The East Fife Thread

[1320Lichtie]

We always pay for injuries and operations for a long time now. Actually think a big reason why Scott Stewart signed was because we were prepared to pay for an op for him.

 

Great from the podcast though but that’s something the club should be doing for me. 

[Gordon EF]

30 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

Great from the podcast though but that’s something the club should be doing for me. 

It is something the club are doing. The GoFundMe is to help out.

[1320Lichtie]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

It is something the club are doing. The GoFundMe is to help out.

Help out with what?

 

Just looked - to help out with his loss of income - great 

 

To help out with the procedure - why would the club accept this, you’re all already paying a fortune 

Edited June 3, 2023 by 1320Lichtie

[GallowayBlue]

I've got a feeling that East Fife are in favour of the Conference League (along with Stranraer). Am I wrong?

[King Kebab]

8 minutes ago, GallowayBlue said:

I've got a feeling that East Fife are in favour of the Conference League (along with Stranraer). Am I wrong?

I hope you are but the silence from our Board has been deafening!!!

[Gordon EF]

35 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

Help out with what?

 

Just looked - to help out with his loss of income - great 

 

To help out with the procedure - why would the club accept this, you’re all already paying a fortune 

Well there's obviously the cost of the operation and the loss of income for Sam. The club have clearly said that they'll be contributing towards the operation and helping with Sam's rehabilitation. I have no idea what the exact split of how much the club will contribute, how much the GoFundMe will raise and how much will be left over to support Sam's loss of income after the op is paid for.

Nobody is having a gun held to their head. Anyone is free to choose to contribute what they can or not contrubute if they feel that they can't afford to or don't want to.

No idea why some folk are so raging about fans raising money to help out a player (and the club) with unexpected costs.

it's not like the club is awash with cash. Yes, a small transfer fee was paid for Nathan Austin. But that hardly means the club has some big warchest left over that they're just being stingy about. We did get a fee from Newcastle for Jude Smith last summer and it's entirely plausible that we've budgeted what's left from that to sign Austin and simply don't have spare thousands for other things. The club will be operating on a tight budget, like most other clubs. It sounds like the club have committed to paying for Sam's operation and rehabilitation and fans are contributing for some mix of lessening the financial impact on the club and the player.

[Big Fifer]

Numerous people have had calls with the chairman over this. The fact that so many SPFL clubs are coming out declaring "we are voting no" and we seem unable to do so is incredibly concerning. If our board are against it, it's a very simple two line effort on the website. If they're for it, without having had any fan engagement, I will be beyond disappointed and my small contribution to the managers fund will be binned. There's no excuse for supporting such a terrible idea.

[Cosmic Joe]

46 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

Numerous people have had calls with the chairman over this. The fact that so many SPFL clubs are coming out declaring "we are voting no" and we seem unable to do so is incredibly concerning. If our board are against it, it's a very simple two line effort on the website. If they're for it, without having had any fan engagement, I will be beyond disappointed and my small contribution to the managers fund will be binned. There's no excuse for supporting such a terrible idea.

Who are these numerous people you mention? 

I'm not quite getting your angst on this particular issue. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Big Fifer]

1 minute ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Who are these numerous people you mention? 

I'm not quite getting your angst on this particular issue. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm one of them, and others claim to have spoken to the chairman directly as well. 

I'm angsty because there's a proposal on the table that I feel strongly against, as do most SPFL clubs and their supporters, for a variety of reasons. For whatever reason we're opting not to engage publicly with it, which seems very odd considering the number of clubs openly declaring their intentions. 

[Cosmic Joe]

1 minute ago, Big Fifer said:

Well I'm one of them, and others claim to have spoken to the chairman directly as well. 

I'm angsty because there's a proposal on the table that I feel strongly against, as do most SPFL clubs and their supporters, for a variety of reasons. For whatever reason we're opting not to engage publicly with it, which seems very odd considering the number of clubs openly declaring their intentions. 

Okay. You've spoken to the Chairman directly, as have numerous others - your words. 

What was the Chairman's response following your conversation? 

[Big Fifer]

14 minutes ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Okay. You've spoken to the Chairman directly, as have numerous others - your words. 

What was the Chairman's response following your conversation? 

OK, for whatever reason you want me to walk you through it piece by piece, and I will.

