The East Fife Thread

[Its not only a game]

Great gesture but completely to save Hearts.
Suddenly it's 14-10-10-10. The money will come in handy but let's not pretend it's anything other than to save Hearts

Don’t agree. A great gesture from a thoroughly descent man who has helped many others in the past. Good people do exist and he says no strings attached - others have confirmed this- but that’s just my opinion.

I see that Clyde have announced they have lost £162k in the past 2 seasons!- against our small profits those same years.

.Again reminds us the excellent job that our board are doing .

The Clyde Chairman says playing no football next season is a real possibility re the Covid-19 crisis. They are clearly in crisis with or without Covid 19.They have the best CF in the league by some distance and get better crowds than most in the league- what a shambles!

Will be an interesting dilemma if the season is to start but some clubs cant afford it! If enough clubs can from our league and the league below we should still go ahead. The responsible clubs should not suffer from the actions of the irresponsible clubs- so this cant go to a vote!

[Big Fifer]

26 minutes ago, Its not only a game said:

Don’t agree. A great gesture from a thoroughly descent man who has helped many others in the past. Good people do exist and he says no strings attached - others have confirmed this- but that’s just my opinion.

I see that Clyde have announced they have lost £162k in the past 2 seasons!- against our small profits those same years.

.Again reminds us the excellent job that our board are doing .

The Clyde Chairman says playing no football next season is a real possibility re the Covid-19 crisis. They are clearly in crisis with or without Covid 19.They have the best CF in the league by some distance and get better crowds than most in the league- what a shambles!

Will be an interesting dilemma if the season is to start but some clubs cant afford it! If enough clubs can from our league and the league below we should still go ahead. The responsible clubs should not suffer from the actions of the irresponsible clubs- so this cant go to a vote!


 

This annoys me a bit, clubs like Clyde moaning about the "financial catastrophe" of the 14-14-14 set up when in fact they're firing money into the sun in the 12-10-10-10 set up anyway. 

[sirscottyoung]

The spfl need to say for lower league teams.

If you want to play this season put yourselves forward.

If you don't you will start in the bottom league next season.

You would end up with a league 1 of teams wanting to play and a league 2 of teams sitting waiting.

HOWEVER.

If you wait you will get no spfl payments for the season or the very minimum available.

AND.

Should Brora and Kelty wish to play then they can go into the league set up if needed to make up numbers. No team is going to say no to an extra few games that can make up some more much needed income.

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, Its not only a game said:

Will be an interesting dilemma if the season is to start but some clubs cant afford it! If enough clubs can from our league and the league below we should still go ahead. The responsible clubs should not suffer from the actions of the irresponsible clubs- so this cant go to a vote!


 

Exactly. If some clubs can't play next season, they should effectively be put in a mothballed L2 and all clubs that can play, compete in L1.

[The Moonster]

21 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

Exactly. If some clubs can't play next season, they should effectively be put in a mothballed L2 and all clubs that can play, compete in L1.

If you can't afford to play you're relegated and you don't get any payments from the SPFL? Why don't we just save the hassle and liquidate clubs now?

Lets say East Fife, Partick and Falkirk all put teams forward, you just going to pay each other 15 times a season or will you be looking for a promotion like the Falkirk fans?

Amazed to see you guys take this sort of view tbh.

[Big Fifer]

It's absolute madness to be relegating teams based on their financial ability to play fitba. Beyond unethical and is pretty ridiculous in my view. Whilst I understand the premise of letting the teams that can afford to play, play, it's not really fair to suggest that those who can should be moving up leagues For example, I am sure we could "afford" to play in the Premiership if it's the only league that runs (assuming prize money redistribution), that doesn't mean we should be allowed to fire up. Fairly sure any team could "afford" to do that. Assuming that the league reconstruction thing is in the bin, there has to be a discussion about whether League 1 can proceed with everyone involved from October. 

My only issue with the above is that we're going to end up with clubs claiming it isn't financially viable to run when in fact you have clubs themselves that aren't financially viable in the first place. If that Clyde figure is true, it's not exactly fair for other League 1 clubs to be forced not to play because Clyde's business model of firing cash into the oven on players they can't actually afford means they can't play any fitba. That's not to take the moral high ground, we've been guilty in the past of financial idiocy. 

