renton Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 37 minutes ago, The Moonster said: For a club who are being branded amateurs for their behaviour this week, I'm not sure recalling your brightest young prospect to sit in the stands for 2 months would be the wisest move. It's an incredibly short sighted view you're taking there. It was fucking amateur letting him go in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 10 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said: He's dealing with a group of players completely and utterly bereft of any form of confidence. A number of people have said it, and it sounds really simplistic, but he can't go on the pitch and put the ball in the net for the strikers. We had about 5 good goal scoring chances last night and barely worked the keeper. I've no doubt if given time, Hughes would turn us in to a good side; he doesn't have that time. We need something to turn for us soon or it's 10th place. It's an old cliche but we need a break - a soft penalty, a goal which is miles offside, a goal which didn't actually cross the line - because all the hard work in the world just isn't doing it. He's a motivator, hell I feel motivated just watching his interviews on RaithTV, but I fear the damage is done. We look every bit like a team who is going to be relegated. Agree with your whole post. Those aren't technically bad players but they look absolutely done for confidence, and I have absolutely no conception of how they go out and win another game of football as a group. We look fucked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Correct me if I'm wrong but was Saturday not Vaughan's first goal for Dumbarton? I thought he played well but I'd hardly say hes playing a pivotal role so far in keeping Dumbarton up as they'd already done a bloody good job without him. He may or may not go on to do so both by playing well for the sons and not playing for Raith but its a bit early to say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, renton said: It was fucking amateur letting him go in the first place. Fair. But two amateur decisions don't make it right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, The Moonster said: Fair. But two amateur decisions don't make it right. Absolutely true, but it's fair to say the Rovers support right now are a bunch of belligerent assholes with their backs to the wall*. Can you blame us for clutching at any straw that might go someway to saving our hides? *Points for the movie reference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said: Correct me if I'm wrong but was Saturday not Vaughan's first goal for Dumbarton? I thought he played well but I'd hardly say hes playing a pivotal role so far in keeping Dumbarton up as they'd already done a bloody good job without him. He may or may not go on to do so both by playing well for the sons and not playing for Raith but its a bit early to say. He's only started two games for us and scored in one of them. I don't think there's any doubt he's going to be important for us. 5 minutes ago, renton said: Absolutely true, but it's fair to say the Rovers support right now are a bunch of belligerent assholes with their backs to the wall*. Can you blame us for clutching at any straw that might go someway to saving our hides? *Points for the movie reference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Just now, The Moonster said: He's only started two games for us and scored in one of them. I don't think there's any doubt he's going to be important for us. Point duly awarded. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 37 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said: Correct me if I'm wrong but was Saturday not Vaughan's first goal for Dumbarton? I thought he played well but I'd hardly say hes playing a pivotal role so far in keeping Dumbarton up as they'd already done a bloody good job without him. He may or may not go on to do so both by playing well for the sons and not playing for Raith but its a bit early to say. Well, he's been loaned to them from a team who've mustered 8 goals in their last 17 games. Even worse, if we take out the cup games against Hearts, it's 5 goals in our last 15 league games. Never mind though, let's stick with the same non-scoring strikers and loan one out. Obviously there are no problems in the striking department. It's very easy to see why we're pissed off with this state of affairs. We were 4 points ahead of Dumbarton when Vaughan was loaned, and now we're behind them (and 1 point from the relegation play-off spot). Maybe Vaughan isn't saving Dumbarton, but he's an option we can do with. It was an utterly fucking stupid decision to let him go out on loan and it's predictably backfired. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebanda's Handyman Services Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Stating the obvious here but what a total abomination of a season this has been. 32 years I've been watching the Rovers now and there's been some really brutal stuff witnessed but the amount of daft decisions and shit fitba this season has delivered has it up there as one of the worst for me. Relegation would be the wee malteser shite on top of the diarrhoea icing on the Guinness jobby cupcake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 It's sheer and utter lunacy to Loan one of your own players to a team that you're directly competing against to avoid relegation. It could potentially be another Morientes moment...