I emailed on the 30th May. My email was simply asking (for confirmation really) whether or not we would be voting no and providing a statement stating this. If you want a copy based on your odd manner of response, let me know. The response was rather confusing. The chairman called me at work on the Tuesday I think, I called him back as I was busy at the time of his call. The chairman took me through the story of the how this idea was first touted a year ago, how there were three options on the table, two of which involved B teams in League 2 and the other one was the conference, how it's mainly being pushed by Rangers more than anyone, how he's pushed back against Robertson (Stewart?), how he fought for concessions to ensure there were at least 7 Scottish players in any 'B' team etc. Quite why this point was relevant I'm not sure as I was only asking whether we would be voting no. There would be no reason to seek concessions for something we are voting against.

His entire response was a lot of words about how he was against B teams in the SPFL but at no point did he say we would be voting no to this vote for the creation of the conference. He actually spoke about the fact that this league is a slight buffer for a small team like ours when you compare it to the dreaded lowland league. Overall, the chat suggested that "no" was not an option available to us, and that the conference was the best of a bad bunch of ideas. I suggested at least twice that the club put a statement on the website. I was told this wouldn't be happening as we've done this in the past and it's led to "abuse", whatever that means. I might be forgetting some points, but the above is the gist. A lot of in depth conversation but at no point saying we are voting no to the conference league. 

 

ETA - at the beginning of the call, the chairman said only myself and one other had contacted the club about this upcoming vote. Further people contacting him/the club happened after this call (now checked, it was on Wednesday).

Edited June 3, 2023 by Big Fifer

[GallowayBlue]

I'm fairly sure that's because the club plan to vote yes...

I've heard of similar conversations with Stranraer club officials.

Edited June 3, 2023 by GallowayBlue

[Cosmic Joe]

6 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

OK, for whatever reason you want me to walk you through it piece by piece, and I will.

I emailed on the 30th May. My email was simply asking (for confirmation really) whether or not we would be voting no and providing a statement stating this. If you want a copy based on your odd manner of response, let me know. The response was rather confusing. The chairman called me at work on the Tuesday I think, I called him back as I was busy at the time of his call. The chairman took me through the story of the how this idea was first touted a year ago, how there were three options on the table, two of which involved B teams in League 2 and the other one was the conference, how it's mainly being pushed by Rangers more than anyone, how he's pushed back against Robertson (Stewart?), how he fought for concessions to ensure there were at least 7 Scottish players in any 'B' team etc. Quite why this point was relevant I'm not sure as I was only asking whether we would be voting no. There would be no reason to seek concessions for something we are voting against.

His entire response was a lot of words about how he was against B teams in the SPFL but at no point did he say we would be voting no to this vote for the creation of the conference. He actually spoke about the fact that this league is a slight buffer for a small team like ours when you compare it to the dreaded lowland league. Overall, the chat suggested that "no" was not an option available to us, and that the conference was the best of a bad bunch of ideas. I suggested at least twice that the club put a statement on the website. I was told this wouldn't be happening as we've done this in the past and it's led to "abuse", whatever that means. I might be forgetting some points, but the above is the gist. A lot of in depth conversation but at no point saying we are voting no to the conference league. 

 

ETA - at the beginning of the call, the chairman said only myself and one other had contacted the club about this upcoming vote. Further people contacting him/the club happened after this call (now checked, it was on Wednesday).

Okay. Thank you. 

I'm not sure what you think was odd about my manner of response. 

I'm sure it will go to a vote at the next Board Meeting. 

[GallowayBlue]

Just now, Cosmic Joe said:

Okay. Thank you. 

I'm not sure what you think was odd about my manner of response. 

I'm sure it will go to a vote at the next Board Meeting. 

Is the next Board Meeting tomorrow or Monday?

Not exactly loads of time until the vote.

[Big Fifer]

2 minutes ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Okay. Thank you. 

I'm not sure what you think was odd about my manner of response. 

I'm sure it will go to a vote at the next Board Meeting. 

I felt the "your words" was a bit snarky, perhaps I misinterpreted the tone. My apologies.

As I understand it, the SFA AGM and therefore this vote is on the 6th June. I can't imagine we'll have a full board meeting in between this time. I think we're about to make a bad decision, frankly.

