GordonS Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 11 hours ago, archieb said: I had no idea who you are or what team you support. I don't have the time or inclination to read the autobiography of everyone on here whose posts I read or react to. It says the team I support right under my name. Like it says Pollok under yours. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
energyzone Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 8 hours ago, GordonS said: It says the team I support right under my name. Like it says Pollok under yours. Can't see it on the mobile site which I guess is how most people use this forum. Bit of a flaw actually. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNU_Linux Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitbawguy123 Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 On 16/08/2024 at 17:28, Lokloyal said: Diver was well marshalled by Gowser but he’s a danger man who I would still take in a heartbeat for Lok-especially with the family connection. agree about the keeper-he was superb and looks to be one of the best in the league.Saved them time and time again last night. Good to see big Gowzer doing well at pollok by the sounds of it, watched him a lot when he was at medda he was a top defender for them too. Diver is a top striker and will get plenty of chances at St cadochs but feel he was more suited to beiths style and playing under strain too. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 On 17/08/2024 at 12:03, energyzone said: Can't see it on the mobile site which I guess is how most people use this forum. Bit of a flaw actually. It's been brought up very recently on the site's "Suggestion Box" thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Is this Drumchapel at the Donald Dewar Centre thing every going to change? How can they expect to go through the tiers of the pyramid, which they clearly want to do, yet not have a ground solution. There must be something in the offing surely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaguereformer Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 The West of Scotland have made a mess of the pyramid system, letting clubs into the league with either no grounds or using a sports complex. Unfortunately I think we are too far gone to resolve the situation. Letting what is effectively boys club or amateur teams into the league with no real fan base. Why should teams who to their credit keep and maintain their own ground be financially disadvantaged by teams either ground sharing or renting a community pitch Realistically, what is to stop the home team/ground owner kicking out the team that use the facilities? What does the league do is for an example Benburb say to St Cadocs from the end of the season you no longer have use of our facility? Surely that is when it becomes a farce? I hope it doesn't happen although it would be self inflicted, however could good governess on the league's behalf have prevented the situation Darvel are in, while the majority of the blame lies with MK and JG for the over inflated wages/transfer fees in the WoS, could better management from the WoS have prevented a club from going into the brink of collapse. If the figure floated about the Darvel page of £500k debt to JG is to be believed I see no possible way out for Darvel. A debt of a fraction of this would be difficult for the biggest teams at this level to service. The legacy MK and JG will leave is one of destruction to the league and unfortunately too many teams were drawn in and tried to keep up the spending which will unfortunately impact them long term. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 5 hours ago, leaguereformer said: The West of Scotland have made a mess of the pyramid system, letting clubs into the league with either no grounds or using a sports complex. Unfortunately I think we are too far gone to resolve the situation. Letting what is effectively boys club or amateur teams into the league with no real fan base. Why should teams who to their credit keep and maintain their own ground be financially disadvantaged by teams either ground sharing or renting a community pitch Realistically, what is to stop the home team/ground owner kicking out the team that use the facilities? What does the league do is for an example Benburb say to St Cadocs from the end of the season you no longer have use of our facility? Surely that is when it becomes a farce? I hope it doesn't happen although it would be self inflicted, however could good governess on the league's behalf have prevented the situation Darvel are in, while the majority of the blame lies with MK and JG for the over inflated wages/transfer fees in the WoS, could better management from the WoS have prevented a club from going into the brink of collapse. If the figure floated about the Darvel page of £500k debt to JG is to be believed I see no possible way out for Darvel. A debt of a fraction of this would be difficult for the biggest teams at this level to service. The legacy MK and JG will leave is one of destruction to the league and unfortunately too many teams were drawn in and tried to keep up the spending which will unfortunately impact them long term. The WoSFL committee seems to be a bit of a toothless entity. From responses we have seen previously from @glensmad (which he is kind enough to post on here btw) the committee seem to want to convey the idea that they simply provide the admin and that the clubs are the ones who ultimately run the league. This seems to be true in that most initiatives go to a vote, like new clubs being admitted to the league. However, this league is no longer a brand new beast and part of its evolution has to be to look at mistakes made, like admitting clubs with unsuitable facilities and make sure legislation is put in place to prevent it happening again. Not everything needs to be put to a vote at a meeting which won't be attended by all clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 34 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: Not everything needs to be put to a vote at a meeting which won't be attended by all clubs. All changes to the Constitution and Rules of the WoSFL require to be approved by the member clubs, whether by a formal vote or by uncontested acclamation. The WoSFL is a club-owned and club-run organisation. The Board are the administrators of the rules set by the clubs, and every club has the power to change the rules and the people administering the rules if they have sufficient support from other clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, glensmad said: All changes to the Constitution and Rules of the WoSFL require to be approved by the member clubs, whether by a formal vote or by uncontested acclamation. The WoSFL is a club-owned and club-run organisation. The Board are the administrators of the rules set by the clubs, and every club has the power to change the rules and the people administering the rules if they have sufficient support from other clubs. Right, but there has to some sort of authority exercised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 12 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: Right, but there has to some sort of authority exercised. Of course, but the Board cannot force a new club into the league without the approval of the members, neither can they force a new rule into the Constitution without the approval of the members. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbaxters Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, glensmad said: Of course, but the Board cannot force a new club into the league without the approval of the members, neither can they force a new rule into the Constitution without the approval of the members. No but they can surely, as a set of elected officials look at any application to the league and decide if they are suitable, without having to take it to the members. That's what one would hope will now happen, or is happening based on mistakes of the past. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 22 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: No but they can surely, as a set of elected officials look at any application to the league and decide if they are suitable, without having to take it to the members. That's what one would hope will now happen, or is happening based on mistakes of the past. That is exactly what is happening now. Only clubs who meet the criteria get to the stage of being proposed as new members. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaguereformer Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 5 minutes ago, glensmad said: That is exactly what is happening now. Only clubs who meet the criteria get to the stage of being proposed as new members. Is the criteria very low? At the point of application St Cadocs, Drumchapel, Finnart, Giffnock etc...surely couldn't have met the level needed due to lack of grounds etc... I am all for giving teams a grace period i.e. 2 season to find a permanent ground which complies with criteria etc...or be put out the league. Why were teams allowed in when they never had a ground? With Benburb in the relegation battle at present (long way to go) what would happens if they no longer allow St Cadocs to use their ground? Could St Cadocs potentially win the league and be kick out the league resulting in Benburb staying up by default? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Pennel Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Man at New Tinto making notes.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TediousTom Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 14 minutes ago, Black Pennel said: Man at New Tinto making notes.... Announcement pending? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Pennel Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 A joke TT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TediousTom Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Just now, Black Pennel said: A joke TT. Ah....sorry, I was hoping for news on the new appointment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Absolute Imposter Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 2 hours ago, glensmad said: That is exactly what is happening now. Only clubs who meet the criteria get to the stage of being proposed as new members. Knightswood? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaguereformer Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Another weekend of goo matches ahead with some interesting games Highlights for me are; Cumnock v Gartcairn, both teams have spent on playing squads recently however none have had a great start to the league, a win for Gartcairn would see the usual cumnock "sack the manager" shouts starting to emerge with pressure building. Drumchapel v Auchinleck, both sides had a decent start however feel both need the win to keep pressure on the Bankies. Johnstone Burgh v Clydebank, this feels like the first test for the Bankies however they have the good fortune of a couple of key JB players being suspended following last weekend's game. 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.