Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EdTheDuck

Buckie v Strathspey 22/4/17

Recommended Posts

Buckie got their draw ar Formartine today (0-0) so a win next week will win the title unless Cove beat Lossiemouth by 10 more goals than them.

Strathspey Thistle have lost 28 of 33 so far and conceded 110 goals so it's almost guaranteed they will spoil the partynext Saturday, eh?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love for Buckie to come up (especially given it looks likely we won't be going up ourselves) but them chucking the league now would be really hilarious.

Edited by afca32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckie have form in this, don't they? Fielded an ineligible player in 2015 vs Fraserburgh and benefited from East Stirling being punted from the cup for playing an ineligible player v Buckie.

Hope it's Cove tbh

Or Brora

Either of them would be funny

Or Buckie - but not until after Saturday when win the title on goal difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckie would be the best option.

Brora is little more than a village with a team recently falsely inflated due to corporate investment (see also Formartine). Cove are a suburban mob, who don't have a huge support either.  Both have hideous surnames, which in Cove's case reduces Dons fans chances of popping along now and again to a see a second league club from the city.

Buckie would have some semblance of a support from the town and the several continuous fishing villages in both directions outside of it - albeit their problem is their ugly green and white hooped strip.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the ineligible player story was correct. Buckie had someone on the bench that they shouldn't have - big decision to be made here based on the interpretation of the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Muzza81 said:

Looks like the ineligible player story was correct. Buckie had someone on the bench that they shouldn't have - big decision to be made here based on the interpretation of the rules.

If they have broken the rules there are considerable mitigating factors. The player was taken back from a loan deal so was already registered at Buckie. The Club Secretary checked with both the SFA and the HL whether it was ok to take the player back, and both said it was. The mistake might have been that although it was ok to take him back it wasn't ok to field him this season as there was a 31st March deadline that outlaws that. Presumably the HL and SFA secretaries didn't make that clear. Also, the player stayed on the bench so gave Buckie no unfair competitive advantage. Finally, it would pretty well gift the Championship to these grassing tramps Cove who have broken every normal rule in the book the last couple of years and got away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want Cove to win the league, especially not like this, but if the rules have been broken the punishment is there and has to be applied.

Mind you I remember Cowden getting knocked out of the Scottish Cup by QotS featuring cup-tied Jamie Adams (who scored and set one up that). Queens were rewarded a home tie to Hibs with extended TV highlights. We received a pathetic compensation figure. Football isn't always fair...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the statement on their website it looks like Buckie have a strong case but, of course, that is their side of the story. If they are found to have an illegible player then I see 3 stages ....

1. Does the Highland League have a specifically stated punishment for the offence?

2. If not, is there a precedent and what was the punishment?

3. If no specific punishment or precedent what is a reasonable punishment?

The Buckie position is that the player was recalled from loan rather than signed, he didn't actually play in the game and they have 'approval' from a league representative. If this is confirmed to be correct then I'll take a punt and say I don't see any action being taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your numbered points the HL rulebook specifies as mandatory a fixed 3pt deduction and a variable fine (up to £500) and forbids any authority from amending or waiving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they have broken the rules there are considerable mitigating factors. The player was taken back from a loan deal so was already registered at Buckie. The Club Secretary checked with both the SFA and the HL whether it was ok to take the player back, and both said it was. The mistake might have been that although it was ok to take him back it wasn't ok to field him this season as there was a 31st March deadline that outlaws that. Presumably the HL and SFA secretaries didn't make that clear. Also, the player stayed on the bench so gave Buckie no unfair competitive advantage. Finally, it would pretty well gift the Championship to these grassing tramps Cove who have broken every normal rule in the book the last couple of years and got away with it.

Buckie can't escape 3 point deduction. It's in the rules. Can you imagine the precedent it would set if they emerged unpunished. If they keep the League, they've cheated im afraid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Back Beach said:
18 hours ago, welshbairn said:
If they have broken the rules there are considerable mitigating factors. The player was taken back from a loan deal so was already registered at Buckie. The Club Secretary checked with both the SFA and the HL whether it was ok to take the player back, and both said it was. The mistake might have been that although it was ok to take him back it wasn't ok to field him this season as there was a 31st March deadline that outlaws that. Presumably the HL and SFA secretaries didn't make that clear. Also, the player stayed on the bench so gave Buckie no unfair competitive advantage. Finally, it would pretty well gift the Championship to these grassing tramps Cove who have broken every normal rule in the book the last couple of years and got away with it.


