Jump to content

Kmcalpin

SO Well Society Members
  • Content Count

    7,827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Kmcalpin

  1. He's doing very well. Good luck to him.
  2. He's due his place but yes, of course, you are right. Just natural that today's younger fans focus only on players that they've seen, to the exclusion of greats of the past. I can't recall now who exactly is in our Hall of Fame but you'd imagine that the likes of Willie McFadyen, Hughie Ferguson, Willie Kilmarnock and Archie Shaw should be top of the list, or thereabouts. All a matter of opinion of course
  3. Yes give our money to our own club not Sevco.
  4. I'm totally shocked.......surely not. Would I be unfairly cynical to think that they would normally expect say 500 of our fans at this fixture but will now allow say 1,000 extra home fans? They're at it and everyone knows it.
  5. Presumably, they intend to keep the "away" section empty in the interests of health? If not, why not? Am I being naive here?
  6. Its good to see that this season's team seems to have a bit of character about it, in a good way. Individuals like Van Veen and Tony Watt seem to have a bit of devilment about them. Loved the image from yesterday of Tony Watt mischieviously rubbing Scott Brown's bald pate. Class!
  7. Some very good contenders but Ojala for me.
  8. Much as I like free flowing exciting football its not going to win us any trophies. If we go toe to toe with the bigger clubs we're going to come off worst. I think GA's approach is right and realistic if we want to do well. OK its work in progress of course and we're nowhere near the finished article but its the right direction to go in as St Johnstone have proved. As long as we can defend strongly and soak up pressure successfully then its ok to sit back and defend. We've not been able to do that for years now though. Thats not to say we can't add a more exciting element to our game but perhaps yesterday's match shows were GA is planning to take us. Our FennoScandinavian shieldwall was solid yesterday and even proved to have an offensive aspect to it. Maybe we should sign a modern day Bjorn Ironside or Ragnar Lodbrok to complete the trio
  9. I think GA is getting closer but there are still a couple of questionmarks. Goss may comed in but for who? O'Hara or Grimshaw. Woolery is in pole position up front but may have to see off competition from Roberts? Playing devil's advocate here. Will Mugbai challenge O'Donnell (on the basis of one good game) and will McGinley challenge Carroll? As you say good to have real options from the bench.
  10. Interestingly no sign of Lawless or Crawford yesterday. They're either injured or simply out of GA's thinking. Presumably Jordan Roberts wasn't fit yesterday?
  11. A very satisfying game and result today. We did to Aberdeen what they've done to us many a time. Aberdeen started well and bulldozed our seemingly timid midfield who failed to protect the defence. At that point I was very concerned. However after 20 minutes or so we grew into the game and the first goal was crucial. The midfield then began to settle down and get Aberdeen's measure. Aberdeen looked very streetwise and I thought that I was watching a young Eoin Jess and Scott Booth again - going to ground at every lost challenge and rolling about in agony. Their left back, MacKenzie was lucky not to be booked for continuous simulation. For long spells, John Beaton had no control over the game, and missed many niggly incidents and one or two more serious ones that could have caused the game to boil over. Apart from the early stages I thought we defended well and crucially took our chances. Scoring the first goal was pivotal. We’re now starting to look more organised and harder to beat. I thought we saw the game out well and it was pleasing to see the likes of Declan Gallagher resorting to passing the ball sideways 45 yards from our goal. We deliberately gifted them possession, safe in the knowledge that they couldn’t breach our defensive wall. Many of us watched “great and entertaining” Aberdeen and Dundee United sides do exactly this for years. I was especially impressed with our 2 central defenders who look as though they’ll be very solid. I wasn’t convinced by Mugabi against Dundee but he won me over yesterday with an impressive performance at right back. Watt had an excellent game and Van Veen showed some real class but also a temperamental edge. He has a fine line to tread. I still don’t think our midfield mix is right though. Slattery played well and intelligently but I’m not convinced that Grimshaw and O’Hara are the right combination.
  12. Careful now you're stealing my thunder and might get lambasted for it.
  13. I would imagine that McGinley will replace the suspended Carroll in our starting line up.
  14. The starting point for any planning application is that there is a presumption in favour of approval and so its up to the Planning Authority to justify reasons for refusal if it is is rejected. You're right about alternative locations. I'd imagine, at some point in the process, the applicants will need to demonstrate that they've considered alternative locations, which were discounted for whatever reason. What we don't know yet is their technical/spatial justification for wanting to site the structure inside Fir Park. I have very little knowledge of these matters and it may be that other locations don't provide the same extent of geographical coverage that the company and its customers require. At the end of the day someone somewhere will be disadvantaged by its location. Finally, the Scottish Government is strongly promoting the extension of 5G coverage (rightly so) and many customers are already clamouring for it. Its an issue that won't go away.
  15. Exactly. The more people who are double vaccinated the better as this cuts down, but not eliminates, the chance of variants developing.
  16. Agree that the club doesn't own the houses on Fir Park Street. The phone company behind the application will know the technicalities behind their signal coverage and I'm sure they wouldn't go to the hassle and expense of promoting this application if it wasn't required. It may or may not affect property prices in the immediate area but that is not a planning consideration and cannot and will not be taken into account in determining the application. I'm not sure of the scale of the proposed structure but I'd guess that its a few metres higher than the existing floodlight pylons. The only other locations in which you could sensitively site the structure would be amongst high rise blocks and that would almost defeat the purpose of the allicationand certainly affect signal strength and coverage you'd think. Such structures have to be higher than surrounding buildings. Its a classic planning scenario of local inconvenience versus wider area gain. I doubt very much if local residents would give much thought to the negative environmental effects elsewhere of the generation of power that they use in Fir Park Street or the quarrying of aggregates that have gone into building or extending their homes and again why would they? Residents of the wider area who would gain from 5G coverage provided by this structure won't be overly concerned about this application and again why would they? Its up to the Council's Planning Committee to weigh up and balance the benefits and disbenefits of this application, taking into account objections and letters of support, recommnendatios from professional planners and Scottish Government planning guidelines. Anyone can object but also support the application. I have no idea about the John Boyle ownership issue that you raise. Incidentally what is the reference to the Scottish Government's website?
  17. If this idea is implemented will you also stop going to pubs, clubs and concerts? By boycotting Fir Park you'd be harming an innocent party in the form of MFC. Despite some basic misgivings, I can see some merit in the general idea. As always the devil would be in the detail.
  18. I agree that the original comment hardly registers on a scale of 1 to 10 but anything even remotely political can stir up unpredictable and mercurial reactions, and is best avoided on football fora. In general though this board is far better than some in that regard.
  19. I think I'm right in saying that the proposals would only apply to adults ie those aged 18 and over. But, given that a substantial proportion of football crowds are aged under 18, what about slightly younger age groups?
  20. Absolutely. No political comments please. We have fans of all political persuasions and none. Please respect that.
  21. The raft of new signings must raise questions over the future of squad players like Crawford and Lawless. Perhaps we'll see one or both going out on loan toa Championship club later this month. On paper at least some good business this window and IF that translates to good players on the pitch then our longer term strategy of 2/3 years deal should see us move more towards a St Johnstone model of long term stability and continuity.
  22. Interesting. I haven't seen much of Goss and Slattery but have been led to believe that they are both passing midfielders. Goss, the creative one who can pick out a pass and Slattery the "Gorrin" all rounder type who can also pass. If we are also after a 3rd central midfielder(I'm not convinced that we are) then that surely would be a defensive midfielder to compete with or replace Donnelly, who is essentially a defender.
  23. If we're as successful as Jim MacLean's Dundee United were at playing this way then I won't complain.

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×