Cowden Cowboy

Uni of Stirling have a good set up and currently are producing good players. Cowdenbeath FC have had a strong track record of producing talented players over a long period. There is no rule re who is invited into the Viaplay Cup if there is a vacancy - it is up to SPFL who they invite. A precedent has been tentatively suggested by some but if that was the intended system to be adopted and continue (alternating LL/HL second highest non B team) then the rules would presumably have been changed to reflect that

I must have missed that game when the Uni seemingly defeated us in the League at Central Park?!

I didn’t say you said Stirling - you said runner up which was Rangers B if I recall. So logically that is one of the 2 teams you felt merited the place. If you say Cowden were 15th then you are saying Stirling Uni were 4th. If you are suggesting Stirling Uni were 2nd (runner up) then Cowden too must be advanced in the League standings to 12th not 15th on that method of looking at things - if the facts are to be recorded in an unbiased manner!

I don’t think Stirling Uni were runners up in the Lowland League by your methodology given you say Cowdenbeath were 15th - you are saying on that basis a B team should have been a candidate along with Buckie

You mean when we were absolutely open and honest about how we voted each time re B teams as well a clearly setting out our stance re Conference League. So there hasn’t been any wool pulling

Well it would be a no on that evidence

Your usual standards here - the balance isn’t in favour of the SPFL clubs

I am here and never suggested they would do that rather they had chosen to go for a vote. But factual reporting has long since gone by the wayside here. Nuff said

It hasn’t started yet - next week

Yes but presumably there is a player budget set for the manager which he can spend as he wishes or a transfer fee might even be funded by a donor. The separate budget for medical costs then might not stretch to cover a large bill

Previously suggested a reason for that

No I think there is a mob that doesn’t accept (or want to accept) SFA can authorise a new league set up by SPFL which is what the situation would be when they in fact can. The rest of your comments refer to other issues and don’t think our Board thought it was very likely that such a league could be made operational in short order. They have also been open and honest with fans throughout and not afraid to confirm how they vote each time

You couldn’t be more wrong about Cowden - but presume this is you simply stirring the pot.

CFC and its fans are united in opposition to the Conference. No Cowden fan on here has supported the Conference. But I guess facts for a number of folks on here aren’t a strongpoint rather they feel making unsubstantiated claims to be a valid Methodology.

None so blind as those that will not see

Points have already been well covered - not here to answer ah but questions ad infinitum. A new league can be created without SFA members voting.

I thought the view now debunked was that the SFA couldn’t set up a new league?! But seems most were wrong about that - and CFC perfectly well understood the agreement between the leagues.

Where does it say that the board in exercising its agreed powers needs direction and ratification? Not really a real board if it needs to ask can it do something which it is empowered to do and then subsequently has to get it rubber stamped by the members. The board actually are decision makers. Members may not like their decisions but either have to accept them or subsequently seek to gain agreement to reverse said decision which may require seeking to vote out board members

Correct needs HL and LL agreement but easier to press to get that if the club membership of the SFA has voted in favour

And so have many clubs when they can afford it - but finances largely dictate

As far as I can see online Article 60 is about Director disqualication whilst 62 is powers of directors. It states in essence the board can exercise all powers and carry out the objects of the SFA which are not by the articles or by statute expressly required to be done in a general meeting. Thus is there somewhere in articles something that states a new League can only be created by members vote at GM?

So SPFL sets up new conference league via the separate company already established. It then asks SFA to authorise it. The SFA Board does so - thus the League can be created by that means? Not every ‘blazer’ in this process is clueless re such matters. Many clubs have board members with a good deal of football governance and business knowledge and experience. Yes there are conference tricksters at work but there are shades of grey as there always is in complex situations. Expect the unexpected - after all in terms of the law and football authorities Rangers never ceased to be

Probably enjoyed Cowden’s title success

Easy to say when you are getting a championship level of SPFL fees - lower down it becomes more financially difficult

Will leave it to Footballfirst to explain