Jump to content

snowball

Gold Members
  • Posts

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by snowball

  1. 1 hour ago, Robert James said:

     

    I can confirm that there are nine new applications to join the EoSL.

    As stated above by patriot1,  Eyemouth (who retained their EoSL membership, whilst not playing in 2019/20), also intend to return in 2020/21, which technically makes ten extra clubs for 2020/21.  

    But do we know if Craigroyston are folding...... or not ?

    Hopefully not but current situation may change things

  2. 32 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

     

    Was it against Preston the Arniston offence occurred?

     

    On the league website its listed as being against Hawick RAU, a game which Hawick won. The other deduction isn't listed by date.

     

    And for Hill of Beath they were awarded 2 points because the original game with Sauchie was a draw.

     

    Don't think they have protested, I think the rule is the offending club loses 3 pts regardless, the opponent can't get more than the 3 points available from the game, so if they have already won they get no more. If a draw they get 2 etc.

     

    Sorry, Preston game they played a player without international clearance

  3. 19 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

    I think that's just the SFA disciplinary outcome, they dont run the league or its own internal processing of disciplinary breaches.

    Given the player was ineligible, started the game, scored in it and the punishment for other clubs for playing an ineligible player in EoS has consistently been a points deduction that will likely come at some point in due course.

    Arniston themselves suffered that fate this season for two games, as did Sauchie in the Premier.

    Going by those it looks like +3 to Arniston -3 to Kinnoull would be the standard outcome.

    Dont know if Arniston would get points. They had points deducted but Preston weren't given them.

    H.O.B may have protested v Sauchie to get points awarded to them

  4. 15 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

    Tbf when you're struggling for a team cup-ties are very difficult as you can't use triallists (whether borrowed from other clubs or free agents).

    Craigie scratched from the EOS Qualifying Cup in August back when their troubles began.

    That is the reason for withdrawal. Couldn't guarantee having team especially for midweek game

  5. 38 minutes ago, StraightOuttaEOS said:

    Told they had 13 or 14 new additions playing. Hope new temp manager builds on what was a good start for them. 

    Battled hard for each other and didn't let heads go down after equaliser unlike previous weeks.

    No game this week so friendly arranged with Edinburgh Harps and chance to.get more in

  6. 6 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

    Well if we imagine for a second that Spartans spent say £25k upgrading the back pitch to EoS standards, presumably Craigroyston would still have to hire it and Spartans would be obliged, given it's a Council owned facility, not to significantly undercut other Council facilities, they'll also look for a reasonable fee in order to recover costs. So I'm not seeing how Craigroyston would come out of it significantly better than remaining where they are.

    Sadly there's no easy answer to their predicament beyond a benefactor/sponsor pumping money in to cover running costs whilst they try and find a way to become self sustaining.

    I wish them well in finding that someone.

    Just need my balls (lottery that is) to drop and i'll do it

  7. 28 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

    Craigroyston aside, on the pay/expenses front, the EoS league isn't an amateur one. Any club who has any interest in progressing in it can't be asking players to pay subs themselves and I doubt there are (m)any who do.

    There doesn't need to be a culture shift in EoS, there's already amateur league's where teams who want to follow that operating model can ply their trade.

    I think what your are talking about is more clubs playing at an appropriate level for the resources that they have available to them.

    Back to Craigroyston, those do seem to be extraordinary running costs and I hope they can get something sorted out one way or another, good guys that run the club from our experience earlier in the season.

    Costs include monthly lease of park etc, maintenance of machinery. Also had 2 lots of vandalism to repair and pay for which you cant budget for

  8. 18 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

    I suppose Craigroyston are in the difficult position of being in a big city, representing no identifiable area of it, and little if any support whilst at the same time having to deal with increasing costs, and sadly vandalism.  Perhaps a move into the Amateur leagues would be an option, it's a great surface at St.Marks.

    You have summed up our problem exactly. Difficult to attract sponsors especially new ones. No mentionable support so little income costs increasing and our local vandals.

    Hopefully something can be done to help us survive

×
×
  • Create New...