Cowden Cowboy

Bit harsh on Colin Cameron

Why? Are Kelty Hearts going to turn senior and join the Fife FA?

Hemmings is all about pace and power and is a great clean striker of a shot. He isn't a target man or great at link up play. Effective in a counter attacking approach not so good when up against a massed defence getting behind the ball. That's why he didn't do anything at Rangers with their pedestrian passing game against teams getting players back behind the ball. Barnsley - he was injured at start of season and never got established as they had a lot of competition for striking role, Good counterpoint to Greg Stewart.

Dunfermline are the other finalists

Final for 2014/15 expected to take place this month Draw for 2015/16 - Prelim Rd - Burntisland Shipyard v Raith Rovers Semi Finals - Burntisland Shipyard or Raith Rovers v Dunfermline & Cowdenbeath v East Fife

Bit harsh wanting to punish Alloa as Neil Rankine has never been involved there!

Isn't this an SFA hearing - it would be the SPFL not the SFA who could dock points surely?

No 1) He's still under contract to Cowden until after the play offs. 2) It's after the transfer deadline so you can't sign any players to play in play offs.

Who is the us with this made up mandate?

But if court says Nixon is due his money why wouldn't the other wealthy directors in extremis fund the repayment? Surely that is the lesser of two evils given how much they have invested in the club and the disaster that another administration would be for Livvy and potentially for them as existing investors

The moral high ground didn't last for long then!

So is it the intention to use Rangers cup money windfall to accelerate repayment of football debts?

The following is the latest message from Cowdenbeath with Dunfermline fans to use the Chapel Street turnstiles. Administration of Dunfermline Athletic FC The club will rank as an unsecured creditor in the administration of Dunfermline Athletic FC for the sum of £4121. The administrator Bryan Jackson of BDO has now asked us to submit our claim. We are pleased to report that Dunfermline fans have sent in funds of around £600 to our club in order to help their club honour this debt. One fan indeed sent us a cheque for £500. Cowdenbeath FC much appreciates the actions of these Pars fans. In addition, with the assistance of our good friends at Dunfermline Jim Leishman and Kenny Arnott, if all goes to plan we will host some Pars fans at the match v Livingston with any gate money received via this initiative going towards meeting the outstanding debt. Jim and Kenny have both provided help to Cowdenbeath in the past. To be clear, the process is that Cowdenbeath FC will rank for the full sum due to the Administrator. The monies raised via these other avenues will be set off as security pro tem pending resolution of the claim. We anticipate that we will then only receive so many pence in the pound towards the outstanding debt due to CFC from the Administration process. Once that has concluded, we can apply these other funds to defray at least some of the loss. In a case where we actually were fully paid via the Administrator or ended up with more funds in total (unlikely as it may be) than are due to us then we would make arrangements to repay the Dunfermline supporters by some suitable means. Dunfermline fans should enter via the Chapel Street turnstiles so they can be separately accounted for. We of course are also due at East End Park shortly for what is Fife’s oldest derby fixture. Let’s see a strong Cowden support. Doubtless there will be a bit of banter but we have been fast friends and deadly rivals now for 128 years. Fans may sometimes sing that they hate the Pars but hey that’s just fitba. Fifers, especially those of us from mining stock here in Cowdenbeath, set great store in neeborliness.

I expect they will just hand the buckets of cash over to the visitors on those days!

Why not keep the heid and let the negotiations play out? Panicking, speculating what every utterance means, jumping to conclusions and expecting transparency in the middle of complex negotiations gets you nothing but high blood pressure.

As I said before it's a high stakes poker game - not for the fainthearted and not something where you show your hand on a website/twitter or such for all the world to see during the game.

Can I just make clear that the rules of the SFL effectively are that monies for tickets sold by the away club have to be paid over to the home club within 10 days of the game being played. If said game though is postponed then 80% of the monies for tickets sold by the away club have to be paid over to the home club within 10 days of the original scheduled date for the fixture. 20% is retained by away club to cover requests for refunds and this is then paid over to the home club within 10 days of the fixture being played (once rearranged). If any of the monies are not paid over within said timescale/s then the home club must immediately inform the SFL or it itself has breached SFL rules.

plus what bonuses?

It's daft to think a workable agreement can be knocked out in a few hours. It will take time to reach a deal and cover off all the bases in real detail. Cool heads are needed in this sort of situation and panicking about every single deadline or issue makes no sense. Real thought, care and patience is required in a negotiation like this in order to arrive at a clear understanding and workable way forward. To date the DAFC.net crowd were playing poker and bluffing to make TPC go all in. Act in haste repent at leisure though. TPC called the bluff and now they remain in the game and need to continue to play their own hand skilfully.

Eh because an SFL TV deal has no bearing on the contractual obligations of the SPL as regards the £2m. There is a contract between SPL and SFL which SPL is bound to honour. Underlying that contract settlement was an agreement SPL has the right then to sell its own TV rights and the SFL has always had the rights to sell its games to TV - nothing has changed other than Rangers are now in the SFL so the SPL has no TV rights re Rangers - indeed if I recall correctly the SPL clubs agreed that Rangers should no longer be an SPL club. So either SFL clubs receive the £2m (unless the trigger point for payments is not met) and derive the full benefit of Rangers TV rights themselves or the compromise is they receive the £2m and a suitably negotiated further payment acceptable to the SFL for transferring Rangers/SFL tv rights to the SPL which I would expect would be guaranteed for a minimum of 3 years. That's fair and has integrity - which is a key driver for SPL clubs I believe.

Is that affixed or fixed you are implying!

No idea - Sir George Graham in 1957 was Depute Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland so that sounds quite high up to me. Maybe though he just made the tea! Beyond that I haven't a clue. As for today, I am sure many clubs have board members who are freemasons - and that doesn't signify anything of note to me.

As for Ross County isn't it popular with the wee frees?! Is that where your confusion comes from?

ei Handy thing this internet - The denomination with the longest history of objection to Freemasonry is the Roman Catholic Church. The objections raised by the Roman Catholic Church are based on the allegation that Masonry teaches a naturalistic deistic religion which is in conflict with Church doctrine. In 1983, the Church issued a new Code of Canon Law which caused both Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II. However, the matter was clarified when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which states: "... the Churchs negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." Thus, from a Catholic perspective, there is still a ban on Catholics joining Masonic Lodges. For its part, Freemasonry has never objected to Catholics joining. In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections to freemasonry are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even Satanism Rangers traditionally have had many directors who were pretty high up in Masonic circles. SFA secretary Sir George Graham also had an elevated position in the masons and so was percieved to be pro-Rangers during his time in charge of the SFA up until the late 1950s.

Well I'm not an expert or a mason but aren't freemasons and masons one and the same. I don't think the masons exclude catholics rather it is the catholic church that believes masonry has a religious orientation that conflicts with catholicism?