Scottish players in action 19/20 - Page 24 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Scottish players in action 19/20


SkyBlueScot

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

AIK ca'n't cope with Johnston at all.

Don't go overboard. He was alright.

Something I do question is Celtic's sports science/nutritionist. He gets pushed off the ball too easily.

Johnston should be on a designated gym program and he should be given a menu of what he can and can't eat. Judging by his height and weight he needs 60/80g of protein per day, only then will he able to bulk up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Did a wiki on their keeper opted out of the Scottish youth system  to play for local boys club Bathgate Rose  probably a good idea.

On loan from Motherwell

At 21, he may well be a player to keep an eye on - particularly if Linfield do make it into the group stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under EU law, you have to treat all EU citizens equally, any attempt to restrict employment opportunities based on nationality would be illegal.   A restriction on the number of "foreigners" that could be played would be considered a restraint of trade.

Thats kind of why no EU country has implemented anything similar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, aaid said:

Under EU law, you have to treat all EU citizens equally, any attempt to restrict employment opportunities based on nationality would be illegal.   A restriction on the number of "foreigners" that could be played would be considered a restraint of trade.

Thats kind of why no EU country has implemented anything similar. 

As it stands right now, each team in the EPL has to have a 25 man squad, with 8 of them being "home grown".  By your reasoning this is illegal practice and the FA are vulnerable from a legal standpoint as EPL clubs are restricting the EU nationals who didn't make the cut.

As long as the EU citizens (football players) are being paid (and they aren't being tortured or mentally or physically abused) there's absolutely no question to answer. I mean, by your logic if a player gets dropped for a bad performance, etc, he is within his rights to take it the matter to the EU court of human rights.

Football in Europe is only partly governed by EU legislation, other parts of it the law simply has no jurisdiction over it. 

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

As it stands right now, each team in the EPL has to have a 25 man squad, with 8 of them being "home grown".  By your reasoning this is illegal practice and the FA vulnerable from a legal standpoint as EPL clubs are restricting the EU nationals who didn't make the cut.

As long as the EU citizens (football players) are being paid there's no absolutely question to answer. I mean, by your logic if a player gets dropped for a bad performance, etc, he is within his rights to take it the matter to the EU court of human rights.

Football in Europe is only partly governed by EU legislation, other parts of it the law simply has no jurisdiction over it. 

No, more bollocks.   The "home grown" qualification only states that a player must have been with club in England for at least three years before the age of 21, it makes no provision for the nationality of the player, therefore it's not discriminatory.  For example, Cesc Fabregas was considered a home grown player when he was  at Chelsea due to the time he spent at Arsenal.  I'm not sure how long Pogba was at Man Utd the first time but if it was three years then he'll similarly be considered as such.  It's not a scheme that discrimates in the basis of nationality so it's okay.

"As long as someone's being paid" is totally irrelevant.  Put it this way, if you were an employer and you gave the good jobs to Scots which gave them an opportunity to improve themselves, and gave all the humdrum jobs to non-Scots, you'd be up before an industrial tribunal pretty quickly.

Performance related issues - assuming there's no discriminatory angle - are irrelevant in this context.  However, I'd remind you that Gordon Smith rescinded the ban to Barry Ferguson and Alan McGregor after Bevvygate pretty quickly after legal advice that they could be subject to an action for restraint of trade. 

Regardless of the EU rules on Freedom of Movement which cover the rights of EU workers to work anywhere in the EU, the actual legislation around discrimation is UK law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, aaid said:

No, more bollocks.   The "home grown" qualification only states that a player must have been with club in England for at least three years before the age of 21, it makes no provision for the nationality of the player, therefore it's not discriminatory.  For example, Cesc Fabregas was considered a home grown player when he was  at Chelsea due to the time he spent at Arsenal.  I'm not sure how long Pogba was at Man Utd the first time but if it was three years then he'll similarly be considered as such.  It's not a scheme that discrimates in the basis of nationality so it's okay.

"As long as someone's being paid" is totally irrelevant.  Put it this way, if you were an employer and you gave the good jobs to Scots which gave them an opportunity to improve themselves, and gave all the humdrum jobs to non-Scots, you'd be up before an industrial tribunal pretty quickly.

Performance related issues - assuming there's no discriminatory angle - are irrelevant in this context.  However, I'd remind you that Gordon Smith rescinded the ban to Barry Ferguson and Alan McGregor after Bevvygate pretty quickly after legal advice that they could be subject to an action for restraint of trade. 

