Lokloyal Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Apparently some issue over his eligibility to play in the West final for Darvel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 14 minutes ago, Lokloyal said: Apparently some issue over his eligibility to play in the West final for Darvel. In what way, due to being on loan from Pollok or being cup tied? (appears he was an unused sub v Petershill) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderbilt Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 On loan but only a gentlemen’s agreement that he couldn’t play. No actual rule that he couldn’t play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Pennel Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Popcorn gif incoming... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokloyal Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 20 minutes ago, Vanderbilt said: On loan but only a gentlemen’s agreement that he couldn’t play. No actual rule that he couldn’t play. Ok -heard the clubs had a formal agreement he couldn’t play against the parent club but maybe that isn’t the case 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokloyal Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 23 minutes ago, Black Pennel said: Popcorn gif incoming... We were well beaten but if there is a rule broken we should know 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderbilt Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 25 minutes ago, Lokloyal said: Ok -heard the clubs had a formal agreement he couldn’t play against the parent club but maybe that isn’t the case There is no such thing as a formal agreement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthurlie1981 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 27 minutes ago, Vanderbilt said: There is no such thing as a formal agreement. As I understand, it can be written into the loan agreement between clubs. Not saying it has just saying it can (or certainly a few years ago it could) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderbilt Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said: As I understand, it can be written into the loan agreement between clubs. Not saying it has just saying it can (or certainly a few years ago it could) It can but it is not enforceable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, Lokloyal said: Ok -heard the clubs had a formal agreement he couldn’t play against the parent club but maybe that isn’t the case 7 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said: As I understand, it can be written into the loan agreement between clubs. Not saying it has just saying it can (or certainly a few years ago it could) The WOSFL clarified before the match that any such clauses are invalid in their competitions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderbilt Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 I’m sure relations between Pollok and Darvel will be a bit strained mind you! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthurlie1981 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 32 minutes ago, peasy23 said: The WOSFL clarified before the match that any such clauses are invalid in their competitions. Thanks for this. An interesting comment from the league. it used to be the SFA registrations department that decided on clauses being legitimate or not as any illegitimate clauses would see it rejected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 hours ago, peasy23 said: The WOSFL clarified before the match that any such clauses are invalid in their competitions. Why is the sjfa quoted in this? Nothing to do with them? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Wilson Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 16 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: Why is the sjfa quoted in this? Nothing to do with them? Dervil's maybe got someone on loan from Arthurlie and they intend going back on that agreement as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thejackdaw Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Totally get that pollok had financial problems and that Was probably a reason to loan the player out but it's quite unusual for clubs to loan players out to your immediate rivals, usually down the leagues or to the Lowland league or ' senior ' leagues if possible ( to Avoid them coming back to bite you) but to a direct junior () rival in the same league is unusual . Fully understand this was a cup game right enough however there's a high likelihood that the west cup final would contain two premier league teams in it . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Wilson Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 3 minutes ago, Thejackdaw said: Totally get that pollok had financial problems and that Was probably a reason to loan the player out but it's quite unusual for clubs to loan players out to your immediate rivals, usually down the leagues or to the Lowland league or ' senior ' leagues if possible ( to Avoid them coming back to bite you) but to a direct junior () rival in the same league is unusual . Fully understand this was a cup game right enough however there's a high likelihood that the west cup final would contain two premier league teams in it . If what you're saying is right, Pollok are that skint that they couldn't just cancel his loan deal cos it meant they'd have to pay his wages till his contract run out. They then wanted to deny the player the chance to play in a cup final for a team that has actually paid his wages for months. Why is Pollok holding on to him? Are they due a big transfer fee? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thejackdaw Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 10 minutes ago, Casper Wilson said: If what you're saying is right, Pollok are that skint that they couldn't just cancel his loan deal cos it meant they'd have to pay his wages till his contract run out. They then wanted to deny the player the chance to play in a cup final for a team that has actually paid his wages for months. Why is Pollok holding on to him? Are they due a big transfer fee? I've no idea mate I'm not a Pollock fan. But in a ruthless sport like football ' gentleman agreements ' seldom work but I reckon good junior clubs like Talbot,arthurlie , meadow and beith would have fulfilled that agreement.....darvel in the other hand 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderbilt Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 28 minutes ago, Thejackdaw said: I've no idea mate I'm not a Pollock fan. But in a ruthless sport like football ' gentleman agreements ' seldom work but I reckon good junior clubs like Talbot,arthurlie , meadow and beith would have fulfilled that agreement.....darvel in the other hand Most clubs do honour the agreements made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PollokGang Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 hour ago, Thejackdaw said: Totally get that pollok had financial problems and that Was probably a reason to loan the player out but it's quite unusual for clubs to loan players out to your immediate rivals, usually down the leagues or to the Lowland league or ' senior ' leagues if possible ( to Avoid them coming back to bite you) but to a direct junior () rival in the same league is unusual . Fully understand this was a cup game right enough however there's a high likelihood that the west cup final would contain two premier league teams in it . He left because he didn’t perform. Only had one decent game for Pollok. Hutton out and Faulds in is the only reason we got to the final. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thejackdaw Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 3 minutes ago, PollokGang said: He left because he didn’t perform. Only had one decent game for Pollok. Hutton out and Faulds in is the only reason we got to the final. So if he was that bad then why feel the need to request he doesn't play against you? 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.