Jump to content

The Informer

Gold Members
  • Posts

    380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Informer

  1. 33 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

    I thought you were just a fan sitting in the house watching streams?  no wonder a lot of clubs and players are unwilling to speak out if that is the reaction they get.

    I’m not sure the posters of P&B are discouraging  people to say stuff. Maybe overestimating the power of this forum 😀

  2. 12 hours ago, Burnieman said:

    Who said they didn't follow protocols? You do realise players can be asymptomatic when playing the game and find out later, but by then have passed it on, on the pitch. That's a weekly risk regardless of protocols and league.


     

    Genuine question, are your team considering stopping playing, or have they approached the league with their concerns?

  3. 2 minutes ago, GordonS said:

    I think the government confused professional with elite, and really don't have the time or staff to draft legislation on the minutiae of every possible activity folk get up to. They've got much bigger fish to fry than this - schools, universities, construction sites, manufacturing, tourism, the NHS and Brexit are probably more distracting than non-league football.

    Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. We shouldn't need the government to outlaw things before making the right decisions.

    It’s not just non league football though is it? So I don’t buy your argument that the government just don’t care or don’t have the time to look at it. I would imagine that there is a fair bit of dialogue between the government and the SFA over this.

  4. Just now, jimbaxters said:

     

    Missing the point though. It shouldn't be a government decision, it should be common sense. There is very little at stake in this league.

    If the Government deemed this to be a contributing factor to the outbreak, they would have no hesitation in stopping it. I get your point re the stakes, so maybe at this level, then it should be looked at.

  5. Given the government’s stance so far on this virus, then surely if they thought playing football was an exceptional risk then they would stop it? They are obviously looking at the evidence and listening to actual experts, not Monday morning quarterbacks. If they had any doubt then they would stop it.

  6. 2 hours ago, santheman said:

    I’m fine with a couple of thousand players and officials gallivanting all over the country not knowing if they’re infected or not.

    As long as they don’t come near me.

    When these “thousands” gallivant all over the country, what do you think they do? As far as I am aware they go to the opposition ground, play the game, back in their mode of transport and go home. They don’t go to the local town and mix and hang about with the locals. 

  7. 11 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

    Well said, to many pretend teams hiring parks and decrying teams who have developed their infrastructure over years through hard work.
     

    Interesting, what is a “pretend team”? Are you insinuating that Shire fall in that category? 

  8. 2 hours ago, 19052012 said:

    Hearing today that WW had an appeal they submitted to the SFA after the Scottish cup game on Saturday v Hill of Beath chucked out which if true is absolutely incredible.

    apparently hill of beath fielded an ineligible player in the the starting 11 (Daniel watt was the name I heard) apparently this boy was serving a suspension but started.

    the SFA seem to make up the rules as they go along, last season WW were thrown out a cup competition for fielding an ineligible player and also banned from this season’s competition I believe.

    pretty sure there have been other cases of teams been thrown out of the Scottish for fielding ineligible players, Spartans and e.Stirling.  

    nothing surprises me with the sfa though, fucking incompetent from top to bottom. Don’t even think they can appeal.

    If that is the boys name then he was only suspended from the clubs next league match, according to the suspension list that is anyway.

  9. 2 hours ago, archieb said:

    I'm pretty sure there's a limit to the number of times dev squad players can appear for the first team

    It’s the other way about, only a certain amount of times a first team overage player can play for dev team.

  10. Just now, Arthurlie1981 said:

     


    I am not sure they are. If the team is still going to play in the SJC then they are not in breach. In fact an argument could be made that by playing friendlies and training they have already met the terms of the contract. You would need a legal decision to come to a final conclusion and with the back log in the courts and the costs associated would anyone be willing to do it.

    Personally I believe clubs should release players and allow them to play if that’s what they wish but that would be up to the club and the player to come to an agreement.

     

    It would go to a SFA tribunal to decide first mate, I wouldn’t imagine it would need to get as far as the law courts.

  11. Final word on this, as I don’t want to ruin Archie’s dinner.

    Clubs will sign a player during close season, as soon they register that contract with the SFA, and he appears in the system as your player, it becomes active. It’s irrelevant if you have a clause in saying that you will not pay them until the season starts. By the letter of the law you should be paying him from the first day of the contract. I realise this is not the done deal in lower level football, however it is the correct legal procedure.
     

    would you sign an employment contract at work with the conditions mentioned by Archie?

  12. 1 minute ago, archieb said:

    So how do you and the misinformer think the clubs that HAVE decided to start playing with NO fans and NO gate income are going to pay their players from now till April or whatever?

    That’s up those clubs Archie my man.

  13. 1 minute ago, LongTimeLurker said:

    Wouldn't be 100% confident on the rights and wrongs of what The Informer (formerly East Stirling but now Darvel by the looks of things) is saying without seeing the actual wording, but having a contract with a start date in August or whatever and not playing competitively and hence making payments until April or whatever will be a difficult thing to hold players to even if the legality of it is OK, if they want to walk and start to kick up a fuss over it. Everybody else at tier 6 could easily be playing with spectators again by the turn of the year. Time to collect some popcorn and sit back and watch what unfolds, basically.

    Just a glory hunter mate, still have a soft spot for the Shire, but I think Darvel have a better chance of winning things. 😂😂

     

×
×
  • Create New...