Regardless of the EU rules on Freedom of Movement which cover the rights of EU workers to work anywhere in the EU, the actual legislation around discrimation is UK law. 

I didn't make specifications about nationality with regards to the "home grown" rule. You could be Danish coming through the ranks at an EPL club and qualify as being a "home grown" player.

Yes, but the one crowning difference is that this is sport we're talking about and therefore, not a regular job. Football players have a specific job, and that is to stay fit and to give their all to the domestic club that pays their wages. That's it. Look at Graeme Shinnie, he's being forced to train with the under 23s at Derby as the manager doesn't rate him. What, you think he has a legal claim to take this to the EU court of human rights because his rights have been violated? Guess what, he doesn't. As long as the club continues to pay him, and as I said, they treat him well and proper, he has no legal recourse. The only thing that he can do it either get his head down and prove the manager wrong, go in a huff and downtools or get his agent to engineer a move away from Derby County.

Football teams have a limit of the amount of players they can play in each match squad. We all know this. If there actually was legal recourse with regards to "discriminations" then clubs would be facing hundreds, thousands of lawsuits on a weeks basis. As the EU/UK law stands now, teams around Europe can purchase as many EU nationals as they like, there's no law stating that the clubs have to play them. If a player isn't playing (for whatever reason) they can't go the EU courts, or the UK courts, and sue his club for violating his human rights, so why would he be able to if a football association brought in a rule on a limit of foreign players? Freedom of movement would stay as it is. As it stands a club has no contractual obligation to play a player (unless it's stipulated in the player's contract), regardless of talent, nationality, creed, shoe size, hair colour, etc.

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

I didn't make specifications about nationality with regards to the "home grown" rule. You could be Danish coming through the ranks at an EPL club and qualify as being a "home grown" player.

Yes, but the one crowning difference is that this is sport we're talking about and therefore, not a regular job. Football players have a specific job, and that is to stay fit and to give their all to the domestic club that pays their wages. That's it. Look at Graeme Shinnie, he's being forced to train with the under 23s at Derby as the manager doesn't rate him. What, you think he has a legal claim to take this to the EU court of human rights because his rights have been violated? Guess what, he doesn't. As long as the club continues to pay him, and as I said, they treat him well and proper, he has no legal recourse. The only thing that he can do it either get his head down and prove the manager wrong, go in a huff and downtools or get his agent to engineer a move away from Derby County.

Football teams have a limit of the amount of players they can play in each match squad. We all know this. If there actually was legal recourse with regards to "discriminations" then clubs would be facing hundreds, thousands of lawsuits in a weeks basis. As the EU/UK law stands now, teams around Europe can purchase as many EU nationals as they like, there's no law stating that the clubs have to play them. If a player isn't playing (for whatever reason) they can't go the EU courts, or the UK courts, and sue his club for violating his human rights, so why he be able to if a football association brought in a rule on a limit of foreign players? Freedom of movement would stay as it is. As it stands a club has no contractual obligation to play a player (unless it's stipulated in the player's contract), regardless of talent, nationality, creed, shoe size, hair colour, etc.

You absolutely did mention the EU with respect to home grown players, - "EPL clubs are restricting EU Nationals"

Football *is* a regular job and funnily enough footballers are entitled to the same protections under the law as everyone else.

Footballer's contracts are written in a way that gives clubs a lot of control over players, where they need to be, at what time, etc,, etc.  If the club asks the player to go and train with the kids then that'll be in the contract and as long as the player does what is asked of he'll continue to be paid.

These might seem onerous contracts to some but they are standard for the industry and aren't illegal.

ANY DISCRIMINATION ANYWHERE IN THE UK ON THE BASIS OF NATIONALITY OR CREED IS ILLEGAL.

Seriously, I'd give up on this now if I were you 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, aaid said:

You absolutely did mention the EU with respect to home grown players, - "EPL clubs are restricting EU Nationals"

Football *is* a regular job and funnily enough footballers are entitled to the same protections under the law as everyone else.

Footballer's contracts are written in a way that gives clubs a lot of control over players, where they need to be, at what time, etc,, etc.  If the club asks the player to go and train with the kids then that'll be in the contract and as long as the player does what is asked of he'll continue to be paid.

These might seem onerous contracts to some but they are standard for the industry and aren't illegal.

ANY DISCRIMINATION ANYWHERE IN THE UK ON THE BASIS OF NATIONALITY OR CREED IS ILLEGAL.

Seriously, I'd give up on this now if I were you 

I didn't mention specific Nationality.