[Gordon EF]

6 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

If you can't afford to play you're relegated and you don't get any payments from the SPFL? Why don't we just save the hassle and liquidate clubs now?

Lets say East Fife, Partick and Falkirk all put teams forward, you just going to pay each other 15 times a season or will you be looking for a promotion like the Falkirk fans?

Amazed to see you guys take this sort of view tbh.

What's the alternative?

Obviously we'll have a much clearer indication of where clubs stand once the SPFL get round to noticing Leagues 1 and 2 exist but there are essentially 3 scenarios:

1. A small number of L1/2 clubs are in favour of playing season 2020/21.

2. Somewhere around half (give or take) are in favour of playing season 2020/21.

3. Only a few of the 20 want to mothball for season 2020/21.

In scenarios 2 and 3, should clubs that can't or choose not to play basically force everyone else into either mothballing or playing a part season of glorified friendlies?

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

What's the alternative?

Obviously we'll have a much clearer indication of where clubs stand once the SPFL get round to noticing Leagues 1 and 2 exist but there are essentially 3 scenarios:

1. A small number of L1/2 clubs are in favour of playing season 2020/21.

2. Somewhere around half (give or take) are in favour of playing season 2020/21.

3. Only a few of the 20 want to mothball for season 2020/21.

In scenarios 2 and 3, should clubs that can't or choose not to play basically force everyone else into either mothballing or playing a part season of glorified friendlies?

Once again, nobody WANTS to mothball. Some clubs have intimated that without funding they don't see how they CAN field a team. These are entirely different scenarios. If you can show me a club choosing not to play when they actually can then I'll agree that they can't expect the league to hang around for them. But if clubs aren't physically able to function without crowds coming through the gate? I'm not sure you can hoist blame on clubs for that and punish them for it.

[Big Fifer]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

Once again, nobody WANTS to mothball. Some clubs have intimated that without funding they don't see how they CAN field a team. These are entirely different scenarios. If you can show me a club choosing not to play when they actually can then I'll agree that they can't expect the league to hang around for them. But if clubs aren't physically able to function without crowds coming through the gate? I'm not sure you can hoist blame on clubs for that and punish them for it.

I think the issue with this though is that, if half the clubs in L1 want to get going, but the other half don't, then decisions made by those that don't may have a financial impact on those that want to play. Is that fair? Especially when those that claim they can't afford to play already clearly can't afford to run their clubs the way they have done (again, assuming those Clyde figures are correct, I haven't actually seen anything verifying them). 

[The Moonster]

12 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

I think the issue with this though is that, if half the clubs in L1 want to get going, but the other half don't, then decisions made by those that don't may have a financial impact on those that want to play. Is that fair? Especially when those that claim they can't afford to play already clearly can't afford to run their clubs the way they have done (again, assuming those Clyde figures are correct, I haven't actually seen anything verifying them). 

Looking at it from the other perspective, playing games behind closed doors will kill my club, so the decisions made by those who are demanding we play will have a huge and possibly fatal affect on my club. Is that fair?

I think it's fairer that the league starts at the same time with all clubs who have merited to be here. The suggestion here is to relegate clubs based on finances. I can't ever get on board with that.

And if we're going down the route of "is your club even sustainable anyway?" then I expect you'll have a few Premiership berths up for grabs too.

[Big Fifer]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

Looking at it from the other perspective, playing games behind closed doors will kill my club, so the decisions made by those who are demanding we play will have a huge and possibly fatal affect on my club. Is that fair?

I think it's fairer that the league starts at the same time with all clubs who have merited to be here. The suggestion here is to relegate clubs based on finances. I can't ever get on board with that.

And if we're going down the route of "is your club even sustainable anyway?" then I expect you'll have a few Premiership berths up for grabs too.

