WoSFL Premier Division thread

[Shannon]

I think you are talking about young Aaron Healy.  Yes we managed to keep him but god knows for how much longer. He destroyed Medda last week. Needs to beef up a bit but he has superb skills.  For the moment he is in the right place but he will move on. 

Looked absolutely superb against Meadow, looks a very good talent.

Just seen Arthurlie deducted 3 points for playing a suspended player v Clydebank in game they lost. Seems awful unfair after Buffs getting away with the same thing! Need consistency when applying rules as it seems like one rule for one team and one for another. Juniors had more consistency [emoji85][emoji85]

[Ginaro]

49 minutes ago, Shannon said:

Just seen Arthurlie deducted 3 points for playing a suspended player v Clydebank in game they lost. Seems awful unfair after Buffs getting away with the same thing! Need consistency when applying rules as it seems like one rule for one team and one for another. Juniors had more consistency

Unless I'm missing something the situations weren't the same - Kilwinning contacted the SFA and were told the ex-SPFL player wasn't suspended (even if they checked the suspensions PDF they might not have noticed as it is now split into separate PDFs for tier 1-5 and 6+), whereas Arthurlie presumably didn't check with the SFA or the suspensions PDF which would've shown their player as being suspended.

And not sure why losing the game should affect whether a club gets a points deduction, otherwise there's basically no punishment.

Ironically the precedence for the Kilwinning decisions seems to have come from Arthurlie last season...

Quote

 

Ayrshire Football News wrote to the governing body and WoSFL on Monday, August 15 – two days after the ruling – to ask for clarity on the matter.

And this week WoSFL general secretary John Dalton responded, confirming that Kilwinning had been incorrectly advised by the SFA that Nicoll could play and, as a result, it was decided that no disciplinary action should be taken against the club.

He said: "Prior to the start of the new season, all club secretaries were invited to a meeting which included a presentation by the Scottish FA disciplinary department that explained the processes clubs should undertake to ensure that their players were eligible to participate in matches.

"Part of this process included an offer from the Scottish FA for clubs to contact their disciplinary department when checking the eligibility of any new signings to ensure that the player didn't have any outstanding suspensions from their time with their previous club.

"In their response to the allegation, Kilwinning Rangers FC provided a copy of an email from the Scottish FA that clearly stipulated that the player in question had no suspensions carried over from his previous club and was therefore eligible to play in the match.

"This evidence was double checked with the Scottish FA who admitted their error in providing incorrect information to the club.

"Therefore, after considering all the evidence available, the discipline secretary determined that although Kilwinning Rangers FC had played an ineligible player in the match, this was through no fault of the club who had undertaken all the correct procedures to check the players availability prior to the game and as they had been incorrectly advised by the Scottish FA, no disciplinary action should be taken against the club."

Mr Dalton went on to say there is a precedence for this outcome as last season the same determination was made following an allegation against Arthurlie FC in similar circumstances.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/west-scotland-league-explain-no-27812442

[Shannon]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/west-scotland-league-explain-no-27812442

Both teams made the same mistake by playing a suspended player. Shouldn't matter if one team apparently sent an email about it to an employee at SFA. Arthurlie basically lose the 3 points they deservedly gained by defeating Meadow while Buffs keep their 3 points for the same offence. It's pretty poor all round and the WOSFL administration needs big improvements to become much more professional as looks from outside to be awful dodgy to say the very least. In the Juniors you had genuine neutral administrators for the most part and doesnt seem that way for the WOSFL board who are all closely linked to various clubs.

[Meadowman]

2 hours ago, Shannon said:

Looked absolutely superb against Meadow, looks a very good talent.

Just seen Arthurlie deducted 3 points for playing a suspended player v Clydebank in game they lost. Seems awful unfair after Buffs getting away with the same thing! Need consistency when applying rules as it seems like one rule for one team and one for another. Juniors had more consistency


 

I’m quite sure if they appeal it,they’ll get the 3 points back,did that not happen with Largs last season?

[wow-wee]

1 hour ago, Shannon said:

Both teams made the same mistake by playing a suspended player. Shouldn't matter if one team apparently sent an email about it to an employee at SFA. Arthurlie basically lose the 3 points they deservedly gained by defeating Meadow while Buffs keep their 3 points for the same offence. It's pretty poor all round and the WOSFL administration needs big improvements to become much more professional as looks from outside to be awful dodgy to say the very least. In the Juniors you had genuine neutral administrators for the most part and doesnt seem that way for the WOSFL board who are all closely linked to various clubs.

