Ray McKinnon

[Angus_Young]

24 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

I'm not saying the rules shouldn't apply, just that it's clearly been an oversight as there was no advantage to be gained.

Tbh with the amount of scrutiny on clubs these days I dont anyone would knowingly field an intelligible player. 

[adamntg]

I don't know what the complaints are from United, the club and supporters.  The rules are clear and are applied to everyone equally.  I wouldn't expect anything less if another club had fielded an ineligible player.

United just lucky it matters not a jot.

[jailender]

As long as Caley don't get the points

[ShedTA]

44 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

Your team cheated.  Take it like a man.  I knew that Thompson couldn't be trusted....

now now, there is cheating and then there's admin errors. Cheating would actually be more like hiding the side letters associated with your players employment contracts over many years, enabling you to pay these players, tax and NI free,  rendering them ineligible in the eyes of everyone except your stooges running the SFA, thus providing you with a huge sporting advantage of 10's of millions of pounds and attracting players you could never otherwise sign, resulting in you shamelessly winning trophies ahead of clubs paying their taxes and playing by the rules and trying to uphold sporting integrity.

THAT would be cheating on an industrial scale.

[ShedTA]

3 minutes ago, adamntg said:

I don't know what the complaints are from United, the club and supporters.  The rules are clear and are applied to everyone equally.  I wouldn't expect anything less if another club had fielded an ineligible player.

United just lucky it matters not a jot.

correct. a c*ck up by utd. I think thomsons anger is with the fine. but not sure what the precedent is here.

[Orraloon]

3 minutes ago, jailender said:

As long as Caley don't get the points

They won't. Just 3 points deducted for Utd. 

[sbcmfc]

6 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

correct. a c*ck up by utd. I think thomsons anger is with the fine. but not sure what the precedent is here.

Yeah, the fine does seem a bit disproportionate in the context.

[fringo]

47 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

now now, there is cheating and then there's admin errors. Cheating would actually be more like hiding the side letters associated with your players employment contracts over many years, enabling you to pay these players, tax and NI free,  rendering them ineligible in the eyes of everyone except your stooges running the SFA, thus providing you with a huge sporting advantage of 10's of millions of pounds and attracting players you could never otherwise sign, resulting in you shamelessly winning trophies ahead of clubs paying their taxes and playing by the rules and trying to uphold sporting integrity.

THAT would be cheating on an industrial scale.

Something like that could never happen surely.....?

[Orraloon]

45 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

Yeah, the fine does seem a bit disproportionate in the context.

I think Thomson is just waiting for a good excuse to walk away.

[AberdeenAngus]

Yer again Scottish football caught with its pants down.

Fielding ineligible players is not new. Has happened before and will do so again. 

Why are there not hard and fast punishmentshipping listed so every club knows the score?

Shouldn't be surprised I suppose but like Admin and Liquidation cases they have happened and are likely to reoccur so why not have the consequences laid out clearly for all to see?

[iainmac1]

There is precedent here. It's happened before and it's been a fine, points deducted and the game replayed. 

In the Scottish Cup you seem to just get punted out.

In this case they decided it's too near the end of the season so they won't bother replaying the game. Caley won't care about that as finishing 7th is on our own hands anyway. Luckily the game didn't mean anything. 

[DaveyDenoon]

Trust the SPFL to come up with a rule to prevent kids getting some game time in a match that essentially meant nothing.

But of course the rules need to be applied fairly whether they're daft rules or not.

The fine does seem a bit excessive though, however the points deduction is a bit like stripping Hibs of all the Scottish Cups they've won in the last 100 years.

Of greater concern to me is the constant ability of those in charge of Scottish football to make participation at the highest level more and more difficult for young players just starting out and less and less attractive for the clubs to chuck these boys into their sides.

A massive overhaul is needed, with this problem central to all decisions debated and taken.

[ShedTA]

1 hour ago, fringo said:

Something like that could never happen surely.....?

You would think not fringo, but this Scottish football we are talking about. Have you read the Offshore Game report? 

[ShedTA]

McKinnon has resigned apparently. Doesn't mean he's coming to us right enough!! 

[AberdeenAngus]

7 minutes ago, DaveyDenoon said:

Trust the SPFL to come up with a rule to prevent kids getting some game time in a match that essentially meant nothing.

But of course the rules need to be applied fairly whether they're daft rules or not.

The fine does seem a bit excessive though, however the points deduction is a bit like stripping Hibs of all the Scottish Cups they've won in the last 100 years.

Of greater concern to me is the constant ability of those in charge of Scottish football to make participation at the highest level more and more difficult for young players just starting out and less and less attractive for the clubs to chuck these boys into their sides.

A massive overhaul is needed, with this problem central to all decisions debated and taken.

