Sons' sorrow

[FifeSons]

Faz will no doubt blow the playoffs yet again. Which is important to remind yourself, because there’s a bit of hope creeping back in. Season will be labelled a tremendous success and he’ll probably get another 2 year extension and Dr Shipman will call out the fans for booing him off. Rinse and repeat.

All that said, I’m starting to believe we could win the playoffs. Fool me once…

Edited April 7 by FifeSons

[The Moonster]

43 minutes ago, C'mon_the_Sons said:

Ruth will definitely be away, not sure about Orsi with Carlo being contracted for another year, they seem to like playing together. 
 

What’s the script with Gray? Am I correct in assuming we’ll be due a development fee for him? Could that act as a disincentive for another club coming looking at him?

We'll definitely be due something but I'm not sure it'll be enough to put off full time sides.

[Jan Vojáček]

I genuinely hope Finlay gets a good move this summer. He's kicked on a fair bit this season, and looks like a guy who knew what his weaknesses were and has addressed them. To a level where he's far too good for League Two now.

He wasn't a great tackler when he came to us. Especially when he was left back at corners. That developed last season leaps and bounds.

Now he's getting better and better at playing a pass at the right moment and his surging runs in between centre-back and full-back are excellent. He's clearly a quick and willing learner and that will do him good in the big time I reckon. Even if it might take him a few months to get fully firing.

He's not the finished article. But he's got a bit of everything and he's clearly very coachable. With the right move to a team who will coach him further I think he'll go on to have a very decent full-time career.

Airdrie might not be the best move financially for him. But with their style of play and McCabe's confidence in playing young guys, I think somewhere like that could be ideal for him. Certainly much better than QOS would've been as he was offered last year.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Anyone know why the Broomhill game was off yesterday ?  There was no mention of a waterlogged pitch on the BBC Sport website.

[C'mon_the_Sons]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Anyone know why the Broomhill game was off yesterday ?  There was no mention of a waterlogged pitch on the BBC Sport website.

 

[The Moonster]

I see the Trust will take no further action against the board member who is currently on a year's ban from the stadium. I understand that it's a difficult situation for the Trust as the individual involved is important to the organisation but I do feel it's not a great look. A couple of weeks prior to this incident the Trust put out a statement reminding fans that they have a zero tolerance approach to abuse from supporters, to go from that to keeping a board member in place who is serving an actual stadium ban for abusing a player weeks later looks hypocritical. 

I do not wish to turn this into a big issue or a witch hunt, I know the person in question and I fully accept he regrets what he has done and that he has apologised and accepted his punishment accordingly. Hopefully that's a line drawn and everyone can move on.

[Nowhereman]

22 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I see the Trust will take no further action against the board member who is currently on a year's ban from the stadium. I understand that it's a difficult situation for the Trust as the individual involved is important to the organisation but I do feel it's not a great look. A couple of weeks prior to this incident the Trust put out a statement reminding fans that they have a zero tolerance approach to abuse from supporters, to go from that to keeping a board member in place who is serving an actual stadium ban for abusing a player weeks later looks hypocritical. 

I do not wish to turn this into a big issue or a witch hunt, I know the person in question and I fully accept he regrets what he has done and that he has apologised and accepted his punishment accordingly. Hopefully that's a line drawn and everyone can move on.

Do you know that the ban is for abusing the player?

[The Moonster]

Just now, Nowhereman said:

Do you know that the ban is for abusing the player?

Is it not?

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

I see the Trust will take no further action against the board member who is currently on a year's ban from the stadium. I understand that it's a difficult situation for the Trust as the individual involved is important to the organisation but I do feel it's not a great look. A couple of weeks prior to this incident the Trust put out a statement reminding fans that they have a zero tolerance approach to abuse from supporters, to go from that to keeping a board member in place who is serving an actual stadium ban for abusing a player weeks later looks hypocritical. 

I do not wish to turn this into a big issue or a witch hunt, I know the person in question and I fully accept he regrets what he has done and that he has apologised and accepted his punishment accordingly. Hopefully that's a line drawn and everyone can move on.

I’m also led to believe the player who was on the receiving end refused the apology.

I think the Trust have made an error of judgement here tbqhwy and I’m rather shocked at a lot of the whataboutery stemming from this incident. I understand that volunteer board members aren’t easy to come by, but quite how the Trust can retain someone who is serving a year long, nationwide stadium ban is absolutely beyond me. Would all supporters be afforded this sort of leeway? I’m not convinced they would, especially after the Trusts statement following the Clyde game.

 

[Naught A Chance]

The trust have absolutely shit themselves there. Won't be renewing my membership for the time being and will be giving serious consideration to rejoining again in future.