 

Surely you can't compare the wosfl with the old junior set up the wosfl is streets ahead of the old cronies that's was running the juniors. You keep blaming the wosfl for the buffs not getting penalised it's the sfa that made the mistake and also made the decision that the buffs done everything by the book. As for saying we got away with it because out ex chairman is the vice president and he used his influence do you have any evidence of this in sure the answer is no. As for the juniors did you forget how that association ended with all the corruption that went on for many years and we will not mention teams of names.

[Black Pennel]

3 hours ago, wow-wee said:

ex chairman is the vice president and he used his influence do you have any evidence of this in sure the answer is no.

3 hours ago, wow-wee said:

did you forget how that association ended with all the corruption that went on for many years.

And your "evidence" for the second bit ?

 

[wow-wee]

37 minutes ago, Black Pennel said:

 

It's all in the old junior forum if you want to search

[Bestsinceslicebread]

6 hours ago, Shannon said:

Both teams made the same mistake by playing a suspended player. Shouldn't matter if one team apparently sent an email about it to an employee at SFA. Arthurlie basically lose the 3 points they deservedly gained by defeating Meadow while Buffs keep their 3 points for the same offence. It's pretty poor all round and the WOSFL administration needs big improvements to become much more professional as looks from outside to be awful dodgy to say the very least. In the Juniors you had genuine neutral administrators for the most part and doesnt seem that way for the WOSFL board who are all closely linked to various clubs.

 

No they never 
Two totally different situations processed differently by two seperate clubs

There was a meeting in June of all the clubs or was it July, I cant remember and at the meeting they stated, as well as many other points, that if you are unsure then contact the SFA regarding player suspensions because they are still working from two lists.

Kilwinning sent an email into the SFA to have clarification on all Kilwinning players, especially as they have signed a high number of players and wanted to be sure.
SFA replied and said all signed players were cleared to play.

As far as I'm aware
Arthurlie, never noticed that their player was suspended and never contacted the SFA for guidance.

 

Two totally different situations

I'm still in tears of laughter at the comment about the juniors.
Here's a thought for you, I aint gonna say the Juniors are deed but they are clinging on for dear life like a hanging shit, try and work out why ?

Edited August 25, 2022 by Bestsinceslicebread

[Andy groundhopper]

Just throwing this one in, am due up to Scotland in January - are there many games that could be rescheduled in the WOSFL etc ? (7th - 15th) Just hoping to fill the week up somehow.

[Satori.]

20 hours ago, Shannon said:

Looked absolutely superb against Meadow, looks a very good talent.

Just seen Arthurlie deducted 3 points for playing a suspended player v Clydebank in game they lost. Seems awful unfair after Buffs getting away with the same thing! Need consistency when applying rules as it seems like one rule for one team and one for another. Juniors had more consistency


 

Just saw on twitter that the guy who grassed Arthurlie up is a committee member for another team from another division.  The tweet also alludes to the fact his team have played suspended players as trialists. How can that be allowed if true ?  The guy in question is normally all over threads like this but is strangely quiet. Hiding under his stupid wee hat I presume.  

 

 

[Shannon]

Just saw on twitter that the guy who grassed Arthurlie up is a committee member for another team from another division.  The tweet also alludes to the fact his team have played suspended players as trialists. How can that be allowed if true ?  The guy in question is normally all over threads like this but is strangely quiet. Hiding under his stupid wee hat I presume.  
 
 

Yeah looks like Glencairn got round it by playing suspended players as trialists going by posts on Twitter from another teams manager! So Kilwinning Rangers and Glencairn with committee members on WOSFL board get away with playing suspended players as both knew how to bend the rules to suit them while other clubs lose 3 points and fined £100.

Seems mental that so many teams playing suspended players and not looking at SFA suspension list before their games. Should all be fined £100 or all lose 3 points not get out clauses for clubs with their committee members on the WOSFL board who play trialists or apparently managed to send an email about it so doesn't count [emoji23]

I think all should be fined £100 and massive emphasis on checking SFA suspension list before every game for every club. That list needs to be up to date and have a competent person at SFA who can quickly clarify any issues with clubs.

[Kennie]

14 hours ago, Andy groundhopper said:

Just throwing this one in, am due up to Scotland in January - are there many games that could be rescheduled in the WOSFL etc ? (7th - 15th) Just hoping to fill the week up somehow.

All Upcoming Fixtures – West of Scotland Football League (wosfl.co.uk)

[paul wright scores]

1 hour ago, Satori. said:

Just saw on twitter that the guy who grassed Arthurlie up is a committee member for another team from another division.  The tweet also alludes to the fact his team have played suspended players as trialists. How can that be allowed if true ?  The guy in question is normally all over threads like this but is strangely quiet. Hiding under his stupid wee hat I presume.  