Yes, footballers are entitled to the same protection, respect, care, consideration, as the rest of us. But unlike people in a "regular job" they don't have to give it their all. How many people would say that players like Neymar are being treated like anyone else? He's basically on strike (on holiday) whilst still being paid by £900K per week at PSG. Yes, he's being fined £339k for his no-show, but that £339k is just a "good behaviour" clause that was written in his contract. So essentially he's still being paid whilst being on strike. Yes, this is all kinds of regular.

May last year UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin said that he wants the European Union to revisit their rules on freedom of labour and put a cap on (EU) football players being able to move as they may, because as the current laws stand it creates a lack of balance in European football. I can't see this happening. But what I can see happening is leagues putting a cap on the amount of non-national that actually play. I've read a lot of law documentation (both EU and UK) and I haven't read so much as a blurb about footballers being legally obligated to be picked by their club.

Me give up? Nah. That won't happen.

Unless you show me documentation proof (Believe me, there is none) that a football player has to play for his club, you simply do not have a leg to stand on in this debate. What you're essentially saying is that footballers have a EU legal right to play football and be picked by their manager in every single match. Is this what you're saying?

 

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

I didn't mention specific Nationality.

Yes, footballers are entitled to the same protection, respect, care, consideration, as the rest of us. But unlike people in a "regular job" they don't have to give it their all. How many people would say that players like Neymar are being treated like anyone else? He's basically on strike (on holiday) whilst still being paid by £900K per week at PSG. Yes, he's being fined £339k for his no-show, but that £339k is just a "good behaviour" clause that was written in his contract. So essentially he's still being paid whilst being on strike. Yes, this is all kinds of regular.

May last year UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin said that he wants the European Union to revisit their rules on freedom of labour and put a cap on (EU) football players being able to move as they may, because as the current laws stand it creates a lack of balance in European football. I can't see this happening. But what I can see happening is leagues putting a cap on the amount of non-national that actually play. I've read a lot of law documentation (both EU and UK) and I haven't read so much as a blurb about footballers being legally obligated to be picked by their club.

Me give up? Nah. That won't happen.

Unless you show me documentation proof (Believe me, there is none) that a football player has to play for his club, you simply do not have a leg to stand on in this debate. What you're essentially saying is that footballers have a EU legal right to play football and be picked by their manager in every single match. Is this what you're saying?

 

No I'm not.  What I am saying is that in any occupation - or indeed any walk of life - you cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality.

I'll try and make it simple.  You have 25 players in a squad, you can only play 11, so 14 will miss out.   You might - although in reality, it's unlikely - play the same 11 players in every game.   Logically, you would do that on the basis that you pick the 11 players who together will make the best team.  There is nothing wrong with that at all.   You could do it on the basis that none of them had ginger hair and it would still be okay, it would be stupid and you likely get sacked but it wouldn't be illegal as ginger hair is not a protected category.

If however you pick a team and you are limited to picking 3 players who aren't Scottish, then that's a discriminatory policy and is illegal.

Im not suggesting that players have a right to be picked but if you are picking one player over another *solely* on the basis of their nationality then that would be illegal..  And of course a policy that stated exactly that would be a bit of a clue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aaid said:

No I'm not.  What I am saying is that in any occupation - or indeed any walk of life - you cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality.

I'll try and make it simple.  You have 25 players in a squad, you can only play 11, so 14 will miss out.   You might - although in reality, it's unlikely - play the same 11 players in every game.   Logically, you would do that on the basis that you pick the 11 players who together will make the best team.  There is nothing wrong with that at all.   You could do it on the basis that none of them had ginger hair and it would still be okay, it would be stupid and you likely get sacked but it wouldn't be illegal as ginger hair is not a protected category.

If however you pick a team and you are limited to picking 3 players who aren't Scottish, then that's a discriminatory policy and is illegal.

Im not suggesting that players have a right to be picked but if you are picking one player over another *solely* on the basis of their nationality then that would be illegal..  And of course a policy that stated exactly that would be a bit of a clue. 

And how exactly are they being discriminated against? They're being paid. They're being well taken care of, etc. What, just because they aren't playing football? Your argument might hold water if it was a complete blanket ban on all foreigners, but it wouldn't be, it would be a limit of three. Legally this would only be an issue if there was a blanket ban. If there was a three foreign limit then theoretically player X would be able to play, regardless of his nationality. 

Again, how exactly is it discriminatory? It would only be discriminatory if the player(s) in question had zero percent chance of playing. But that wouldn't the case. 

