment, and the lockdown is totally fucking up the economy. And I know, every time the economy is mentioned there's always some twat who pipes up "Is the economy more important than saving lives?!?! What if it were YOU or your LOVED ONES?!? Eh? Eh?" Well, the economy tanking will likely destroy more lives over the next twenty years than the virus will. The truth is, football is fucked as it is. If we're looking for the levels of safety that medical types are wanting before we let punters into stadiums then we'd be as well calling it a day and shutting the club down for the next few years, because we're not getting to that point any time soon.

If the government takes such a stance it'll affect a lot more clubs than just us, so I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure we're following the same protocol that every other football club is.

Seems the lad who penned the piece for The Athletic wasn't all that wrong then.

You could be right. This particular piece came from The Athletic, and they're usually a lot more thorough and honest than our bog-standard red-top journo.

I recall all of the experts telling Sweden that a number of weeks back as well. But yes, football attendance in large numbers will not be happening for a long time, and for fans of certain age groups or with certain health concerns, perhaps never again. From a purely footballing point of view, I miss going to games, but I really feel sorry for the older generation who've attended games all their lives who may never get to sit in Fir Park again.

Yes, really.

Is that what the Swedish government are also doing? I must have missed that. Otherwise you're chatting shite.

The author has been very specific in naming Robinson and Martin Foyle, which I found surprising. He's obviously been told that by someone, hasn't he? I doubt he'd pluck Foyle's name out of thin air.

It's about time our government started taking its lead from Sweden on this issue.