Skyline Drifter Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 55 minutes ago, The Moonster said: How many teams have fielded a whole team full of loan players from abroad? Don't see how the development loan stifles the development of players, it does the complete opposite as far as I can see. If Falkirk loan a youngster from Celtic, surely it's down to Falkirk to then loan out any youngsters who won't get game time? If Falkirk (as an example, could use any club here) are loaning players in and just leaving their young players in the development league then that's not the systems fault, it's the clubs fault. For me, development loans allow the parent club to keep a closer eye on on their youngest prospects whilst gaining them valuable experience in competitive football, not sure why we should clamp down on that. Hearts would have been damned close to doing so at one point I'd imagine when most of their squad were on loan from Kaunas. I agree about Development Loans. I think they are good for the game. We have Joe Thomson on loan from Celtic (as did you of course) who is clearly ready to play this level but not ready to play for Celtic. Most of our own 20's squad are on Development Loan in the Lowland or South of Scotland Leagues to help their own development (and Aidan Smith is at Annan Athletic). The Development Loan is something the league have absolutely got right for me. I guess there's an argument that 4 is too many for one club to be allowed to bring in but that's slightly semantics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 No idea if Henderson was previously a professional footballer and never reinstated amateur? If so then he could have signed as a free agent in the same way Rab Douglas could have. If he's been a reinstated amateur then he'd have the same problem as the Australian boy in that signing as an amateur in February / March wouldn't see him allowed to play first team. So if a player is on a amateur registration. No club can play them if they sign outside of a window, even if given a pro contract? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbykdy Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Drysdale on the news there, apparently he mis understood the rules and thought we would have been obliged to offer any keeper a contract for the rest of the season, not so say the football beaks. Turns out we could have signed someone out of contract for as little as one or two games if that was what was required. Facepalm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergie's no1 fan Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, bobbykdy said: Drysdale on the news there, apparently he mis understood the rules and thought we would have been obliged to offer any keeper a contract for the rest of the season, not so say the football beaks. Turns out we could have signed someone out of contract for as little as one or two games if that was what was required. Facepalm. Not only a face palm for Raith but he's fucked it for Dumbarton and the Saints too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Vojáček Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, bobbykdy said: Drysdale on the news there, apparently he mis understood the rules and thought we would have been obliged to offer any keeper a contract for the rest of the season, not so say the football beaks. Turns out we could have signed someone out of contract for as little as one or two games if that was what was required. Facepalm. Probably best you just liquidate the club after that to be honest. It's best just putting it out its misery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairney Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 He still tried to wriggle out of full on admitting it though - "had I been given the information", so he's trying to imply somebody didn't tell him / explain properly. If the club had had less of a scattergun signing policy, under Locke, they might have approached the keeper problem a couple of weeks back, with less panic and desperation. Mistakes happen when folk run around like headless chickens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry94 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Drysdale on the news there, apparently he mis understood the rules and thought we would have been obliged to offer any keeper a contract for the rest of the season, not so say the football beaks. Turns out we could have signed someone out of contract for as little as one or two games if that was what was required. Facepalm. Even then, you could have just signed someone on nothing but given an appearance bonus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donny86 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Surely this is enough for Drysdale to be punted for negligence?If the club actually had agms these issues could maybe be raised 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 2 hours ago, The Moonster said: How many teams have fielded a whole team full of loan players from abroad? Don't see how the development loan stifles the development of players, it does the complete opposite as far as I can see. If Falkirk loan a youngster from Celtic, surely it's down to Falkirk to then loan out any youngsters who won't get game time? If Falkirk (as an example, could use any club here) are loaning players in and just leaving their young players in the development league then that's not the systems fault, it's the clubs fault. For me, development loans allow the parent club to keep a closer eye on on their youngest prospects whilst gaining them valuable experience in competitive football, not sure why we should clamp down on that. Should you not be asking why are we not producing young players good enough for our first team and instead are having to loan young players from top flight clubs? Most of the youngsters we've had on loan from the old firm previously haven't been a patch on the players we've produced ourselves. Some of them in fact should never have been getting picked ahead of our own boys at the time. I'm not saying ban it completely but to me being able to have 4 is far too much. Teams should surely be striving to produce a standard of young player that means we don't need to bring in other youngsters on loan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: Any player signing would HAVE to get a contract to the end of the season anyway. The minimum length of professional contract is to the opening of the next window so any free agent signing would have to sign to June. 40 minutes ago, bobbykdy said: Drysdale on the news there, apparently he mis understood the rules and thought we would have been obliged to offer any keeper a contract for the rest of the season, not so say the football beaks. Turns out we could have signed someone out of contract for as little as one or two games if that was what was required. Facepalm. I know who I believe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeezeboxson Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 18 minutes ago, Nairney said: He still tried to wriggle out of full on admitting it though - "had I been given the information", so he's trying to imply somebody didn't tell him / explain properly. If the club had had less of a scattergun signing policy, under Locke, they might have approached the keeper problem a couple of weeks back, with less panic and desperation. Mistakes