The law and football are at different sides of the room in a lot of cases, and this is one of them. If there ever comes a time when there's a three foreigner rule in an EU domestic football league there will never be a time when a player takes his club to court under discrimination laws, simply because he wouldn't win the case. As long as he's being paid a wage and he has the opportunity of doing what he's being paid to do the domestic club has no question to answer, nor would they be vulnerable from a legal stance. It would only be an issue if the player(s) weren't being paid and they had zero chance of playing football.

That's pretty much it. You can only sue an employer for discrimination if your human rights are being affected, last time I checked playing football wasn't a classed as a human right. And no judge would rule that he's being denied a right to work, as he's being paid a living wage and as an athlete he is competing with team-mates for a spot on the team.

What do you think would happen if the SFA brought in a three foreigner rule? Who would sue them? UEFA? The players?

And by the way, this will be a moot subject in a few months anyway, as we'll no longer be in Europe soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was great to see Celtic humbling the Swedish champs with 5 internationals in the team..... looked far superior.

And Ryan Jack was terrific against Legia from what I’ve heard.... definitely someone I would have about the national team (even if it’s for cover at right back), has come on leaps and bounds under Gerrard.

Apologies for the positivity......

 

Edited by SWMM82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SWMM82 said:

It was great to see Celtic humbling the Swedish champs with 5 internationals in the team..... looked far superior.

And Ryan Jack was terrific against Legia from what I’ve heard.... definitely someone I would have about the national team (even if it’s for cover at right back), has come on leaps and bounds under Gerrard.

(Apologies for the positivity......)

 

I should think so too, not the place for that nonsense 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

And how exactly are they being discriminated against? They're being paid. They're being well taken care of, etc. What, just because they aren't playing football? Your argument might hold water if it was a complete blanket ban on all foreigners, but it wouldn't be, it would be a limit of three. Legally this would only be an issue if there was a blanket ban. If there was a three foreign limit then theoretically player X would be able to play, regardless of his nationality. 

Again, how exactly is it discriminatory? It would only be discriminatory if the player(s) in question had zero percent chance of playing. But that wouldn't the case. 

The law and football are at different sides of the room in a lot of cases, and this is one of them. If there ever comes a time when there's a three foreigner rule in an EU domestic football league there will never be a time when a player takes his club to court under discrimination laws, simply because he wouldn't win the case. As long as he's being paid a wage and he has the opportunity of doing what he's being paid to do the domestic club has no question to answer, nor would they be vulnerable from a legal stance. It would only be an issue if the player(s) weren't being paid and they had zero chance of playing football.

That's pretty much it. You can only sue an employer for discrimination if your human rights are being affected, last time I checked playing football wasn't a classed as a human right. And no judge would rule that he's being denied a right to work, as he's being paid a living wage and as an athlete he is competing with team-mates for a spot on the team.

What do you think would happen if the SFA brought in a three foreigner rule? Who would sue them? UEFA? The players?

And by the way, this will be a moot subject in a few months anyway, as we'll no longer be in Europe soon.

Although you seem to think that football lives in its own world where it's not subject to the laws of the land, it really isn't.   This is also UK Law and not EU Law.  After leaving the EU - if that ever happens in a meaningful way - then the UKG could put immigration controls in place which would restrict the number of players coming into the country however, once they are employed they are entitled to the same laws and protections as everyone else.   The UKG won't though because the clubs - in England and Scotland - will lobby hard against it and it would be a big vote loser.   Guess what, immigration is reserved so even if the SG wanted to do something about it they couldn't.

1. It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of ... race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

2.Discrimination can come in one of the following forms: indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/how-you-can-be-discriminated-against

3. The law protects you against discrimination at work, including: promotion and transfer opportunities

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/discrimination-at-work

On that basis, putting a rule into place that limits the number of non-Scottish players that can play in a game fails each test.   
1. It discriminates on the basis of nationality.
2. Players who are non-Scottish are put an unfair disadvantage.
3. By restricting the playing opportunities of non-Scottish players in 1&2 above, you are impacting on their ability to improve as players and as such are restricting their opportunities for advancement.

Its about as an obvious discriminatory policy as its possible to find.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SWMM82 said:

It was great to see Celtic humbling the Swedish champs with 5 internationals in the team..... looked far superior.

And Ryan Jack was terrific against Legia from what I’ve heard.... definitely someone I would have about the national team (even if it’s for cover at right back), has come on leaps and bounds under Gerrard.

Apologies for the positivity......

