adamntg Posted May 11, 2016 Author Share Posted May 11, 2016 It's the responsibility of the club secretary to be across these things I'd have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 9 minutes ago, adamntg said: It's the responsibility of the club secretary to be across these things I'd have thought. Who is that? It is Thompson's responsibility to employ a club secretary who isn't a complete idiot. The £30K should come out of the secretary's wages then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 Well that may be the issue. We had a secretary called John Taylor who left in 2014 but I can't find any record his replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 Perhaps we can now agree that United clearly hadn't tapped up McKinnon given it's taken a week of negotiation to get a deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyDenoon Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 13 hours ago, Orraloon said: 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? Can't disagree with what you are saying. I am not suggesting however that mistakes weren't made and that those mistakes were basic errors and down to little more than piss poor management of the club. What I am suggesting though is a system which recognises the importance of youth development and not sidelining young players out of a game where they could gain valuable experience. A system under which ICT could have been consulted and asked if they objected to the young lads playing (or being on the bench with the possibility of playing) in this particular match given the circumstances. If they'd objected fair enough, they're ineligible. But if not then grant a waiver and let the kids play for the greater good. If ICT recognised it could work both ways and that they too could benefit from such a system in the future then they may well not have objected. Intricate details of such a system would need ironed out and thought through of course, but as a principle I think it would help the game in Scotland. Nond of this takes away from the fact that right now no such system exists and united broke the rules, therefore need punished. I'd never suggest they shouldn't. But as a football loving nation we really need to look at arbitrary rules that have a negative impact on youngsters gaining good first team experience at a young age such as this one and find a suitable way to maintain sporting integrity but not at the expense of young future talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 Gary Locke taking over at Raith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted May 20, 2016 Author Share Posted May 20, 2016 Raith, I'm truly sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Glasgowmancity said: Gary Locke taking over at Raith. Fair play to him, he's clearly got friends in the right places! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
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.