TheGeneral10

As a club official you are making a rip roaring t£&t of yourself now tbh. Of course it was democratic and to state otherwise shows ignorance and stupidity of the highest order. Never got your way. Dummy spat. Toys out the pram.

You got ur vote so it was democratic. Your club is no worse off and no better off, as is every club. Stop moaning FFS. At least we all know what’s happening now.

At her last briefing she said there would not be any further announcements on the roadmap out of lockdown until the 20th April when she would confirm if the lifting of restrictions planned for the 26th April would go ahead. I do believe that you are a bit of a rascal and what you don’t know, you just make up.

Can you please direct me to a government/ SFA statement that confirms this ‘fact’?

Can you show me where that is stated please?

I’m inclined to agree on the committee shirking their responsibility and hiding from making a decision - but we don’t know the facts and I’m sure there will be a reason, perhaps being pedants and following rules to the letter. Who knows. PPG is an option though so unsure on your point there. All as agreed at the seasons outset. You have a vote same as everyone else so you can cast it accordingly.

Not even a commitment to 26th lifting either of travel between local authority regions so zero knowledge on non contact training g for clubs that have loads travelling from other areas. The update is there is no update. Time for the EoS to take the plunge one way or another. We can’t wait another 3 weeks. Surely!!!

We are on the same page then, so we are both happy. I’m not hiding behind anything though. I’m merely a supporter and personally find your actions underhand and disingenuous. I’d feel the same if the club I watch/ support were benefiting - that’s the truth as it is who I am. There are no accusations, only opinions and all based on my own standards and belief that all member clubs are essentially in the same boat, facing the same challenges and as such there is a respectful way of behaving that should be inclusive. Next time you visit the club, if I’m there I will most certainly introduce myself and perhaps even buy you that free pint you mentioned previously. I guess all I hoped for was a little bit of contrition from you in the cold light of day after some time to reflect. Sadly not.

Currently there are a number of teams able to non contact train with most if not all players in attendance due to geographical location. Others are unable to train as the playing squad made up from players coming from a number of different local authority regions. This restriction not due to open up until 26th April, leaving some teams 4 if not 6 weeks ahead in terms of fitness. How do you factor this into fairness and equality of preparation?

If you wrote that email my friend and your conscience is clear, then your moral compass compared to my own are not even in the same vicinity, and all I will say is I’m glad I’m me. Like you say what will be will be.

I assume you never wrote the email from your club?

And there will be many more with the same view - but there will be equally as many who agree with the previous player. My take would be: Young lads will more happy to play and older players with families and higher pressure jobs will be less happy to play. But after 5+ months in lockdown, players at this level who don’t get paid material amounts of money should not be forced to play. Football league structures at the minute is really not that important and football must be used for nothing other than ensuring mental and physical health. Let’s get the players back after the 17th and let them enjoy just training with teammates again without the pressure and stress of 3 games a week when not fit and ready. Surely that’s the sensible approach?

Did you read the post by a current EoS Player? That’s not going to the feelings of a lone person. End of debate.

Well said. Everything else being debated is insignificant to the points raised here.

Fair enough. What’s done is done. The wording of the email was very poor, and a huge mistake not forwarding to every club. But move on and see what comes from the meeting this week.

Check the press release from the SFA dated 3rd March - that says different

You’ve misinterpreted me there. The date of 22nd May is the Scottish Cup Final at Hampden, and as per the SFA statement, will bring the curtain down on the 2020/ 2021 season. I don’t mean Tier 6 could go back playing - I meant that we could not play beyond that date. Apologies for confusion on that.

If the rearranged fixture v Tranent is extrapolated out then Dunbar have a current PPG of 0.916 and Crossgates have 0.909. Do I want that to happen - absolutely not as no way Crossgates should be penalised by a margin of 0.007 no more than Dunbar should by keeping the Tranent game in. Crossgates would also rightly point to playing 1 less game, and neither club has played each other yet.

If we are indeed part of the Pyramid - and the most used statement for the past few months has been ‘to protect the integrity of the pyramid’ - then as per the SFA’s press release earlier this year when league 1 and 2 were allowed to return - the curtain comes down on the professional Scottish Football Season with the glamour occasion of the Scottish Cup Final’ (22nd May 2021). I honestly don’t think you can reasonably ask players, coaches and club volunteers to prioritise football over family, work, holidays and general physical and mental well-being after what would be 5 months of lockdown for a crazy 6 week period. Personal opinion but I do not think that is a realistic option.

We will just agree to disagree on that one. There are processes in place and Dundonald have not followed due process. Each club can make their own judgment and act accordingly. I would not be surprised if the EoS Board have received/ will receive numerous letters from member clubs raising concerns. Just my opinion. It’s done now though - nobody has a DeLorean - move on to more important issues. Over to the Board to deal with Dundonald (or not) as they see fit.

Your point is fair and well put. However I still can’t agree as the proposing club should contact all other member clubs to inform them of their proposal. That’s the bit that I take issue with (and the statement about forcing an EGM if necessary tbh). I spent some time unofficially supporting the committee a few years ago and know the work that goes in to every club just to keep the doors open and the light on. Won’t be any different at Dundonald - so why not just be up front and contact all clubs? At least you can then hold your head up. It’s left a bitter taste.

They would go down, although there is a separate argument about the double Tranent game (raised earlier in this topic) which if they lose the forced rescheduled fixture from April then I believe Crossgates would go down on PPG. That’s how close it all is. Nevertheless, my issue is with how Dundonald have gone about this, not what they have proposed. If you can honestly tell me that what’s been done is in the sprit of the game and basic sporting integrity then I’d be pleased to hear your argument on that.

I will go back to my previous point here - if not malicious and/ or underhand then why only send the email to certain clubs and at the same time ask if these clubs know of others who would support the proposal? Whatever way you look at it, the content of the email is undeniable - it’s underhand and disrespectful to every club not included in the ‘send list’ and even more disrespectful to the EoS Board and their position. Suggesting they can force an EGM . If that’s not underhand then I don’t know what is tbh.

Absolute bulls?!t. if you wanted the management committee to consider a proposal then you would inform EVERY club of your intentions and go through the appropriate channels. The below paragraph from the email sent hangs your club and the sneaky so and so who sent it. “I need to get the below into the EOSL in next couple of days, however I need as many clubs as possible to back the proposal. If we get 10 then we could if required call an EGM to allow all clubs to vote on it. So if there any other clubs who you think would back our proposal please share below with them and give me there email address so I can copy them into submission.”. The only damage done here is to your club and probably the 4 or 5 other clubs you actually name further down in the body of the text. I wonder if they know your club has named them? You say you will go with the management committee decision, but this decision was made in the summer when the clubs all voted - so why not go with what’s already been decided. I’d suggest your club has shown your true colours and is not to be trusted. Its all a bit shameful really. As the above players said - nail on the head tbh - nobody is considering them and the stress caused to jobs and family by forcing them to go back.