Neither can I, as mentioned above. It's not fair, especially in this situation we've found ourselves in. But if we have East Fife (I have no idea how we would be able to play but Dumbarton can't, one of the clubs would be at it in that scenario IMO) wanting to play and Dumbarton want to mothball, who wins the argument and on what grounds? We've made a decision to sign players, I am guessing Dumbarton have decided not to at the moment. Who decides what club has made the mistake? It's all a bit hypothetical but I am not sure why not playing automatically becomes the default position, and to be fair as you've said elsewhere I haven't actually seen any clubs flat out saying "we're not playing". 

Regardless, as I have said on the other thread, we have to start looking at the most viable alternatives for all, and if the Scottish Government can adapt to the 1m ruling allowing fans into stadiums at a distance then we absolutely have to proceed with the October start plan as the championship have done. That, to me, is the fairest solution. It might mean us and Dumbarton can only get 400 people into the stadium, but I personally think that is better than the alternative of just saying nae fitba till 21/22. 

[Gordon EF]

45 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Once again, nobody WANTS to mothball. Some clubs have intimated that without funding they don't see how they CAN field a team. These are entirely different scenarios. If you can show me a club choosing not to play when they actually can then I'll agree that they can't expect the league to hang around for them. But if clubs aren't physically able to function without crowds coming through the gate? I'm not sure you can hoist blame on clubs for that and punish them for it.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that there are clubs out there who could play next season but just don't want to.

But clearly once we know what next season might look like, there's a possibility that some clubs might see mothballing as the better choice for them and some clubs might not. This is effectively what Clyde have already said. We won't know until some plan for next season materialises though.

So we either decide that we all have to play, none of us play or we come up with some plan that let's those who can play and those who can't mothball. That clearly leads to some potentially complicated scenarios where for example, six L1 clubs decide to play and four L2 clubs decide to play. What do you think should happen in that scenario?

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Big Fifer said:

Neither can I, as mentioned above. It's not fair, especially in this situation we've found ourselves in. But if we have East Fife (I have no idea how we would be able to play but Dumbarton can't, one of the clubs would be at it in that scenario IMO) wanting to play and Dumbarton want to mothball, who wins the argument and on what grounds? We've made a decision to sign players, I am guessing Dumbarton have decided not to at the moment. Who decides what club has made the mistake? It's all a bit hypothetical but I am not sure why not playing automatically becomes the default position, and to be fair as you've said elsewhere I haven't actually seen any clubs flat out saying "we're not playing". 

Regardless, as I have said on the other thread, we have to start looking at the most viable alternatives for all, and if the Scottish Government can adapt to the 1m ruling allowing fans into stadiums at a distance then we absolutely have to proceed with the October start plan as the championship have done. That, to me, is the fairest solution. It might mean us and Dumbarton can only get 400 people into the stadium, but I personally think that is better than the alternative of just saying nae fitba till 21/22. 

My question for East Fife would be - why were you signing up a squad when you had no idea what date games would be played? Can you really sign up a squad then say "we need to play now because we've got players to pay"? As far as I'm aware, the only reason we haven't offered deals is because we don't know when fixtures will be played. For me that seems the more sensible approach.

Agree on your second paragraph, if clubs can get back with a limited capacity to get some money in, coupled with the fundraisers clubs have been doing and the money from James Anderson, then I would imagine most clubs would be able to function again. All depends on crowds being allowed though, and I really do struggle to understand how any part time club can pay players without them.

[The Moonster]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

I don't think anyone's suggesting that there are clubs out there who could play next season but just don't want to.

But clearly once we know what next season might look like, there's a possibility that some clubs might see mothballing as the better choice for them and some clubs might not. This is effectively what Clyde have already said. We won't know until some plan for next season materialises though.

So we either decide that we all have to play, none of us play or we come up with some plan that let's those who can play and those who can't mothball. That clearly leads to some potentially complicated scenarios where for example, six L1 clubs decide to play and four L2 clubs decide to play. What do you think should happen in that scenario?

Your first sentence contradicts the second paragraph. If Clyde can put a team on the park but would rather mothball then that's a choice and it would suggest Clyde don't want to play.

I'm struggling to envisage the scenario where Forfar are unable to field a team and Edinburgh City are tbh. 

[Big Fifer]

13 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

My question for East Fife would be - why were you signing up a squad when you had no idea what date games would be played? Can you really sign up a squad then say "we need to play now because we've got players to pay"? As far as I'm aware, the only reason we haven't offered deals is because we don't know when fixtures will be played. For me that seems the more sensible approach.