happen when folk run around like headless chickens. Are you seriously still trying to blame Locke for this?? 5 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said: Should you not be asking why are we not producing young players good enough for our first team and instead are having to loan young players from top flight clubs? Most of the youngsters we've had on loan from the old firm previously haven't been a patch on the players we've produced ourselves. Some of them in fact should never have been getting picked ahead of our own boys at the time. I'm not saying ban it completely but to me being able to have 4 is far too much. Teams should surely be striving to produce a standard of young player that means we don't need to bring in other youngsters on loan. I guess the whole thing is that, clubs are a victim of their own success in terms of bringing young players though. Player have to develop. Our best example would be young Donald McCallum, who spend the best part of 3 years on our bench because he wasn't quite ready. He hasn't developed enough. He has however developed as much as he could playing with our understanding and development teams. Because we are in the championship it is a much higher level than league 2. The only way he has to progress up to the right standard is by playing at that level for a bit. So he is now away to Arbroath (a little too late in most of our fans opinions). At the end of the day though, if we were in the "third division" he would have been in our starting line up 2 1/2 years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALDERON Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said: Should you not be asking why are we not producing young players good enough for our first team and instead are having to loan young players from top flight clubs? Most of the youngsters we've had on loan from the old firm previously haven't been a patch on the players we've produced ourselves. Some of them in fact should never have been getting picked ahead of our own boys at the time. I'm not saying ban it completely but to me being able to have 4 is far too much. Teams should surely be striving to produce a standard of young player that means we don't need to bring in other youngsters on loan. We are producing youngsters. We just give them to Rangers, loan them to Dumbarton, or don't play them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers1992/1993 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I know who I believe So we're on the same page then? SkyLine Drifter is a far more reliable source than Eric Drysdale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Just now, Rovers1992/1993 said: So we're on the same page then? SkyLine Drifter is a far more reliable source than Eric Drysdale. I thought that was obvious 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairney Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 22 minutes ago, squeezeboxson said: Are you seriously still trying to blame Locke for this?? Some of his signings were random - cover for positions we already had options for; signing players who have barely had a sniff of the bench, never mind first team; use of loan players; Skacel etc etc However, the point I was really trying to make, was that we were continually being told that we had a limited budget.... yet we were still able to sign these players. Fans were even blamed for our financial situation by our CEO. Budget constraints weren't Locke's fault. The board were apparently happy to rubber stamp the likes of Robbie Crawford, Scott Roberts, Skacel and the young defender (who's name I can't remember!) - why? If our budget was so limited, why continue to make these sorts of signings - Scott Roberts possibly in lieu of a fee for David Bates? Had the board not been so quick to agree to these random signings, we might have had a wee bit left over for a contingency deal, if required. Locke made some odd signing decisions, but the board allowed them.... which puts the blame on them for this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancient Mariner Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 21 hours ago, grumswall said: How can we go from the highs of last season to impending relegation the following season? Just a roller coaster of a club. the answer to your question is quite easy. give Locke and Jackson a job 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raith Against The Machine Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 "Had I understood the rules OF THE ORGANISATION OF WHICH I AM A BOARD MEMBER then this wouldn't have happened." C'mon guys, give Eric a break. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeezeboxson Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, Nairney said: Some of his signings were random - cover for positions we already had options for; signing players who have barely had a sniff of the bench, never mind first team; use of loan players; Skacel etc etc However, the point I was really trying to make, was that we were continually being told that we had a limited budget.... yet we were still able to sign these players. Fans were even blamed for our financial situation by our CEO. Budget constraints weren't Locke's fault. The board were apparently happy to rubber stamp the likes of Robbie Crawford, Scott Roberts, Skacel and the young defender (who's name I can't remember!) - why? If our budget was so limited, why continue to make these sorts of signings - Scott Roberts possibly in lieu of a fee for David Bates? Had the board not been so quick to agree to these random signings, we might have had a wee bit left over for a contingency deal, if required. Locke made some odd signing decisions, but the board allowed them.... which puts the blame on them for this. I can accept most of what you have said above. I agree with most of it actually, I just feel like Locke has absolutely nothing to do with the goalkeeper situation you were in last night. People at your club have came out today and admitted they could have brought someone in, giving different reasons why you didn't in the end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 1 hour ago, bobbykdy said:Drysdale on the news there, apparently he mis understood the rules and thought we would have been obliged to offer any keeper a contract for the rest of the season, not so say the football beaks. Turns out we could have signed someone out of contract for as little as one or two games if that was what was required. Facepalm. f**k me,him or someone at the club should know and understand the rules.Its incompetent This is not the first time,memory a bit hazy but sure it concerned a cup tie against Dundee.Club thought one of our players( name escapes me)was suspended for the game when in fact he wasn,t.It was a supporter who picked up on it and told the club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 13 minutes ago, squeezeboxson said: I can accept most of what you have said above. I agree with most of it actually, I just feel like Locke has absolutely nothing to do with the goalkeeper situation you were in last night. People at your club have came out today and admitted they could have brought someone in, giving different reasons why you didn't in the end. No blame attached to Locke regarding goalkeepers,he had two keepers on the bench for a number of games 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.