Buckie can't escape 3 point deduction. It's in the rules. Can you imagine the precedent it would set if they emerged unpunished. If they keep the League, they've cheated im afraid

Yes, having looked at the HFL rules last night this does seem clear so the sanction of 3 point deduction should apply if Buckie are deemed guilty. Whether they are deemed guilty or not depends upon the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

To answer your numbered points the HL rulebook specifies as mandatory a fixed 3pt deduction and a variable fine (up to £500) and forbids any authority from amending or waiving it.

Yes, this is correct as per Rule 8.9.8 of the rules accessible on the HFL website, assuming this to be a correct and current version. Interestingly, 8.9.8 makes reference to breach of rules 8.8.1 to 8.8.6 which don't actually exist with the rules! I suspect it should read 8.9.1 to 8.9.6 - possibly a field day for a pedantic lawyer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Northboy said:

Yes, having looked at the HFL rules last night this does seem clear so the sanction of 3 point deduction should apply if Buckie are deemed guilty. Whether they are deemed guilty or not depends upon the circumstances.

Did you find anything in the rules specifically referring to loan players returning to their registered clubs after the March 31st deadline? If not there may be some wriggle room to avoid the 3 point sanction, particularly as it seems Buckie did all they could reasonably be expected to do to check they were acting within the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, welshbairn said:
29 minutes ago, Northboy said:

Yes, having looked at the HFL rules last night this does seem clear so the sanction of 3 point deduction should apply if Buckie are deemed guilty. Whether they are deemed guilty or not depends upon the circumstances.

Did you find anything in the rules specifically referring to loan players returning to their registered clubs after the March 31st deadline? If not there may be some wriggle room to avoid the 3 point sanction, particularly as it seems Buckie did all they could reasonably be expected to do to check they were acting within the rules.

No, the rules aren't that detailed. As I read it the key paragraph in the rules is 8.9.6 which states ....

"Any player registered with a Scottish Professional Football League or a Scottish Highland Football League Club whose registration is cancelled with the Scottish F A or who is subject of a transfer between any combination of the aforementioned Clubs on or after 31st March cannot play for any other Club during the current season. Additionally, any player who is registered by a national association out with Scotland and who is the subject of an International clearance application submitted on or after 31st March cannot be played in League competitions in the current season."

It is interesting that this specifically states 'cannot play' so if the player were deemed ineligible then this would be another argument that Buckie could apply as the player was only on the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Muzza81 said:

I wouldn't want Cove to win the league, especially not like this, but if the rules have been broken the punishment is there and has to be applied.

Mind you I remember Cowden getting knocked out of the Scottish Cup by QotS featuring cup-tied Jamie Adams (who scored and set one up that). Queens were rewarded a home tie to Hibs with extended TV highlights. We received a pathetic compensation figure. Football isn't always fair...

To be fair, they didn't notice that Adams was ineligble until three months later, by which point Queens had already played and lost in the following round (QF), and then the SF had also been played.  There was no real alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

To be fair, they didn't notice that Adams was ineligble until three months later, by which point Queens had already played and lost in the following round (QF), and then the SF had also been played.  There was no real alternative.

Absolutely, however Queens made a tidy profit out of the situation. A fine of circa £20k I think. No idea what compensation we received but it would have been f*ck all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "any other club" a get-out clause?  What are the rules....does a player remain registered with the club that effectively has his contract (is this case, Buckie)?

Might come down to whether one of the other clubs in the title race has someone high up in the SFA........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex McRae for instance?

"Who's that? Oh Buckie...I see, on loan was he....aye....31st of March....Aye well dinae bother yourselves, put the lad on. Cheers, nae bother." "Ya fucking beauty, get Cove on the line."

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...