Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dennyc last won the day on July 7

dennyc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

272 Hugh Sproat

About dennyc

  • Rank
    Pushing for the First XI

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,719 profile views
  1. I thought O'Hara had a great game with the centre back pairing worked as well as any this season. Certainly a whole lot calmer. The back four set up probably helped as well. Ok, Stewart had two decent headed chances from about ten yards and missed a sitter, but when has he not caused defences those problems?...and not just ours. Watching the game I was more relaxed with our defending than during every other game this season, even after Carson went off. As Vigurs was AWOL, County's only real creative threat was Charles-Cook who seemed to have acres of space at times. Then again his charges up the park left all the room in the world for us to exploit as the County defence was left short handed and stretched. Polworth's pass to McGinley exploited that space brilliantly for the first goal.
  2. I also think the impact on ourselves is an issue and should be reflected in any punishment for wrong doing. If the actions of Killie and St Mirren have beached protocol and the impact on us is no game for a lengthy spell and then being forced to play three games in 8 days then that is also unfair. It will disadvantage us enough and may well have an affect on player availability and ultimately our final League position. At the end of the day I'm not convinced deduction/forfeit of points will happen though. Too dangerous a precedent to set in this league. I really don't know what the answer is but I suspect fines or suspended fines will be the cop out.
  3. If we have followed the laid down protocol and that has resulted in nobody else requiring to isolate then surely that justifies the protocols being in place. Hopefully any investigation confirms that we are not at fault. If Clubs don't follow protocols and games are postponed as a result, then they deserve to lose the points. And that includes us if we are in breach. So it's not falling foul to CoVid that's the issue, it's how Clubs deal with it and mitigate impact. Kilmarnock appear to have been unable to evidence following the procedures and I suspect St Mirren might be in the same boat. That said, in St Mirren's case it might be all about the timing. We will have had time to have everybody checked and cleared twice before matchday, after the positive test was returned. Finding a positive on matchday does not provide that leeway. But I agree with Brazillian. How nobody else is regarded as a close contact who needs to isolate is a mystery. Even an injured player would likely have contact with medical and physio staff. Maybe we just got lucky.
  4. For me the completion of the first two rounds of fixtures is essential and should be the priority no matter what. At that stage everybody would have played each other twice, home and away, and league positions would be based on performance. Nobody could claim bias, whether relegated or Runners Up. If those two rounds are not fully completed then the League is voided and we start again whenever it is safe to do so. For that reason catching up on cancelled fixtures should take priority over starting the third round of fixtures. Thereafter I could maybe accept any early calling of the League, based on Points Per Game. But that raises the question of teams having possibly played immediate rivals away from home twice and only once at home, or perhaps having played more games against the OF than others. I don't think there is any solution that folk will agree on. But given the 10 in a row bullshit I am sure that any "discussions" this season will make last year's debacle seem like a walk in the park. Regarding the forfeiture of points I am torn. Any Club could (and likely will) be hit by CoVid and it seems harsh to award points if the stricken Club has followed all procedures and taken all mitigating measures. But if a team has ignored agreed procedures, then I see a case for awarding points to the opposing team. But it should be recognised that players ignoring guidance in their "private" time is something a Club cannot control and be liable for. I suspect a shambles is more likely than not.
  5. I think those pleasant folk at Kerrydale St might be fully occupied devising reasons why the League cannot be declared on a PPG basis no matter what CoVid brings.
  6. Only possibility I can think of is that the Killie investigation is still live. Awarding us the points (rightly or wrongly) is a potential outcome of Killie being held liable for the cancellation, Playing the game before the verdict could mean playing a meaningless fixture if we are awarded the points anyway. That does raise the question as to why the investigation is taking so long.
  7. And Taylor as well to an extent. Benched yesterday for a kid in their biggest League game so far. Doesn't seem t affect their chances of a cap though. Jack Hendy being a classic example.
