The New Raith Rovers Thread

[The Moonster]

3 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Dumbarton signed a keeper, Jamie Barclay, on a month long deal earlier in the season

Pretty sure the transfer window was still open at that point, was it not?

[Nowhereman]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

Pretty sure the transfer window was still open at that point, was it not?

It was but it had been mentioned earlier that any contract had to be until next transfer window. Barclays clearly wasn't

[Homer Thompson]

10 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

It was but it had been mentioned earlier that any contract had to be until next transfer window. Barclays clearly wasn't

Barclay signed in the middle of July until the middle of August, so his contract ended before the window shut again. 

[HibeeJibee]

Basically it seems Raith didn't know the rules; didn't want to sign someone in their teens/early 20s (or use their own youth 'keepers?); and didn't want to pay someone for 3 months.

If you paint yourself into a corner that much, it's your own fault when you have to play an outfielder, tbh.


It's not been mentioned in the press reports but could a trialist also have been deployed?

[The Moonster]

15 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

It was but it had been mentioned earlier that any contract had to be until next transfer window. Barclays clearly wasn't

As Mr X says, the issue being argued by Raith is that because it was outside the window they thought they had to sign someone until the next window. It's irrelevant really now as they've been shown up but the two situations weren't the same.

[Frank conner]

7 hours ago, Rovers1992/1993 said:

The boy just wants to play football, he wasn't getting it here, so he's on loan, he's helping a team achieve its status in this league and playing a pivotal role for them..

Surely, you'd want him to continue to achieve this so his confidence is high for whatever league we're in next season? If we're in League One, he could be an extremely valuable player for us next year, we bring him back then that's the end of Lewis Vaughan at the Rovers.

Of course i understand  he wants to play  but our status in this league  is far more important than one player so why give a rival team any help?

[The Moonster]

4 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Basically it seems Raith didn't know the rules; didn't want to sign someone in their teens/early 20s (or use their own youth 'keepers?); and didn't want to pay someone for 3 months.

If you paint yourself into a corner that much, it's your own fault when you have to play an outfielder, tbh.


It's not been mentioned in the press reports but could a trialist also have been deployed?

Can't use trialists in the Championship.

[HibeeJibee]

Cheers, I was thinking it was something like that, always used to be SPL you couldn't and SFL you could.

[Jan Vojáček]

Of course i understand  he wants to play  but our status in this league  is far more important than one player so why give a rival team any help?

If Vaughan was to somehow be forced back to Raith I highly doubt he'd ever play for you lot again. Given that he's easily got the potential to be a standout player at this level, and has a year remaining on his deal, I'd suggest that would be an extremely short sighted and ill thought out idea.

Also bring in the fact that football is a small industry and players all talk. Bringing a player back who asked to go out on loan for regular football only to sit him in the stand is about as bad as it gets. He's really enjoying his spell with us apparently, recalling him would be a horrific piece of man management.

Gary Locke made your bed by preferring a 30 something year old Rudi Skacel to Vaughan. If you go down it'll be because of things like that, not because Vaughan plays for us.

[Rovers_Lad]

At the end of the day Stevenson playing in goals didn,t cost us the game( it was  not taking our chances)but the fact he had to play in goals cost us another outfield player/ striker

[itzdrk]

37 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Basically it seems Raith didn't know the rules; didn't want to sign someone in their teens/early 20s (or use their own youth 'keepers?); and didn't want to pay someone for 3 months.

If you paint yourself into a corner that much, it's your own fault when you have to play an outfielder, tbh.


It's not been mentioned in the press reports but could a trialist also have been deployed?

As well as trialists no being allowed, they wont have youth keepers either afaik as they are part of the Fife Academy so only their u20s will be their youths.  Of which they don't have a keeper for. 

Gary Locke 

[Skyline Drifter]

27 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Basically it seems Raith didn't know the rules; didn't want to sign someone in their teens/early 20s (or use their own youth 'keepers?);

They don't have any youth keepers. Raith are part of the Fife Football Academy so don't have an u17 squad. Their u20 keeper is an Australian signed as an amateur after he turned 18 last month, after the window closed, and therefore ineligible to play first team football until after the summer window opens.

49 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Dumbarton signed a keeper, Jamie Barclay, on a month long deal earlier in the season

 

45 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Pretty sure the transfer window was still open at that point, was it not?

 

42 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

It was but it had been mentioned earlier that any contract had to be until next transfer window. Barclays clearly wasn't

 

31 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Barclay signed in the middle of July until the middle of August, so his contract ended before the window shut again. 

As far as I know, unless they asked for some sort of special dispensation, and were granted it (and Eric Drysdale's interview says it's never happened in the existence of the SPFL) then they can't have signed Barclay for a month. Rule 30 of the SPFL Player Regulations says:

30. All Contracts of Service between Clubs and Professional Players must be for a term of:-
(i) except in the case of Players who are the subject of an Emergency Loan, not less than the period until the next first day of a Registration Period; and
(ii) not more than five years and the unexpired portion, if any, of any Season during which such contract was entered into.

