It's the Club AGM on the 26th. I think many people agree the current situation is completely unacceptable, with this possibly being the Club's lowest point in many, many years. I don't remember witnessing such a hapless bunch of so-called players (I realise there are a few exceptions) for a very long time.

So, what can we do about it?

Someone buys Rankin's shares?

The agm is a toothless affair, where the board gets away with murder. In many ways it is consistent with the state of the club from top to bottom. The main shareholders say nothing, and those with sizeable but powerless shareholdings don't hold the main shareholders accountable. What we need are minor shareholders to ask the hard questions, criticise, dare to speak about the great unmentionables, make the directors and silent majorities feel very uncomfortable indeed. And call a cunt a cunt.

This is when the Trust needs to stand up and ask the hard questions, especially around money, investment and the farce of a managerial situation.

They will have the access.

We brought down Brown and yet all these years later, the hard work seems be getting undone month by month.

Bringing down Columbine may not do much more. We need to look beyond that.

On a playing side, other questions that need to be asked are why we persist on signing loan players who, more often than not, can't play in Cup game thus creating no team familiarity? We did have a goalie that let in 5 I guess.

Why do our young players not get developed into the first team? (One played today I think)

What are the plans for the Rangers money to strengthen the squad to avoid relegation?

If the current board can't put money in to buy players then why are they on the board?

How long has he had shares with us? How much money is those shares? If he has then I hope god someone buys them and the next time we draw a big team or we make a profit it can go into buying players or improving bayview not in someone else pocket that isn't a director of the club or part of east fife. this rumor needs to go and fast. Starting with you Sidney we like to know this as we support the club week in week out...???????

Bought from Danskin on the cheap.

Heard recently from a reliable source that Rankin would like to sell. Now would be the right time for the trust to approach him to find out more, and perhaps begin to organise a consortium.

On a playing side, other questions that need to be asked are why we persist on signing loan players who, more often than not, can't play in Cup game thus creating no team familiarity? We did have a goalie that let in 5 I guess.


GOF I totally agree with the content of this thread but would just like to state that the loan player in question,ANTEL,saved the team from an utter more humiliating score-believe me it could have been 10.Michael Brown ,had he been playing,would NOT have have saved us.

This disaster of a team contained 10 EF fully signed players.
While they did play very well for the first 30 minutes, they totally capitulated
after the first Elgin goal.
The team were given tremendous vocal support but let the fans down badly.

Why would Brown not have saved us Sammy? He has saved us countless times over the past few seasons and been our only consistent performer for a long time now! What has Brown done wrong to justify giving Antell a start even when Brown is now fully fit? Antell is no better a keeper than Brown, and I for one, would much rather our own players playing rather than someone shipped out by their own team to gain experience. Especially when there is next to no difference in ability!

Looking at the video the keeper didn't have an earthly with the goals.Do agree we didn't need a loan keeper that's only 1 of many poor decisions that have been made.

Confused, Sammy was there and knows why Brown would not have saved us. If you were there (and that's not a dig) you must have seen that we could have played with two goalkeepers,10 outfield, and still have lost.
I don't know the detail but it seems when Antell was borrowed neither EF keeper was fit and as the borrower you often just have to accept the terms.
In Antell's defence apart from a major error at Stenhousemuir Antell hasn't done anything wrong.

GOF. Whoever represents the Trust at the AGM will be more than prepared to ask any "difficult" questions. My email address is shown so any Trust member can send a question accompanied by their name,address and membership no.

As regards your statement about the current board I think you have forgotten the realities of life in Scottish football. Where are the six new board members who will invest thousands each year to help finance EFFC when we have an absentee major shareholder(s).
Even if you do find them are they also going to contribute 15,20,30 hours per week to run the club ?

i have contacted the club and am still waiting on a response to some questions. 1.who owns the majority shareholding.I think that the owner or the figurehead of any business should be transparent to everyone especially a local community business the people on the board know why shouldnt the fans know.
2. i appreciate that money has to be kept aside for future maintenance costs and day to day running but we appear to have less money for the team than when we played aberdeen killie etc no even counting rangers gate money. so what has it been spent on or what does the club plan to spend it on ?
3. may relate to question 2 but will the new mangement team have funds to bring in signed players not just loans. i am not criticisng loan players as some have been good for us but you need a squad of players you know you have signed up till the end of the season. Loan players should be there to compliment that and some may only stay till january we need some stability to many players are leaving the club and not being replaced.
i am not a trust member but would appreciate if someone can raise some or all these questions.

RE: Question 1

You can get that information for a £1. Simply go on to the Companies House website. You will see all the shareholders of East Fife, and exactly how many shares each individual has.

No you can't get that information. All you get is a surname and a first name initial. No full name, no address. Unless you have background knowledge, you wouldn't know who these people are, or where to find them, or when they became shareholders.
In the case of the largest shareholding, you don't even get first name initials. Just three surnames, which suggest joint three-way ownership. The reality of that situation is somewhat different, but you won't find clarification at Companies House.