 

Was just about to post that. Why for cover? He played for a few seasons at RB with Aberdeen and he surely has the composure to be able to shift back to RB and thus solve one of our problem positions. Least he plays in Europe - unlike O'Donnell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Was just about to post that. Why for cover? He played for a few seasons at RB with Aberdeen and he surely has the composure to be able to shift back to RB and thus solve one of our problem positions. Least he plays in Europe - unlike O'Donnell.

I agree with you, I would have Jack in ahead of O’Donnell at right back. I just don’t think O’Donnell is good enough. But the chances of Clarke dropping O’Donnell who served him so well at Killie, are slim to none, especially against the likes of Russia and Belgium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SWMM82 said:

It was great to see Celtic humbling the Swedish champs with 5 internationals in the team..... looked far superior.

And Ryan Jack was terrific against Legia from what I’ve heard.... definitely someone I would have about the national team (even if it’s for cover at right back), has come on leaps and bounds under Gerrard.

Apologies for the positivity......

 

Ryan Jack should be our right back, not as cover 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aaid said:

Although you seem to think that football lives in its own world where it's not subject to the laws of the land, it really isn't.   This is also UK Law and not EU Law.  After leaving the EU - if that ever happens in a meaningful way - then the UKG could put immigration controls in place which would restrict the number of players coming into the country however, once they are employed they are entitled to the same laws and protections as everyone else.   The UKG won't though because the clubs - in England and Scotland - will lobby hard against it and it would be a big vote loser.   Guess what, immigration is reserved so even if the SG wanted to do something about it they couldn't.

1. It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of ... race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

2.Discrimination can come in one of the following forms: indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/how-you-can-be-discriminated-against

3. The law protects you against discrimination at work, including: promotion and transfer opportunities

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/discrimination-at-work

On that basis, putting a rule into place that limits the number of non-Scottish players that can play in a game fails each test.   
1. It discriminates on the basis of nationality.
2. Players who are non-Scottish are put an unfair disadvantage.
3. By restricting the playing opportunities of non-Scottish players in 1&2 above, you are impacting on their ability to improve as players and as such are restricting their opportunities for advancement.

Its about as an obvious discriminatory policy as its possible to find.

 


 

You seem to think football (or professional sports) are under the jurisdiction of common law. I can tell you, it is not.

Did you read my previous post or just scan it? There would be no questions to answer from a legal standpoint, as foreign players WOULD be paid a living wage, they would have freedom of movement and they would have a change to partake in their chosen sport. Their human and civil rights would only be hampered if they weren't paid a wage, if they were treated as slaves or if they had zero percent chance of playing their chosen sports.

A three foreigner rule is not discriminatory. If it were a no foreigner rule then it would be discriminatory. That's the loophole.

There was a three foreigner rule in European Competions back in the 90's. The law didn't change and that's why it was scrapped. It wasn't deemed descrimitory. The reason it was scrapped because the major teams hated it and they forced uefa to abolish it or they'd create a break-away competition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

You seem to think football (or professional sports) are under the jurisdiction of common law. I can tell you, it is not.

Did you read my previous post or just scan it? There would be no questions to answer from a legal standpoint, as foreign players WOULD be paid a living wage, they would have freedom of movement and they would have a change to partake in their chosen sport. Their human and civil rights would only be hampered if they weren't paid a wage, if they were treated as slaves or if they had zero percent chance of playing their chosen sports.

A three foreigner rule is not discriminatory. If it were a no foreigner rule then it would be discriminatory. That's the loophole.

There was a three foreigner rule in European Competions back in the 90's. The law didn't change and that's why it was scrapped. It wasn't deemed descrimitory. The reason it was scrapped because the major teams hated it and they forced uefa to abolish it or they'd create a break-away competition.

 

1. Show me where it says that footballers aren't covered by employment law.

2. Look in more detail at the Bosman ruling.  Bosman was playing for RFC Liege in Belgium and when his contract expired he wanted to moved to Dunkerque in France.  Dunkerque refused to pay the transfer fee and Liege refused to release his registration.

The ECJ made two rulings, firstly that players were free to move at the end of their contracts and secondly that EU players were free to move to any other EU country.  That's what led to the end of the three foreigner rule.  Although the ruling only applied to EU nationals, given that the vast majority of players in Europe were covered, it no longer made sense and so it was scrapped altogether.  Individual countries have their own immigration rules when it comes non-EU players.

Nothing at all to do with what big clubs thought or wanted and everything to do with a ruling of the ECJ.

