Jump to content

Kmcalpin

SO Well Society Members
  • Content Count

    7,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Kmcalpin

  1. My thoughts too Allan. Make life more difficult for them and no silly mistakes.
  2. Central midfield need to show a bit more fight and aggression - sitting too deep as you say.
  3. We really need to defend the wings better. Too many needless crosses into the box.
  4. A good start but we still look very vulnerable in defence.
  5. So, Long is still out and MacIver has returned. I don't think we'll miss O'Hara, at least not in midfield.Midfield looks a bit powder puff and lightweight. Still, players have the chance to impress.
  6. 100% agree. That would be irrelevant though. You can however ban players who breached protocols, as has already been done.
  7. I doubt the league would be called so early. 5 games to go..yes, 17 to go...no. A point tomorrow or better still 3 is long overdue. No red cards please but thats not entirely within our control.
  8. Another perfectly feasible and just solution would be to suspend the players who breached the protocol.
  9. I think we all agree that we need reinforcements, and for many of us that included a winger. Time was and still is against us as the window closes in about a fortnight. However, I didn't think we'd move so quickly to bring someone in. I'd have thought that Graham Alexander would have waited until after today or perhaps Wednesday to assess the squad's strengths and weaknesses and make his first signing. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes. GA has made encouraging comments so far and we'll no doubt see more personnel changes in the next week or two.
  10. I'm with you up to a point. The SPFL could have handled the situation better in that it should not have awarded the 6 points originally, until the issue was cut and dried and could have dealt with matters more quickly. However, it is clearly surprised by the SFA's panel completely overturning the decision. The reasoning set out by the original panel was very comprehensive and wide ranging and it will be interesting how the appeal panel dismissed and rebutted these arguments. This episode casts Scottish football, and in particular the SFA in a poor light and no doubt the Scottish Government will have been monitoring developments. Football has just shot itself in the foot. Although this whole episode leaves a bitter taste in our mouth, and will not be forgotten for many years, we now have to move on and focus ruthlessly on winning points.
  11. Couldn't the SFA suspend the players who flouted the protocols? That would restore a measure of justice.
  12. Yes Iain. We should keep a low profile though. There's no way we'd win a PR battle against St Mirren and by association, Kilmarnock.
  13. Sadly, I don't think that will motivate the players. If we can afford it though, I'd offer the players an extra £2,000 in bonuses for these 2 games. That might work. It would be great to win both games 4-0 but that won't happen.
  14. We will have little say in the matter. If the 2 clubs can't agree then the home side will dictate the date. We've been totally shafted. Not even any mention of token financial compensation for us. So both Killie and St Mirren flouted the rules and gain an advantage by now being able to field full strength teams against us. This will only encourage other clubs to play the system.
  15. From what you say, and you're almost always spot on, I assume this deal has been in the pipeline for some time and so I wonder just how much influence Graham Alexander has had in bringing it to a conclusion?
  16. Agree with that Iain. Not only are we the innocent party but we have been unfairly disadvantaged. As I've said before I've no problem with the games being played so long as Killie and St Mirren don't benefit. In other words they would have to select their teams from the players they had available to play at the time. If that includes youth players, so be it I would say to them, be careful what you wish for.
  17. Handsome Devil on FPC wrote a very good post about the situation, far better than I could have done and he's captured the issues very well. In short he says that Kilmarnock and St Mirren's arguments will be have to be based on proportionality i.e. the punishment was totally out of line with the admitted breaches. The independent panel which originally sat and dished out the sentences seemed to take a comprehensive view with all factors considered. The 2 main issues are that: 1 Unlike normal cancellations for adverse weather, the consequences of their failings may have been very serious in that their employees could have spread the virus to other individuals in the community. Not everyone who contracts the virus is asymptomatic or has mild symptomes; and 2 The 2 clubs should not benefit, or be seen to benefit, from breaking protocols and hence the cancellation, as originally, they would have had to play with severely weakened teams against rivals. A financial penalty would not address this. In the current climate of tightening restrictions and punisments, and Scottish football being on a last warning I don't think they should expect special treatment and leniency. However its the SPFL and SFA we're dealing with, albeit through another independent panel, and sio I wouldn't bet on the outcome.
  18. Another possible aspect to the appeals is that the Scottish Government is watching top flight football very closely just now and any action that could be seen as being soft on wrongdoers might not go down too well.
  19. Yes, we were looking at Irvine a few years ago. Hibs however have a lot more cash to spend than we do. That said Lang's departure will have freed a wage up. Irvine was the type of player we could use in central midfield. Not everyone's Cup of tea though. Tall, streetwise, energetic, very mobile and physical with a mean streak. When Ross County beat us in Dingwall in our play off season he was a one man wrecking squad lashing out at anything in C & A. Ref never caught him once. He seemed to cover every inch of the park that day.
  20. My guess is that he wasn't but due to the secrecy of refereeing no-one seems to know for certain. This is a classic case where the referee could clear up the confusion instantly by explaining why he gave St Mirren the penalty. That however may involve him in admitting he was wrong. Thats not going to happen. Referees should not award a penalty if they think a foul has been committed they have to be almost certain.
  21. Hardly an unbiased opinion, and although very dangerous to do so, I'd tend to ignore his view. Just part of the lovie PR machine.

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×