It's far more likely Dumbarton signed Barclay to January in the first instance and agreed a mutual cancellation later.

[itzdrk]

The fact that Raith still haven't signed a keeper doesn't help their argument one bit. 

[Nowhereman]

13 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

They don't have any youth keepers. Raith are part of the Fife Football Academy so don't have an u17 squad. Their u20 keeper is an Australian signed as an amateur after he turned 18 last month, after the window closed, and therefore ineligible to play first team football until after the summer window opens.

 

 

 

As far as I know, unless they asked for some sort of special dispensation, and were granted it (and Eric Drysdale's interview says it's never happened in the existence of the SPFL) then they can't have signed Barclay for a month. Rule 30 of the SPFL Player Regulations says:

30. All Contracts of Service between Clubs and Professional Players must be for a term of:-
(i) except in the case of Players who are the subject of an Emergency Loan, not less than the period until the next first day of a Registration Period; and
(ii) not more than five years and the unexpired portion, if any, of any Season during which such contract was entered into.

It's far more likely Dumbarton signed Barclay to January in the first instance and agreed a mutual cancellation later.

It was announced as a month long deal at the time

 

http://www.dumbartonfootballclub.com/news/?mode=view&id=2554

[The Moonster]

13 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

They don't have any youth keepers. Raith are part of the Fife Football Academy so don't have an u17 squad. Their u20 keeper is an Australian signed as an amateur after he turned 18 last month, after the window closed, and therefore ineligible to play first team football until after the summer window opens.

 

 

 

As far as I know, unless they asked for some sort of special dispensation, and were granted it (and Eric Drysdale's interview says it's never happened in the existence of the SPFL) then they can't have signed Barclay for a month. Rule 30 of the SPFL Player Regulations says:

30. All Contracts of Service between Clubs and Professional Players must be for a term of:-
(i) except in the case of Players who are the subject of an Emergency Loan, not less than the period until the next first day of a Registration Period; and
(ii) not more than five years and the unexpired portion, if any, of any Season during which such contract was entered into.

It's far more likely Dumbarton signed Barclay to January in the first instance and agreed a mutual cancellation later.

https://www.dumbartonfootballclub.com/news/?mode=view&id=2554

We reported the signing on our OS as a month long deal, not sure of the full details of the deal though.

[Raithie]

I honestly thought things couldn't get more mental this season after punting Vaughan to a team in the same league then this keeper scenario came up. Now that the club knows the situation I'm encouraged by the fact, going by that FFP article, that we'll be actively seeking out a replacement keeper with Brennan and Cuthbert being injured. Fair play to Stevenson for playing in goals, it seems he played not to badly.

As for Vaughan, recalling him to have him sit in the stands could/would be disastrous to the mutually good relationship Vaughan and the club have. He signed a new deal with us, even during a period where it's been said he didn't get on with Locke, which is testament to his character and loyalty to us at present. It's a pity it went down the route of Locke punting him out on loan as I've no doubt he'd be getting first team games with us with Hughes now in charge. 

We're in a bad way at the moment and next Wednesday's game is huge. Possibly make or break as the run in towards the end of the season is tough. If we're toiling now I really can't see us picking up much from the 1st April onwards. 

Ah the joys of being a Rovers fan.

 

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

It was announced as a month long deal at the time

 

http://www.dumbartonfootballclub.com/news/?mode=view&id=2554

I know it was but it's perfectly possible the parties agreed in advance to cancel it after a month. Is he an amateur? If not, and there wasn't some sort of exemption granted by the SPFL Board, then the rules are fairly clear that a professional player can't sign a month long deal in July. It would need to run to January 1st.

[Jan Vojáček]

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I know it was but it's perfectly possible the parties agreed in advance to cancel it after a month. Is he an amateur? If not, and there wasn't some sort of exemption granted by the SPFL Board, then the rules are fairly clear that a professional player can't sign a month long deal in July. It would need to run to January 1st.

I don't think he was signed as an amateur. Could the fact we only had 1 fit goalkeeper and no U20s squad be the reason for special dispensation being given in this case perhaps? 

[Homer Thompson]

37 minutes ago, Sonsteam of 08 said:

I don't think he was signed as an amateur. Could the fact we only had 1 fit goalkeeper and no U20s squad be the reason for special dispensation being given in this case perhaps? 

If special dispensation were given, though - and Ive no idea obviously if it was or wasnt - then that would mean Dryesdale was wrong, as hes quoted as saying its "never been used before"

[RR #1]

1 minute ago, Mr X said:

If special dispensation were given, though - and Ive no idea obviously if it was or wasnt - then that would mean Dryesdale was wrong, as hes quoted as saying its "never been used before"

Wrong again! What a surprise.