  8. I agree with this . 100% But how big is the group in St Mirren's case ? I thought protocols were in place to minimise the impact of a positive result. In St Mirren's previous alerts it was restricted to a group of three goalkeepers (the first time), and two players plus one close contact this midweek? Suggests Groups of three. So games were possible and today's game was originally allowed to take place. . If todays one positive finding resulted in enough players being in the "close contact" category to warrant a call off, he must have been in close contact with at least 8 others., adding to the 3 already ruled out and allowing for a 25 man squad. So I ask, is there a maximum size of group allowed under Spfl protocols and did St Mirren exceed that limit? Is that the same issue that is being investigated at Kilmarnock? If Clubs have not followed protocol then they should be penalised. It's ironic that the only two clubs punished so far were when players went rogue well away from their Club, and the Clubs involved did nothing wrong. One thing is certain though. When told that an entire squad might have been exposed, and with no time to clear them before the scheduled kick off time, no way can the SPFL allow a match to go ahead. Whatever the true situation hopefully the CoVid positive players make a full recovery.
  9. From the SPFL Statement, Forfar advised the SPFL they could not fulfil the fixture. They made the move in the knowledge they would forfeit. That sounds like a willing forfeit to me. The point being they were not forced to play despite having 13 CoVid free players. And probably rightly so.
  10. Must have missed the SPFL Board making that announcement. If so, apologies. Can you point me towards their Statement? Or one saying we have adopted the UEFA guideline, unless outside bodies intervene. Then it's clear and cannot/should not be abused or challenged. Forfar had one player missing for the Dundee game and were allowed to forfeit. Admittedly Contact Tracing had not been completed and it was maybe safer to pull out. Not sure any more whether testing negative just before a match supersedes the tracing stuff. But they did have enough players CoVid free and non isolating to field a team. By that token. any team discovering a positive test in the lead up to a game could have grounds for postponing, whether it is one or a dozen positive results.
  11. I think St Mirren had three players out, all goalkeepers, so had to get an emergency goalkeeper in. And yes they were told to play. But three players out is not an issue, Or it shouldn't be. How many first team squad payers out with illness are required to guarantee a postponement? Until the SPFL Board formally set a figure it is all a lottery. Don't be surprised if Celtic push to cancel Saturday's OF match if a couple more players go down. And they certainly have a big enough squad to cope.
  12. Fine. When are we adopting that? Because we haven't yet. UEFA have for their tournaments. At least then it would be clear. Though I would prefer 15.
  13. I agree the Killie game against us had to be called off and I don't think Killie are doing anything wrong. Well, not anything any team looking after their own interests would not do. But what are those rules? How many players to Motherwell have to have down with CoVid to know beyond any doubt that a request to cancel a game will be approved. It's a genuine question because I just don't know what football's view is. What is the SPFL guidance? Appears to me the buck is passed elsewhere...Sturgeon/Leitch, Local Health Boards as examples. I saw a few nights ago that an English cup match was postponed due to players being on International duty. So there appears to be a quota for that. Why not put a quota in place for CoVid (or any illness), with the proviso that a total below that figure might also mean a postponement if Health Boards intervene due to circumstances.
  14. I think the nonsense is really happening this week. Play a game midweek which you think you can win with a weakened team and which would keep you in a cup tournament, but at the same time request the postponement of a league game a few days later. Not really blaming Killie as they are only trying to look after themselves. Trying to stay in the cup and not drop League points. The nonsense is that the existing rules (or lack of rules} enable them to do that. Does not happen often but I have to side with Hearts, who want a hard and fast rule set down for both League and League Cup. UEFA go along the lines of that if you have 13 players, to include a goalkeeper, then the game goes ahead. We have not gone down that road, or even set a criteria that covers all matches. It is time for our Leaders to actually lead. Does anybody know what the criteria is for having a game called? Even after several have been cancelled. It all seems very random
  15. And cue Killie opting to play League Cup game midweek but requesting League game following weekend v Livi be postponed. Farcical.

Twitter @MotherwellFC