Jump to content

Edinburgh City


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

I hope Edinburgh City remain in the leagues without a licence for the rest of time purely to upset @Burnieman

The only thing that upsets me, and should upset everyone, is the SPFL board and their gerrymandering of their own rules when it suits them.

(gerrymandering is criminally underused on this forum)

Edited by Burnieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

The only thing that upsets me, and should upset everyone, is the SPFL board and their gerrymandering of their own rules when it suits them.

(gerrymandering is criminally underused on this forum)

Totally agree with criticism of the SPFL Board.  The Cinch fiasco, the 'Conference League' fiasco, the old pals act for the SPFL Trust Trophy etc.  Good governance, transparency and competence are rarely evident.

I'm biased as I have friends involved with City, but I don't think cutting them a bit of slack is that bad.  However, it surely can't be that hard for the SPFL to issue a short statement explaining that City haven't got a bronze licence yet but they can compete in League 2 because.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few more players from last night, only have surnames for some though.

Dean Beveridge (GK)

14. Mcainstray

15. Scully

The rest of the subs were nameless on the back of their shirts, so no further detective work for now!

Beveridge initially came through City’s U20 team (remember when we actually had one… simpler times) before moving on to Gala Fairydean, and a few other lower league sides since, in search of more regular game time. Always nice to see a home grown player make a return.

Edited by ARF1928
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Totally agree with criticism of the SPFL Board.  The Cinch fiasco, the 'Conference League' fiasco, the old pals act for the SPFL Trust Trophy etc.  Good governance, transparency and competence are rarely evident.

I'm biased as I have friends involved with City, but I don't think cutting them a bit of slack is that bad.  However, it surely can't be that hard for the SPFL to issue a short statement explaining that City haven't got a bronze licence yet but they can compete in League 2 because.....

 

Yip, agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Totally agree with criticism of the SPFL Board.  The Cinch fiasco, the 'Conference League' fiasco, the old pals act for the SPFL Trust Trophy etc.  Good governance, transparency and competence are rarely evident.

I'm biased as I have friends involved with City, but I don't think cutting them a bit of slack is that bad.  However, it surely can't be that hard for the SPFL to issue a short statement explaining that City haven't got a bronze licence yet but they can compete in League 2 because.....

If they don’t explain any further derogation they will leave themselves open to legal action. 
 

Interestingly when we were participating in the playoffs there were strong rumours (apparently emanating from East Kilbride officials) that the playoffs were actually moot, since at least one existing league club was not going to meet the licensing requirements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, EdinburghBlue said:

If they don’t explain any further derogation they will leave themselves open to legal action.


This will presumably go as well as the legal action instigated by Hearts and Partick Thistle and supported by your club in 2020. The SPFL rules allow them to grant waivers to clubs at the board's discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well plenty of signings this week but absolutely zero communication to fans or members as to our licencing arrangements, as @craigkillie states above it will be a process of derogation/waivers etc. and now seems highly unlikely we'll be punted at this point.

 

All guess work of course as the club have literally just blanked multiple requests for information. Appalling way to treat a, very small already, fanbase. This is the polar opposite of what we'd been promised.

 

I've asked about our ownership (met with silence) as we had 2 new shareholders who, when pooled together (and they are husband and wife) were the largest shareholders. According to Companies House they are no longer shareholders and their holdings have gone back to John Dickson. Lasted a total of 3 months, as far as I'm aware they didn't see a game (which if they had would at least have explained their swift departure!)

 

Of course, I know this from Companies House, not from any sort of communication at all from the club. A complete farce.

 

Not sure what's going on but I won't be renewing my membership until lines of communication are opened and I usually make a cash donation to the club which is also on hold. I'll probably go to the Hibs friendly on Saturday to see if I can get a handle on what on earth is happening but suspect it will all fall under the category of *not good*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

*Signings subject to all relevant SFA approvals

What does this mean surely if you are making all these signings then you have approval.

Usually just means the paperwork is to be or has been submitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AllyMonc said:

I've asked about our ownership (met with silence) as we had 2 new shareholders who, when pooled together (and they are husband and wife) were the largest shareholders. According to Companies House they are no longer shareholders and their holdings have gone back to John Dickson. Lasted a total of 3 months, as far as I'm aware they didn't see a game (which if they had would at least have explained their swift departure!)

A good bit of detective work Ally. Perhaps the purchase of the shares from John Dickson in March and subsequent sale back to him in June was related to the licence issue, or more specifically the financial angle? 

Interestingly the May 2023 accounts were signed off by the Board on 28th February 2024, and the signatories name on the accounts is Jim Brown....who resigned as a Director on 31st May 2023. Not sure if that Complies with the Companies Act as the person signing the accounts wasn't a Director on the date they were signed. All very odd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...