Here We Go Again

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/livingston-dock-sfa-accused-breaching-12228820

I would be inclined to just let him go since he clearly doesn't want to be here.

The parents complaints re lack of professionalism may be valid but surely they should have been a bit more astute in checking things when he signed. They also seem to be over-egging the pudding a bit in claiming his "confidence is shot" and "his love of the game has been eroded"  because of mistakes in forms. Methinks the lad will need to toughen up a bit if he wants to progress in fitba'. I also wonder if they will start looking at compensation claims.  

In saying all that it does irritate me that the club seem to be so careless in their awareness of the finer points of rules and contracts. It's not the first time, but I suppose when a club is run on a shoestring, finances perhaps don't run to having the personnel who can deal in a professional manner with the legal aspects of things.

All I can say is it must have been a bl00dy slow news day if they can dedicate a full page to such inane story-line.

Also to claim we're "in the dock" seems a little hysterical; they've taken their case to the "well being panel" which is not quite the same as being the accused in a dock.

A sixteen year old kid still in his fourth year at school and they want to make a story out of it - do me a favour.

I wonder how many pages they assigned to Mohsni signing for United they; on the current form of inflating stuff for the sake of news I'm guessing about 30 pages?

Ah but it's always news when "That Livi" can be shown in a bad light.
Paranoid? Me? Niver!

I'm a bit confused about some of this, I don't think it unreasonable for a football club not to want a player playing with a school team or youth team too, or training with them before a Livi match, seems common sense that it would impact on their game for Livi, but the way it is portrayed Livi are being unreasonable, really?

I'll accept it if it is against children's well being rules but it seems a stupid rule, why sign up to a senior team if you want to fanny about playing with your school mates and not be fully committed to making the most of your chance at playing football as a career, really not getting that at all. Surely there must be more to this than is being said in that article.

I agree Orco, we'd have been better letting him go, doesn't fit in with our first team ethos or hard work and fully committed to playing and wanting to be here.

I see they're also wanting the compliance officer to do something, wonder what that will be.

I agree LF; if he has signed a pro contract then he needs to behave like a pro. I'm not the biggest fan of Knox as a player (yet, he's still young & could prove me wrong) but he has been on the fringes of our first team since he turned 16 himself (loan period notwithstanding) but has he whinged about not being able to play with the school/regional teams?

If it is simply what used to be called a schoolboy form then I suppose that might be different but even so, surely if you have signed with a pro club you'd be busting a gut to play for that club & the rest would become irrelevant.

If his parents didn't get copies of the forms before he signed them then they ought to have been more involved with the process & insisted. Sounds to me like he's not getting a game regularly & wants out. If it was me that was in charge I'd be inclined to say "Don't let the door whack your backside on the way out."

Also agree with Durnford that it must have been a slow news day.

Oh...and one final thing; "the contract he was MADE to sign"... given the big cheesy he has on his face in the handshake photo, I don't get the impression anyone was putting him under duress to sign.