Jump to content

Auchinleck v East Kilbride South cup


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

A competition committee is formed with reps from all 4 leagues. The competition secretary I believe is Richard Osborne of the South of Scotland.

Fair enough. Piss poor from everyone then, at this stage of the competition this is basic stuff. I would say “amateur” but after watching the amateur (amateur) Scottish Cup draw it could be worse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

A competition committee is formed with reps from all 4 leagues. The competition secretary I believe is Richard Osborne of the South of Scotland.

Naming and shaming. Yasss!

ETA- Maybe missed it but has a date for the appeal been set?

Edited by jimbaxters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

A competition committee is formed with reps from all 4 leagues. The competition secretary I believe is Richard Osborne of the South of Scotland.

Out of 100,how many people knew that?

Could be a pointless answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/03/2023 at 09:10, Firepit said:

So seems not so clear as everyone thought .

if they have checked with the cup organisers and parent club then Talbot may have a case here 

If Auchinleck checked with Parent club, then Auchinleck does not have a leg to stand on.  If the organizers of the South Challenge Cup had stated that he can play then its  done deal, its the organizers fault and Auchinleck should stay in competition.  As long as Auchinleck have proof of organizers reply then it should be a done deal.  Common sense should prevail 

Edited by Bestsinceslicebread
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/03/2023 at 19:49, Killiepiyo said:

I think you can read? The player was asked, his club was asked and finally, the cup who all said he could play. 

What did the player say? No, I haven't played in this cup? Or, yes, I have played in this cup?

In either case, Talbot haven't got a leg to stand on. If they hadn't asked him, that might be different.

Queen's Park were mentioned; we played a guy who was signed in between our Cup match at Inverness being postponed and rescheduled. The guy wasn't cup tied but we shouldn't have played him. We beat Inverness, got booted out and they are now in the semi final with a great chance to make the big cup final.

Talbot should suck it up. We've had to 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

we played a guy who was signed in between our Cup match at Inverness being postponed and rescheduled.

Tbf that is a bit of a clanger!

As much as I PERSONALLY believe that Talbot should be held responsible as playing a very clearly cup-tied player is 99.9% a slamdunk and something should have flagged it up, especially considering the circumstances of the transfer... But, if the statement from Talbot is 100% true then I couldn't argue if they were reinstated. 

I would actually much prefer Talbot still in the cup than EK so it's not like I've any agenda either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Killiepiyo said:

Not sure what’s wrong peoples ability to read, Talbot have put out a public statement saying they checked with the cup! For four players! For the same game! Jeeso mahn 

Where were your reading skills when trying to throw the muck at East Kilbride on here ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Killiepiyo said:

Desperate/obsessed to the point of refreshing the page to see if I’ve posted 

No I asked a valid question which you're clearly avoiding,  you're questioning the reading skills of others, where were your own reading skills when trying to dish the dirt on East Kilbride? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a later edited article on the situation that listed a player on the bench of the same game that the keeper played it. It was spotted in the first response but your obsession to make a meal of anything has continued to even bring it up weeks later. Desperate for absolutely anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Killiepiyo said:

Not sure what’s wrong peoples ability to read, Talbot have put out a public statement saying they checked with the cup! For four players! For the same game! Jeeso mahn 

As Ross Smith had previously played for Talbot against Broxburn in the SCC. I'm not sure why they'd have been checking on him again for the EKFC game. Maybe you read something wrong to get that impression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

As Ross Smith had previously played for Talbot against Broxburn in the SCC. I'm not sure why they'd have been checking on him again for the EKFC game. Maybe you read something wrong to get that impression?

Four checks completed in the same way was the point, one of which has seemingly came back wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Killiepiyo said:

I posted a later edited article on the situation that listed a player on the bench of the same game that the keeper played it. It was spotted in the first response but your obsession to make a meal of anything has continued to even bring it up weeks later. Desperate for absolutely anything. 

No your club have quite clearly broken the rules in playing a cup tied player,  the only desperate one is you and the muck you try and throw about to other clubs.  An absolute desperado .😆

 

I'm quite surprised that a good club like Talbot actually put up with your nonsense and balderdash to be honest . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thejackdaw said:

No your club have quite clearly broken the rules in playing a cup tied player,  the only desperate one is you and the muck you try and throw about to other clubs.  An absolute desperado .😆

 

I'm quite surprised that a good club like Talbot actually put up with your nonsense and balderdash to be honest . 

Broken rules? Broken record more like, seriously consider taking a break from this as it doesn’t come across as healthy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Killiepiyo said:

Four checks completed in the same way was the point, one of which has seemingly came back wrong. 

It was the point they were making. "Similar checks for eligibility made previously."

But you were being quite emphatic with your !!! that it was for the same game and calling people out for their misreading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It was the point they were making. "Similar checks for eligibility made previously."

But you were being quite emphatic with your !!! that it was for the same game and calling people out for their misreading.

It was more repeating the same thing each page 

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   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...