[Silverton End]

Double standards from SonsTrust here, not a good look.

 

[Frank Quitely]

30 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I’m also led to believe the player who was on the receiving end refused the apology.

I think the Trust have made an error of judgement here tbqhwy and I’m rather shocked at a lot of the whataboutery stemming from this incident. I understand that volunteer board members aren’t easy to come by, but quite how the Trust can retain someone who is serving a year long, nationwide stadium ban is absolutely beyond me. Would all supporters be afforded this sort of leeway? I’m not convinced they would, especially after the Trusts statement following the Clyde game.

 

How exactly do you know that, and who led you to believe it ?

You then go on to claim whataboutery and immediately compare the Methil incident with the Hamilton one, when the two are not comparable.

 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

13 minutes ago, Frank Quitely said:

How exactly do you know that, and who led you to believe it ?

You then go on to claim whataboutery and immediately compare the Methil incident with the Hamilton one, when the two are not comparable.

 

Because a very good source told me the player didn’t accept the apology. No one is obliged to believe that, but I will.

I’m not comparing the incidents, I’m comparing the Trusts reaction to both incidents. The Trust decided to release a public statement condeming personal abuse agaist Stevie Farrell (which I absolutely condemn) but when it comes to a supporter receiving a nationwide stadium ban for abusing a player the Trust double down and back him up. That’s not whataboutery my friend, that is cold hard facts. 

I am absolutely convinced if it wasn’t a supporter who’s family holds such an influence then they wouldn’t be afforded these excuses for their behaviour. 

[George Parr]

2 hours ago, The Moonster said:

Is it not?

I think this is the problem. It's difficult to say which approach (club or trust) is the correct one when we don't have any clarity (publicly at least) on what actually happened. I'm sceptical about the media reports here tbh as, if accurate, they would have more likely resulted in forever bans and prosecution

I'll happily accept that folks on here have connections and sources within the football club and will naturally know more about specific events, but for the rest of us this entire process has been confusing - with seemingly multiple different outcomes.

[Frank Quitely]

46 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Because a very good source told me the player didn’t accept the apology. No one is obliged to believe that, but I will.

I’m not comparing the incidents, I’m comparing the Trusts reaction to both incidents. The Trust decided to release a public statement condeming personal abuse agaist Stevie Farrell (which I absolutely condemn) but when it comes to a supporter receiving a nationwide stadium ban for abusing a player the Trust double down and back him up. That’s not whataboutery my friend, that is cold hard facts. 

I am absolutely convinced if it wasn’t a supporter who’s family holds such an influence then they wouldn’t be afforded these excuses for their behaviour. 

Thanks for your reply.  It's quite revealing.

[Curler]

Perhaps the person in question should offer their resignation from the Trust Board. That would be the 

honourable thing to do in my opinion for what it is worth. The trust board have done themselves no favours and may lead to a decrease in fans joining next year.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

10 minutes ago, Frank Quitely said:

Thanks for your reply.  It's quite revealing.

In what sense?

[The Moonster]

58 minutes ago, George Parr said:

I think this is the problem. It's difficult to say which approach (club or trust) is the correct one when we don't have any clarity (publicly at least) on what actually happened. I'm sceptical about the media reports here tbh as, if accurate, they would have more likely resulted in forever bans and prosecution

I'll happily accept that folks on here have connections and sources within the football club and will naturally know more about specific events, but for the rest of us this entire process has been confusing - with seemingly multiple different outcomes.

I'm just struggling with the alternative that nobody seems to want to suggest. The person in question by the Trusts own statement says he accepts the ban imposed on him and apologises for what happened so it seems clear to me he knows he's said something worthy of that punishment. To be clear I have no inside source here, I'm only going off what is in the public domain. If I'm completely honest there doesn't seem much confusing about it, man says something wrong, apologises, gets punished. If others have info that suggests he's been unfairly treated then I'm not sure why there's secrecy.

[Masonry Contracts]

I won't be donating any more money to the Trust after this. How can we expect them to hold MacKay & the owners to account when they can't hold one of their own to it?

He did what he did and if the Trust believe otherwise they're spineless turds with their heads in the sand too afraid to make the right call.

If the individual had any character or backbone at all they would have resigned.

It's too late now as the Trust has made its bed but I have some strong evidence of what the people the Trust is fighting so hard to protect are really like. Feel free to DM me.

[FifeSons]

Does feel a bit double standards, but again, the whole situation is so murky, that it's unclear what's really gone on.

What's perhaps more surprising, is that the player decided to remain at the club. Especially if, as suggested, he didn't accept the apology.

Edited April 11 by FifeSons