Jump to content

Auchinleck v East Kilbride South cup


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Firepit said:

So seems not so clear as everyone thought .

if they have checked with the cup organisers and parent club then Talbot may have a case here 

Clyde is parent club and he played for clydebank in the cup game. If they asked us then am sure we wouldve told them aye he played for us v pollok in previous round that means hes cup tied but cant imagine clyde knowing wit cup or league games he plays in tbh. 

 

Mon the papers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, passbackdave said:

Clyde is parent club and he played for clydebank in the cup game. If they asked us then am sure we wouldve told them aye he played for us v pollok in previous round that means hes cup tied but cant imagine clyde knowing wit cup or league games he plays in tbh. 

 

Mon the papers

So the parent club don’t keep a record of when their player plays in a cup match ??? Are you being serious here 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, passbackdave said:

Clyde is parent club and he played for clydebank in the cup game. If they asked us then am sure we wouldve told them aye he played for us v pollok in previous round that means hes cup tied but cant imagine clyde knowing wit cup or league games he plays in tbh. 

 

Mon the papers

Did you read the statement from Talbot? They didn't ask Clydebank. They seem to have taken the Competition Organisers at their word. Is not not how Buffs got away with their misdemeanour earier in the season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Firepit said:

So the parent club don’t keep a record of when their player plays in a cup match ??? Are you being serious here 


Why would they? Clyde aren't involved in the South Challenge Cup, it has absolutely no bearing on them whether or not one of their on-loan players plays in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting, although arguably irrelevant point is how EK seemed to know instantly about this after the final whistle? Did they know before and kept schtum until the lost the match or were they told by someone in attendance at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimbaxters said:

Another interesting, although arguably irrelevant point is how EK seemed to know instantly about this after the final whistle? Did they know before and kept schtum until the lost the match or were they told by someone in attendance at this point?

One of their players was also on loan to Clydebank and played in same game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

Another interesting, although arguably irrelevant point is how EK seemed to know instantly about this after the final whistle? Did they know before and kept schtum until the lost the match or were they told by someone in attendance at this point?

It wouldn’t surprise me tbh 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:


Why would they? Clyde aren't involved in the South Challenge Cup, it has absolutely no bearing on them whether or not one of their on-loan players plays in it.

Whether it has an effect or not it would be proper governance to know exactly the status of all players under your employment . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

Another interesting, although arguably irrelevant point is how EK seemed to know instantly about this after the final whistle? Did they know before and kept schtum until the lost the match or were they told by someone in attendance at this point?

Someone on Twitter jumped on it once the teamsheets were out. Wasn't it also being talked about on here before the final whistle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

Did you read the statement from Talbot? They didn't ask Clydebank. They seem to have taken the Competition Organisers at their word. Is not not how Buffs got away with their misdemeanour earier in the season?

It seems similar but not exactly as ours was a sending off suspension and not a player being cup tied. Our Secretary followed the process outlined to all Club Secretaries about checking suspensions with the Sfa. We were advised, after following the correct process, that Kev wasn't suspended.

If they followed the correct process, which I'm not sure of in this case, and someone has misadvised then I'd say it should be overturned. If they haven't followed the process as expected then unfortunately regardless of anything else it's cut and dry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gazmcl said:

It seems similar but not exactly as ours was a sending off suspension and not a player being cup tied. Our Secretary followed the process outlined to all Club Secretaries about checking suspensions with the Sfa. We were advised, after following the correct process, that Kev wasn't suspended.

If they followed the correct process, which I'm not sure of in this case, and someone has misadvised then I'd say it should be overturned. If they haven't followed the process as expected then unfortunately regardless of anything else it's cut and dry. 

Statement says the process has been followed, it came back he could play from the competition Secretary, not sure who else you can officially check with? Seems like they managed to get the other three players right in the exact same process so makes you wonder…

Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...