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeezeboxson Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I may be wrong, but I am pretty certain that in order to recall a loanee, all 3 parties have to be in agreement for that to happen. So Raith, Dumbarton and Vaughan would all have to agree for it to happen. Can't see Vaughan or Dumbarton thinking that it would be a good decision. Obviously in 99% of cases the team who have taken a player on loan wouldn't stand in the way of a player returning because it would damage reputation for future loan signings between the clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The bottom line is that we're not getting him back until his loan is up and that this discussion is therefore pointless. And that Gary Locke is an arsehole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beachbum Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 There is a lesson for the board in this sorry mess, regardless of whose fault it was. Rovers should be running a rainy day fund as a matter of policy where money is set aside for an emergency should it arise. That way when Locke came to the board asking for money to sign Crawford, Syme, Roberts, Skacel and Stevenson he should have been told to bolt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Drysdale making himself look even more silly in the FFP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beachbum Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Raith deny keeper negligence - today's FFP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ding Dang Doo Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 So Drysdale is blaming the SPFL, of which he is a board member, for not telling him about this rule but it's not calling them negligent. Sorry but if there was a rule in place that would've allowed us to bring in a keeper under different circumstances and the SPFL didn't inform the club of this rule until it was too late to take advantage of it then that is entirely negligent. In that circumstance we really should be making legal representations to the SPFL. I rather think that, contrary to what Drysdale says, that we basically were completely incompetent and have nobody to blame but ourselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellaboz Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 So Drysdale is blaming the SPFL, of which he is a board member, for not telling him about this rule but it's not calling them negligent. Sorry but if there was a rule in place that would've allowed us to bring in a keeper under different circumstances and the SPFL didn't inform the club of this rule until it was too late to take advantage of it then that is entirely negligent. In that circumstance we really should be making legal representations to the SPFL. I rather think that, contrary to what Drysdale says, that we basically were completely incompetent and have nobody to blame but ourselves. [emoji1] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 16 minutes ago, The Moonster said: Drysdale making himself look even more silly in the FFP. Aye, he's just digging deeper and deeper, refusing to take any responsibility for a situation which is undeniably entirely of Raith's own making. Drysdale and Hughes have made complete tits of themselves with their desperation to blame the SPFL for their mess rather than accept their own incompetence. The journalist bringing the Hearts postponement last season into it is ridiculous as well - that was due to more than half of their squad being wiped out by a virus at short notice which also happened to leave them with only one goalkeeper, not just having a game called off because they had no fit goalkeepers. A virus wiping out more than half the squad at a couple of days notice to the point you'd struggle to put a team out at all is clearly a reasonable circumstance for a postponement - having one more injury four days before your next game when the other two goalkeepers had already been injured for weeks and you'd failed to signed cover isn't. Notable as well that despite the shorter notice Hearts had for their sickness bug they still asked for a postponement more than 24 hours in advance, whereas Raith waited until the morning of their game. They haven't a leg to stand on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ding Dang Doo said: So Drysdale is blaming the SPFL, of which he is a board member, for not telling him about this rule but it's not calling them negligent. Sorry but if there was a rule in place that would've allowed us to bring in a keeper under different circumstances and the SPFL didn't inform the club of this rule until it was too late to take advantage of it then that is entirely negligent. In that circumstance we really should be making legal representations to the SPFL. I rather think that, contrary to what Drysdale says, that we basically were completely incompetent and have nobody to blame but ourselves. Considering Drysdale is on the SPFL board, I would suggest he should be fully aware of the rules and options available to him. Coming out now and saying "they only told us at the last minute" is basically him admitting that he wasn't aware of the rules and better still, he had days to look up the rulings himself but never bothered. Incompetent, as you say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Drysdale, in today's FFP:"The normal rules are such that if we were signing somebody on a contract it would have had to be up until the end of June, when the transfer window opens again. “That restricted what we could afford. On Tuesday afternoon, for the first time, it became clear that we could have been looking for someone we could sign for a month, or a fortnight, or a week in the circumstances we were in. That would make any signing much more affordable."Up until then we had been fishing in a small lake, but all that time from Saturday to Tuesday, we could have been searching a much wider area for goalkeepers we could afford. "That is very frustrating. Had we been able to look more widely then we would surely have done a deal before the game on Tuesday night. “This is a rule that has never been used by the SPFL before in its four years of existence, which is why I didn’t know about it. Hughes, in today's Scotsman: "We'd be looking at someone who is under 21 for the loan and, if we'd brought in a young keeper, I don't think he'd have done any better. "Drysdale later told RaithTV the club were only interested in signing an experienced keeper. Ignorance of the rules is no defence. Declining to use the rules you aren't ignorant of, for financial reasons or a preference for someone "experienced", is also your own prerogative. Edited March 2, 2017 by HibeeJibee 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.