Jump to content

CoF

Legends
  • Content Count

    2,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Posts posted by CoF


  1. On 11/16/2020 at 7:37 PM, grizzlyg said:

    As I said before I think we will have them till end of season but after that ye i reckon both will be off. January is huge for them, if an offer came in elsewhere do they take the financial security and risk their place in euro squad incase they dont get game time...or stay till euros and put themselves in shop window in front of huge audience 

    Not a bad position to be in but it's a gamble either way. Move to a new club to earn the big money, but risk the chance to step out in front of 80'000** for Scotland at Wembley.

     

    ** If our governments get their shit together. 


  2. 3 hours ago, yosemite sam said:

    Why oh why is McBurnie still in that squad. He is absolutely murder, and shouldn't be anywhere near the Scotland team.

    Clarke has found a winning system with a big target man up front. We've got absolutely no-one to replace Dykes when he's out so Clarke has a choice of changing the entire system to fit the likes of Griffiths in, or trying to find another target man. He's obviously hoping McBurnie would be that guy, however Clarke will be well aware that it's not really working. 

    With international games few and far between, persevering with McBurnie or trying to find a whole new system is a difficult balance to strike. I'm sure he'll make the right judgement either way. 

     

    • Like 2

  3. 1 hour ago, dennyc said:

    I think that is spot on. The delay in the hearing taking place was to allow the SPFL to complete their enquiries into whether a breach took place. Having established that in their opinion there was a breach it is then passed to the panel to pass sentence and hear any mitigating circumstances put forward by the Clubs.

    At least that is my take on it.

    Yeah, makes sense however if so it's odd that both clubs are still disputing it and 'defending' their positions at the disciplinary hearing. Killie's assistant manager quoted as saying "I have no doubt the club will be fine. In fact I know that for a fact." Makes me wonder if the hard facts established by the SPFL are still up for challenge - even at this stage, so there's a chance no disciplinary action will be taken. 

    If the SPFL had any sense, they would release full and transparent information on how the decision was made. Instead, they'll release a vague statement leaving a massive void to be filled with all sorts of shite. If they haven't learned from the summer then hell mend them. 


  4. Am I right in saying it's not the disciplinary hearings role to decide if the rule breach did or didn't occur? That's already been established as fact by the investigation? 

    Or is the disciplinary hearing an independent process which hears evidence from the SPFL (i.e. their investigation) and evidence from the club and then decides if a rule breach has occurred? 


  5. 3 hours ago, Andy_P said:

    Whether it impacted on the eventual scoreline or not you surely can't be suggesting there isn't an element of good  fortune involved in that third goal?

    I haven't,or would even for a second, dispute that we had a brilliant team that year or the fact we played exceptionally well in those games.

    But none of the references to that season or those game dissuade me from thinking - (and I apologise to those probably bored seeing me repeat it) that as was well evidenced in those two games in 2013 - we generally need to play very well.  It boosts our chances when the opposition don't play as well as they can (and that can be as much down to us preventing them from doing so).  And that the likes of the aforementioned OG, a quick throw-in whilst the opposition are rolling about on the floor seemingly on the verge of paralysis or that they don't hit the choose games against us to practice the art of simulation, can also be quite useful too.

    I think the lack of positive results  against Celtic or Rangers in the league tends to back that up.

    Of course, that third goal has an element of good fortune but it's one of those "make your own luck" times. Those things happen when you're putting the opposition under pressure and you've got someone like Higdon noising up defenders.  Agree completely about what you've said about playing well, quick thinking etc, your original post just seemed a bit dismissive of how good we were in those games - however I can see that's not the case . 

    From what I've seen so far , I'm not convinced that even at our best we've got enough to take anything from Celtic on Sunday but there's definitely something coming together with this squad. Hopefully this weekend is when we see what they're capable of!

     

    • Like 1

  6. 1 hour ago, Andy_P said:

    When big Higdon was destroying them we got a penalty for Charlie Mulgrew tripping over his feet and banging into Ojamaa when he was chasing a ball liable to go out of play and OG from a Celtic defender hitting the post which then rebounded off the back of their keeper and into the net.  No luck indeed.  

    Nothing lucky about the penalty and we won 3-1 so didn't need that rebounded goal, which Lustig only messed up because Higdon was a pest in the box. We also beat them 2-1 the month before. 

    No luck at all, we just had a brilliant team that year. 

    • Like 1

  7.  

     

    1 hour ago, weeyin said:

    When big Higdon was terrorising their defence, we won because we played to our strengths and played well. No luck or poor performance from them required.

    The winning formula is play to our strength + played well..... but also + Higdon + Ojamaa + Mcfadden + Hutchinson + Law + Randolph etc......