 

Rules have to be the same for all clubs in the league. Can't say a team is relegated so they have different rules to those fighting to aviod a play off or a Euro spot. 

I don't think this ruling is peculiar to Scotland. It's to do with playing for more than 1 club in the window as far as I can see. The loan system is set up to allow young players to get game time in a lower league especially Development Loans. 

[EddardStark]

Thompson would have had to resign anyway and stand for election as one of the two championship reps. Drama queen alert.

Edited May 11, 2016 by EddardStark

[ShedTA]

8 minutes ago, EddardStark said:

Thompson would have had to resign anyway and stand for election as one of the two championship reps. Drama queen alert.

As opposed to convicted criminal and money launderer alert? 

[EddardStark]

3 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

As opposed to convicted criminal and money launderer alert? 

Raging?

[adamntg]

35 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

McKinnon has resigned apparently. Doesn't mean he's coming to us right enough!! 

Hmmm.  If he's been given permission to talk to Utd why would he need to resign?  If he had resigned I would think that means he wasn't coming to Tannadice.

[ShedTA]

50 minutes ago, EddardStark said:

Raging?

Still? You've had 4 years to get over it Eddard. It really wasn't all Thompson's fault.

[ShedTA]

37 minutes ago, adamntg said:

Hmmm.  If he's been given permission to talk to Utd why would he need to resign?  If he had resigned I would think that means he wasn't coming to Tannadice.

No, I think it just means he has handed in his notice. Hopefully that means decision made.

[ShedTA]

BudMill90Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 18:54

1

Mckinnon quits

Ray McKinnon has this evening advised the club of his intention to resign from his position as manager, with immediate effect.
Commenting on the news, Chief Executive Eric Drysdale commented, “Everyone at the club is naturally very disappointed that Ray has reached this decision, and we certainly did everything in our power, and then more, to try to retain his services but he leaves Raith Rovers with thanks and best wishes for the future.
Ray has built a terrific squad of players with tremendous team spirit, and that will be his legacy.”
The search for a new manager has already begun.

 

---

 

Massacre_Of_15Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 18:55

2

re: Mckinnon quits

I really really really hope this means that baldy has caved in with his ludicrous proposed budget!!

 

---

---

The following 1 users like this post: offshore_arab83

tHeArAbPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 18:59

3

re: Mckinnon quits

 

Massacre_Of_15 wrote on 18:59 11 May:

I really really really hope this means that baldy has caved in with his ludicrous proposed budget!!

What was the proposed budget?

 

 

---

 

JoePearsonPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:01

4

re: Mckinnon quits

 

Massacre_Of_15 wrote on 19:01 11 May:

I really really really hope this means that baldy has caved in with his ludicrous proposed budget!!

How do you know what the budget is/was? Havers.

 

 

---

 

BudMill90Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:01

5

re: Mckinnon quits

People have said 400k

 

---

 

Massacre_Of_15Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:02

6

re: Mckinnon quits

I'm sure you've already seen what it is in other posts.

Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely your prerogative of course.

 

---

---

The following 1 users like this post: offshore_arab83

JoePearsonPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:04

7

re: Mckinnon quits

So your "source" is other posts?

 

---

 

Massacre_Of_15Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:07

8

re: Mckinnon quits

My source is someone who is on the verge of losing their job. Perhaps they're "havering" though!

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/sleepy.gif

 

 

---

---

The following 1 users like this post: offshore_arab83

Arab1994-ftdPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:11

9

re: Mckinnon quits

Possibly not havering. I just don't see how the figures match up with what we're currently spending and how much the revenue will drop by. I think it's a miscommunication. The budget is getting cut by that much or something to that extent has been said and it's been misconstrued.

 

---

 

arab81Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:11

10

re: Mckinnon quits

This mean raith get no compo?

 

---

---

The following 1 users like this post: JoePearson

JoePearsonPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:11

11

re: Mckinnon quits

 

Massacre_Of_15 wrote on 19:10 11 May:

My source is someone who is on the verge of losing their job. Perhaps they're "havering" though!

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/sleepy.gif

Who? A player? An office member? Can't imagine ST would be discussing future budgets with either of them. You'll know though. Nod nod.

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/wink.gif

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/wink.gif

 Say no more.

 

 

---

 

The_GuyPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:12

12

re: Mckinnon quits

No, they will get compo, it has been agreed. He is just giving them formal notice that he has quit his role with them.

 

---

 

arab81Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:13

13

re: Mckinnon quits

Thank you guy

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/smile.gif

 

 

---

 

JoePearsonPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:14

14

re: Mckinnon quits

 

arab81 wrote on 19:12 11 May:

This mean raith get no compo?