[Neilly]

12 hours ago, Big Fifer said:

Numerous people have had calls with the chairman over this. The fact that so many SPFL clubs are coming out declaring "we are voting no" and we seem unable to do so is incredibly concerning. If our board are against it, it's a very simple two line effort on the website. If they're for it, without having had any fan engagement, I will be beyond disappointed and my small contribution to the managers fund will be binned. There's no excuse for supporting such a terrible idea.

With the money grabbing nature of your board it would not surprise me if your board voted yes. Whoring the club out for a potential 40k if they were to get relegated to "The Conference". Deary me.

The proposal is an absolute sham and any club voting yes should be suitably embarrassed. Glad you feel similar BF.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

11 hours ago, Big Fifer said:

OK, for whatever reason you want me to walk you through it piece by piece, and I will.

I emailed on the 30th May. My email was simply asking (for confirmation really) whether or not we would be voting no and providing a statement stating this. If you want a copy based on your odd manner of response, let me know. The response was rather confusing. The chairman called me at work on the Tuesday I think, I called him back as I was busy at the time of his call. The chairman took me through the story of the how this idea was first touted a year ago, how there were three options on the table, two of which involved B teams in League 2 and the other one was the conference, how it's mainly being pushed by Rangers more than anyone, how he's pushed back against Robertson (Stewart?), how he fought for concessions to ensure there were at least 7 Scottish players in any 'B' team etc. Quite why this point was relevant I'm not sure as I was only asking whether we would be voting no. There would be no reason to seek concessions for something we are voting against.

His entire response was a lot of words about how he was against B teams in the SPFL but at no point did he say we would be voting no to this vote for the creation of the conference. He actually spoke about the fact that this league is a slight buffer for a small team like ours when you compare it to the dreaded lowland league. Overall, the chat suggested that "no" was not an option available to us, and that the conference was the best of a bad bunch of ideas. I suggested at least twice that the club put a statement on the website. I was told this wouldn't be happening as we've done this in the past and it's led to "abuse", whatever that means. I might be forgetting some points, but the above is the gist. A lot of in depth conversation but at no point saying we are voting no to the conference league. 

 

ETA - at the beginning of the call, the chairman said only myself and one other had contacted the club about this upcoming vote. Further people contacting him/the club happened after this call (now checked, it was on Wednesday).

That's a very interesting post.  The Board of East Fife can of course vote the way they choose but if they endorse or oppose the Conference proposal without prior notice to their supporters it would IMO be disrespectful.

And if they DO endorse it then I certainly hope there won't be any abuse, but they may have to contend with their club being held in contempt by fans of peer clubs and beyond, and for quite a long time.

[The Moonster]

It's sad to see some chairman believing that they don't have No as an option. In what possible world can they say "we're changing things no matter what and here's your 3 options"? That's not how this works. 

Edited June 4, 2023 by The Moonster

[Big Fifer]

39 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

That's a very interesting post.  The Board of East Fife can of course vote the way they choose but if they endorse or oppose the Conference proposal without prior notice to their supporters it would IMO be disrespectful.

And if they DO endorse it then I certainly hope there won't be any abuse, but they may have to contend with their club being held in contempt by fans of peer clubs and beyond, and for quite a long time.

Indeed, but frankly as chairman of a football club it's your job to make the tough decisions, even if it comes with a backlash (and I'm speaking generally, not just about the conference proposal). The solution isn't simply to go into hiding, make no public statement on your decision and complain that some people might not like what you say. I also think that, whilst we do have a relatively moany support (myself included) our board are not that great at taking criticism generally. 

33 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

It's sad to see some chairman believing that they don't have No as an option. In what possible world can they say "we're changing things no matter what and here's your 3 options"? That's not how this works. 

Yes, agreed. As I say, a simple "we're voting no" was all I was looking for. Instead the conversation lasted around 20 minutes. I too am concerned that either our chairman, our board or multiple chairmen don't really understand what they're voting for. I say that as a person that's not on the inner circle so I've not seen the proposals, but the fact so many clubs are voting it down but we seem to be under the impression that isn't an option is very strange. 

 

[Gordon EF]

I suspect we'll vote no but just not say anything about, voting no is good, not saying anything is stupid because the only criticism you'll take here is 1. for not saying anything, and 2. for being suspected of voting yes.