Agree on your second paragraph, if clubs can get back with a limited capacity to get some money in, coupled with the fundraisers clubs have been doing and the money from James Anderson, then I would imagine most clubs would be able to function again. All depends on crowds being allowed though, and I really do struggle to understand how any part time club can pay players without them.

Every club will be managing the risk in whatever way they see fit. What's more risky, losing cash if we can't play or potentially having to resign an entire squad in January which might affect our League 1 status? I don't think I am in a position to say what Dumbarton (and many others) are doing is wrong, but likewise other fans to East Fife. We already had a decent chunk of the squad signed up for 20/21 before any of this shitshow started.

[The Moonster]

23 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

Every club will be managing the risk in whatever way they see fit. What's more risky, losing cash if we can't play or potentially having to resign an entire squad in January which might affect our League 1 status? 

I don't understand this tbh. You've signed a squad for a season with no start date, so you've committed to contracts without knowing when you'll have your usual income streams. The only people who seem to be threatening the league status of any club here are the ones touting they should be relegated and have prize money removed if they need to mothball.

Point taken about the players you already had signed up, but you've not hesitated in offering more extensions or signing new players. 

[Big Fifer]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I don't understand this tbh. You've signed a squad for a season with no start date, so you've committed to contracts without knowing when you'll have your usual income streams. The only people who seem to be threatening the league status of any club here are the ones touting they should be relegated and have prize money removed if they need to mothball.

Point taken about the players you already had signed up, but you've not hesitated in offering more extensions or signing new players. 

As far as I am aware, we have only resigned two players during this pandemic and signed one additional player who we had agreed to sign before Covid kicked off. The rest were dealt with before this as well, so it's unfair and slightly dishonest frankly to suggest we've "signed a squad" for whatever kind of season this may be knowing the implications. The board's been fairly clear that they are trying to emulate the Arbroath model of continuity by signing players well in advance of the next season. The whole of the squad will be paid using the furlough scheme until at least October. I would be astonished if we are not able to play some kind of football by October, and in my view it is sensible for EF (and all clubs) to be moving towards this, whether that's furloughing staff you have now or releasing everyone and only signing players in August/September. 

[Gordon EF]

56 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Your first sentence contradicts the second paragraph. If Clyde can put a team on the park but would rather mothball then that's a choice and it would suggest Clyde don't want to play.

I'm struggling to envisage the scenario where Forfar are unable to field a team and Edinburgh City are tbh. 

Well you're framing it as if we're saying clubs can play but just don't fancy it. Clearly clubs can take decisions that would not be their first choice when faced with certain circumstances. Clearly all clubs would like to play if it was possible. Some clubs may feel that the best decision is to mothball though. I'm not sure why that distinction is getting such a bee in your bonnet.

[The Moonster]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

Well you're framing it as if we're saying clubs can play but just don't fancy it. Clearly clubs can take decisions that would not be their first choice when faced with certain circumstances. Clearly all clubs would like to play if it was possible. Some clubs may feel that the best decision is to mothball though. I'm not sure why that distinction is getting such a bee in your bonnet.

I took issue with the word "want". Everyone wants to play, so why chat of relegating them?

If clubs can put a team on the park but choose to mothball then by all means, relegate them as they're refusing to take part when it's possible to do so. The suggestion seems to be that if clubs physically can't afford to play then they should be relegated and have league funding removed.

[Big Fifer]

4 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I took issue with the word "want". Everyone wants to play, so why chat of relegating them?

If clubs can put a team on the park but choose to mothball then by all means, relegate them as they're refusing to take part when it's possible to do so. The suggestion seems to be that if clubs physically can't afford to play then they should be relegated and have league funding removed.

The parameters of "can't play" have to be clear though. If, by October, nobody is allowed crowds, then I will be firmly in your camp that the League 1 and League 2 teams (ourselves included) probably can't play. I just think in our case our board have assessed that it's unlikely that we can't find a solution to this by the autumn, and would hope that clubs won't put barriers up to any solutions that do come forward.