That'll be the 30K for the Ali Coote/Jamie Robson fine! Seriously if they miss out, that's a bit shyte. Maybe we could give them £30K ... And get Connolly back.

 

 

---

 

ianharabPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:31

15

re: Mckinnon quits

Hopefully now we have a manager season ticket sales pick up a bit--- he was not my choice but will back him 100%

 

---

---

The following 1 users like this post: tHeArAb

Utd_spartanPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:34

16

re: Mckinnon quits

As long as he knows who eligible to play, he gets my vote. Hopefully the 50th club statement in 49 days is about to follow.

 

---

 

brizee66Posted Wednesday 11th May 2016 19:44

17

re: Mckinnon quits

 

Massacre_Of_15 wrote on 19:41 11 May:

My source is someone who is on the verge of losing their job. Perhaps they're "havering" though!

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/sleepy.gif

No wonder our club is a mess when they are telling employees who will lose their jobs such important information regarding next seasons budget.

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/laugh.gif

Surely they would just be told there are to be cuts
Don't believe it for a minute I'm afraid

 

 

---

---

The following 2 users like this post: jjaflup22, JoePearson

ArabSwingPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 20:00

18

re: Mckinnon quits

Rumours on social media that McKinnon is to get a 3 year deal. Hope there's a relegation clause in that

image: http://boards.footymad.net/img/smileys/bigsmile.gif

 

 

---

---

The following 1 users like this post: Boy_With_The_Arabstr

Logie_ArabPosted Wednesday 11th May 2016 20:02

19

re: Mckinnon quits

McKinnon poised to be confirmed as United boss

By Tom Duthie,11 May 2016 6.18pm

Dundee United appear to have their man.

After three days of intensive talks with Tangerines chairman Stephen Thompson, it’s understood Raymond McKinnon has agreed to become manager.

United were making no comment this evening, but after leaving his third lengthy meeting with Thompson this afternoon it’s understood the 45-year-old informed current club Raith Rovers he would be quitting his post.

That can only mean one thing, that he’s accepted the chance to take the reins at Tannadice.

McKinnon is expect to sign a three year deal with the club he supported as a boy and went on to play for.

[ShedTA]

Ha ha, f@ck knows how that happened!! 

[DaveyDenoon]

2 hours ago, AberdeenAngus said:

 

Rules have to be the same for all clubs in the league. Can't say a team is relegated so they have different rules to those fighting to aviod a play off or a Euro spot. 

I don't think this ruling is peculiar to Scotland. It's to do with playing for more than 1 club in the window as far as I can see. The loan system is set up to allow young players to get game time in a lower league especially Development Loans. 

Agree totally that the rules need to apply to all clubs equally.

And whilst I understand the need to prevent players playing for more than one club in the window I do think the rules should be examined and adjusted slightly to allow for the scenario where players under a certain age are returning to parent clubs following a loan spell - particularly where remaining games are meaningless.

Obviously they'd have to be worded so as to ensure no abuse, but to prevent a couple of young lads playing in and gaining nothing other than experience from their involvement in essentially meaningless matches does seem counterproductive to me.

Maybe some sort of application for a waiver in certain circumstances which the league would then have to consider on its merits and agree to only where the benefits are heavily biased towards youth development and there won't be any disadvantage to other clubs - perhaps other potentially affected clubs would be asked if they are prepared to agree maybe? In this case for example, if Inverness were OK to allow the lads to play then a waiver could be granted in the interests of youth development? If not then they could have vetoed their involvement?

Edited May 11, 2016 by DaveyDenoon

[Orraloon]

51 minutes ago, DaveyDenoon said:

Agree totally that the rules need to apply to all clubs equally.

And whilst I understand the need to prevent players playing for more than one club in the window I do think the rules should be examined and adjusted slightly to allow for the scenario where players under a certain age are returning to parent clubs following a loan spell - particularly where remaining games are meaningless.

Obviously they'd have to be worded so as to ensure no abuse, but to prevent a couple of young lads playing in and gaining nothing other than experience from their involvement in essentially meaningless matches does seem counterproductive to me.

Maybe some sort of application for a waiver in certain circumstances which the league would then have to consider on its merits and agree to only where the benefits are heavily biased towards youth development and there won't be any disadvantage to other clubs - perhaps other potentially affected clubs would be asked if they are prepared to agree maybe? In this case for example, if Inverness were OK to allow the lads to play then a waiver could be granted in the interests of youth development? If not then they could have vetoed their involvement?

That game wasn't meaningless for ICT. It is a pretty basic schoolboy mistake. It is Thomson's responsibility to ensure he employs folk who understand the rules. Maybe if he hadn't sacked Mixu so quickly this mistake wouldn't have happened and it wouldn't have cost the club £30K?