    Pretty much all of that starting 11 would walk into our first team. 


  8. 10 hours ago, weeyin said:

    The article I was reading said it applied to this season too - although how binding that was, I don't know.

    Seems to be additional complications from some clubs keeping season ticket holders' money and expecting them to buy PPV for their home games.

    Regardless,  while I'm all for helping out clubs that are genuinely financially struggling - and there are many - the billionaire owners need to be stepping in here to contribute after sucking out the profits from multi-billion pound TV deals these past few years.

     

    Yep, can't argue with any of that. 


  9. 1 hour ago, weeyin said:

    The £14.95 is an issue for fans in England because Sky are charging it over and above the normal subscription. When the government granted the Premiership a special exemption to restart playing ,part of the deal was that all the games would be streamed for fans on the regular service.

    So while the games wouldn't normally be on TV, they should have been on TV as part of the agreement to get football back up and running in the Covid deal. Sky are just making a money-grab.

    Are you absolutely sure the condition about free games wasn't just about completing the 19/20 season? 

    Sky aren't even profiting from this - the money goes to the clubs. Surely it's no different to what we're doing but with Sky rather than that lassie with the sellotaped TV cables that we've got?

     

     


  10. 12 hours ago, Stu92 said:

    Little bit off-topic here, but I've found all the PPV chat down in England quite interesting recently.  £14.95 for a game that ordinarily wouldn't be on the TV is apparently too steep for an English football fan, with Scottish football fans seemingly with a lot more disposable cash these days.

    Aye, it's a good question. 

    I think a big part will be perceptions of where the money is going. If I didn't already have as season ticket I'd more than happily put £12 directly into the club every second week and I've no objection to paying most other SPFL clubs £12 / £15 quid to see an away game. It's a still a lot of money, and probably not value for money, but for most they won't object to giving clubs extra income just now when there is a genuine risk of clubs in Scotland folding. 

    Given the finances kicking around English football, the perception is that clubs / sky don't need the money and the average punter who is paying £80 a month for Sky is already skint etc etc. 


  11. 7 hours ago, SteelmaninOZ said:

    O’Hara and Gallagher are solid and work well. But I have to go with Watt again, he seems to be working very hard to be the player we all know that’s there. :clapping:

    Surprised Watt is leading the poll. Worked really hard, but I thought Livi done well to nullify any threat he posed.

    I went for Lang - took his goal really well and  defensively knocked his pan in the second half. 


  12. 3 hours ago, Yorkyred said:

    Horror start points wise for sure, performances though no. We missed chances but other than that we were never that bad.

    You're right. My concern was that until just a few weeks ago we weren't that bad but still not winning for pretty much all of 2020. 

    Fair play to the lot of them for turning it around. Even more impressive when the injury list is growing. 


  13. 30 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

    Interesting that Falkirk is charging £14 for Division 1 games. 

    Looking forward to watching the game on Alba later. No classic but a wins a win.

    Avoided the score all afternoon. Flicked the TV on at 17:57 to immediately hear "and it was wins for Dundee United and Motherwell today"....

    • Haha 1

  14. 12 minutes ago, Stu92 said:

    This is my thinking also. Fines or point deductions fair enough (if it's proven that clubs have been negligent in their responsibilities) but anything that impacts clubs other than the guilty party is a very dangerous precedent.

    Agree 100%. However we're now going to have a wee fixture pile-up which will out strain on our squad. We'll also be out of pocket for the games cancelled. Affected clubs should get some financial compensation. 


  15. 44 minutes ago, santheman said:

    For fairness I think  it would have to be a case of all or nothing for letting fans back in.

    It would be unfair, if for instance, Aberdeen got some fans back and the advantages that would bring and we didn’t simply because of our geographical location

    Not for me. If Aberdeen can get fans in while we can't then so be it. I'd much rather fans were in somewhere rather than waiting for the whole country to be ready.

    I imagine most players would also prefer a handful of opposition fans over a completely empty stadium. 


  16. 24 minutes ago, ohwulliewullie said:

    I thought you were kidding at £20, but unfortunately you're not. That's a piss-take... and may tempt some into breaking household mixing rules and getting their pals round

    Livingston actually said that's one of the reasons they've made it so expensive -  "In addition to this, we had to consider the very real possibility that friends will group together to watch the stream, further reducing the revenue the club would had received if fans were in the stadium". 

    The main reason is that unlike us, they're not guaranteeing any in-person games for season ticket holders so had to make sure PPV was more expensive than the £17 per game for season ticket holders.

    It doesn't surprise me - their CEO John Ward comes across as a bit of a wank who has a wee streak of contempt for fans, including Livi fans. Compare that to how our club is currently being run and we've got very little to complain about. 

     

     

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×