 

 

That's really disappointing if true, however Arthurlie and the player need to look at themselves, especially the player.   I can't understand why determining the issue of  imminent suspensions are not covered properly as part of the signing-on process for new players.

[Satori.]

1 hour ago, Shannon said:

Yeah looks like Glencairn got round it by playing suspended players as trialists going by posts on Twitter from another teams manager! So Kilwinning Rangers and Glencairn with committee members on WOSFL board get away with playing suspended players as both knew how to bend the rules to suit them while grass other clubs up for playing suspended players. Other teams fined £100 and more importantly lose 3 well earned points.

Seems mental that so many teams playing suspended players and not looking at SFA suspension list before their games. Should all be fined £100 or all lose 3 points not get out clauses for clubs with their committee members on the WOSFL board who play trialists or apparently managed to send an email about it so doesn't count

I think all should be fined £100 and massive emphasis on checking SFA suspension list before every game for every club. That list needs to be up to date and have a competent person at SFA who can quickly clarify any issues with clubs.

 

Great post mate. There should be no getting round anything.  Trialists or not , those players are still suspended.  Arthurlie made a mistake and are paying the price .    If Arthurlie had listed Shields as a trialist would that mean we wouldn't have had this issue. ?     I believe Arthurlie won't appeal and have accepted responsibility for this but is it too much to ask we have a level playing field rather than if you have an official on the board you can get away with offences ?

[Satori.]

54 minutes ago, paul wright scores said:

That's really disappointing if true, however Arthurlie and the player need to look at themselves, especially the player.   I can't understand why determining the issue of  imminent suspensions are not covered properly as part of the signing-on process for new players.

I agree Arthurlie match secretary should have known the player was suspended and so should Shields. My gripe isn't about Kilwinning as by all accounts they did everything by the book.  What's bursting my baws is the Glencairn official, knowing full well his club had manipulated the rules to play suspended players, did the dirty on Arthurlie when it had nothing to do with him or his club.  

[Kennie]

5 hours ago, Satori. said:

Just saw on twitter that the guy who grassed Arthurlie up is a committee member for another team from another division.  The tweet also alludes to the fact his team have played suspended players as trialists. How can that be allowed if true ?  The guy in question is normally all over threads like this but is strangely quiet. Hiding under his stupid wee hat I presume.  

 

 

There is no 'grassing' involved.

The WoSFL have a Discipline Secretary and an Assistant Discipline Secretary.

It is their jobs to check EVERY teamline against the suspension list. It is not done by way of the opponents putting in a 'protest'.

They have split the job into 2 with one doing the Premier, First and Second Division teams with the other doing the Third and Fourth Divisions.

The person you're having a go at does not do Arthurlie's teamlines.

[Satori.]

47 minutes ago, Kennie said:

There is no 'grassing' involved.

The WoSFL have a Discipline Secretary and an Assistant Discipline Secretary.

It is their jobs to check EVERY teamline against the suspension list. It is not done by way of the opponents putting in a 'protest'.

They have split the job into 2 with one doing the Premier, First and Second Division teams with the other doing the Third and Fourth Divisions.

The person you're having a go at does not do Arthurlie's teamlines.

Aye ok I will take your word for it.  You are all stirred with the one stick.  Far too many other people in the know have been saying the same thing . What about the suspended players being able to play as trialists is that wrong too. ?

[john-m-]

1 hour ago, Kennie said:

There is no 'grassing' involved.

The WoSFL have a Discipline Secretary and an Assistant Discipline Secretary.

It is their jobs to check EVERY teamline against the suspension list. It is not done by way of the opponents putting in a 'protest'.

They have split the job into 2 with one doing the Premier, First and Second Division teams with the other doing the Third and Fourth Divisions.

The person you're having a go at does not do Arthurlie's teamlines.

The person mentioned may not have checked the teamlines for Arthurlie but he was straight onto Clydebank to make them aware that a suspended player had played. He never extended this courtesy to Arthurlie, who have accepted responsibility for the oversight but  another Club/league official acting in this manner is what leaves a sour taste and even more so that he has obviously used his position as discipline secretary to bend the rules to suit his own club

[Killiepiyo]

I’ve no dug in the race, mistakes happen and credit to those who hold their hands up and are accountable. What I don’t understand, perhaps it’s my ignorance and apologies if it’s obvious, but how come fans and randoms were posting screen shots of the suspension lists but clubs hadn’t checked them? How long before a suspension appears on the list? 

[Black Pennel]

On 25/08/2022 at 21:58, wow-wee said:

It's all in the old junior forum if you want to search

So, in short, your evidence of long term corruption is entirely based on unsubstantiated statements you found on the internet.

Hardly compelling, given you took issue with the guy for having a go at Colin based on exactly the same thing.