You're technically correct that the law didn't change but what did change was that the existing arrangements were found to be illegal, that's what tends to happen when someone wins a test case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tartan_McCole said:

:lol:

This is probably the only forum on the internet where nutritional advice incurs laughter. I know we're all Scottish, or mostly, but negative stereotypes aren't cool.

My rule of thumb is that i ignore negative replies and only devote my people and/or post i deem worthy of my time.

I will, however, make a rare exception n this case as i want to educate you.

The DRI (Dietary Reference Intake) is approximately 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (I'd increase it to 1 - 1.2 grams, depending how physically active the person is.)

I'd recommend an intake of 20g of protein per meal (and you can get the extra protein via protein shakes, protein bars, peanut butter, etc. The better protein shakes have 20-26g of protein per serving, so if you get a brand like "Gold standard" which contains 24g of protein you can drink it pre and post workout. That's 48g right there. Even peanut butter (I'd recommend "Meridian" as it's 100% peanuts. Generally i stay away from the brands like Sun-pat, etc, as they contain salt, sugar and other nasties) on a slice of wholemeal would be about 15g.)

I assume Michael Johnston is 80kg, so yes, 60-80grams of protein would be right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

This is probably the only forum on the internet where nutritional advice incurs laughter. I know we're all Scottish, or mostly, but negative stereotypes aren't cool.

My rule of thumb is that i ignore negative replies and only devote my people and/or post i deem worthy of my time.

I will, however, make a rare exception n this case as i want to educate you.

The DRI (Dietary Reference Intake) is approximately 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (I'd increase it to 1 - 1.2 grams, depending how physically active the person is.)

I'd recommend an intake of 20g of protein per meal (and you can get the extra protein via protein shakes, protein bars, peanut butter, etc. The better protein shakes have 20-26g of protein per serving, so if you get a brand like "Gold standard" which contains 24g of protein you can drink it pre and post workout. That's 48g right there. Even peanut butter (I'd recommend "Meridian" as it's 100% peanuts. Generally i stay away from the brands like Sun-pat, etc, as they contain salt, sugar and other nasties) on a slice of wholemeal would be about 15g.)

I assume Michael Johnston is 80kg, so yes, 60-80grams of protein would be right. 

 

Your post deserved nothing but laughter. As does this one. So, again.. :lol:

 Imagine thinking you know more about nutrition and sports science than the people who are actually paid to do that job.

Let me guess, you're a part time philosopher that moonlights in sports science at the weekend?

You're an absolute whackjob. A funny one, but a whackjob all the same.

Edited by Tartan_McCole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tartan_McCole said:

Your post deserved nothing but laughter. As does this one. So, again.. :lol:

 Imagine thinking you know more about nutrition and sports science than the people who are actually paid to do that job.

Let me guess, you're a part time philosopher that moonlights in sports science at the weekend?

You're an absolute whackjob. A funny one, but a whackjob all the same.

International sports lawyer by night as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

1. Show me where it says that footballers aren't covered by employment law.

2. Look in more detail at the Bosman ruling.  Bosman was playing for RFC Liege in Belgium and when his contract expired he wanted to moved to Dunkerque in France.  Dunkerque refused to pay the transfer fee and Liege refused to release his registration.

The ECJ made two rulings, firstly that players were free to move at the end of their contracts and secondly that EU players were free to move to any other EU country.  That's what led to the end of the three foreigner rule.  Although the ruling only applied to EU nationals, given that the vast majority of players in Europe were covered, it no longer made sense and so it was scrapped altogether.  Individual countries have their own immigration rules when it comes non-EU players.

Nothing at all to do with what big clubs thought or wanted and everything to do with a ruling of the ECJ.

You're technically correct that the law didn't change but what did change was that the existing arrangements were found to be illegal, that's what tends to happen when someone wins a test case.

 

1. Show me where it says that footballers have a right to play football matches, under any umbrella of EU or UK law. 

2. Yeah. I read all about the Bosman case a while back. And in his case he was 100% correct as his club was denying him his right of freedom of movement. It was an airtight case and a watershed moment for the civil and human rights of footballers. (And footballers these days should be on their hands and knees thanking him as well as contributing financially to him, as last i heard he was scraping by on a pittance)

If a three foreigner rule in Scotland what law would it be breaking? Freedom of movement? It wouldn't be impeaching on immigration laws. It wouldn't be denying the person a right to earn a living, etc. He would still be working, as partaking in team tactical meetings and regular training and gym work, would be considered work, as athletes have to stay in tip-top condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...