dennyc

I thought it was working well in the group stages of the World Cup. Then it dawned on everyone that, during the knock out stages, drawn matches could result in even more time being added on. So 90 minutes official normal game time plus 30 minutes extra time plus anything from 20 minutes to 30 minutes 'injury' time in total. And then maybe penalties. And then possibly repeat next time out in three or four days.. So the referees were requested to limit time added on. Good intentions but ill thought out proving impractical in a Tournament sense but no reason why correct time cannot be added in League matches. Independent time keeper?

Just wait until our lot try and implement the new maximum 8 second rule for goalkeepers holding the ball which is being brought in next season. With a corner being the penalty for holding on too long. Apparently the referee is meant to visually count from 5 to 8 for all to see. It will be like a Christmas pantomime with the crowd counting to eight every time a goalie catches the ball. Of course some referees (Robertson) will ignore it until the fourth official tells him to act, and others (Walsh) will love being the centre of attraction and award corners after six seconds. The game we love is becoming farcical. It will be fun however watching Rodgers overreact when Ox gets away with holding on to the ball for 9 seconds. What I found hilarious is that the current Law states six seconds maximum. Clearly nobody told Craig Gordon or Liam Kelly. As far as time wasting is concerned, all that was required was for referees to actually apply the Laws, and issue yellow cards much earlier for repeated offending. Or is that too practical a solution. I suspect that like the obstruction rule at corners, the new law will also die a death very quickly.

That could be said of every single one of our central defenders. On a regular basis. And at least two are poorer than Casey. Can anyone name me one it does not apply to this season? A couple might be marginally better than Mugabi and Lamie but that's not a high bar. I would happily see us move all four on and start again. But I know that's not going to happen as other areas will need addressing and existing contracts and budget will dictate.

Hopefully. Hearts will be ultra horrible to watch next season once he gets them even more skilled in the dark arts. Devlin will be in his element. I suspect the new rule to prevent goalies time wasting will not apply to them. Pretty telling that Killie appear to have been pretty easy to deal with. There fans were more upset about the timing and disrespect shown to their Club than him actually leaving I gather.

Agree re SOD. He had a nightmare first half although like the rest he improved second half. But no way can he be a first choice next season. Casey does have his faults but he is streets ahead of Blaney and Balmer and is no worse than Gordon who appears to get an easy ride from the fans. Folk appear to have forgotten how poor Gordon was before his head injury. Sluggish, poor distribution and decision making questionable. Rash at times. We need to come up with a central pairing that actually gel as a pair in a back four and lately Casey has been nowhere near as poor as he was for a spell earlier in the season. On recent evidence we have seen that Katroumbis and Seddon can do a decent job at full back and I still have hopes that Wilson has something to contribute. So that should help the central defence issue. Just unearth the correct pairing and play a defensive midfielder that actually provides some protection. Casey was one of our best players against Kilmarnock, even playing alongside SOD. With the correct partner I believe he has something to offer. Might not matter though if the Hearts rumour from January is accurate.

Thanks for stating the facts. And that appearance record includes a spell when the then Manager opted to leave him out, even when fit. The ACL injury is something interested Clubs will keep an eye on though so I guess January will be the window for offers if he is a regular until then.

Certainly appears that way which is disappointing given the efforts the new Board have put in since Balmack was seen off. Maybe we need an annual farcical take over attempt to maintain interest.

I'm still recovering from him being my PE Teacher. Brutal.

Thanks. The 419 valid votes cast comment led me astray. 15% is a terrible turnout given that Membership details were recently updated. Disappointing.

From the update I just received the sum of the votes cast for each candidate totals a fair bit more than the 419 total votes cast? What am I missing here?

He started well in an attacking sense. But was rotten after that. Not selected even when fit. Possibly because defensively he was a liability and he lost the ability to cross a ball. Seemed to get better the less he played.

I don't think anyone is against signing two or three quality players on a Loan basis. Like Beck and Dalby. The issue is making dozens of Loan signings who contribute zero, and in some cases feature for a few minutes at best before disappearing off the face of the earth. Of this season's batch, who do you think has been a success? Perhaps more to the point, who has failed to deliver?

Just chat on here previously. Nothing based on fact. Just a 'feeling' one or two folk had. I took it with a pinch of salt.

I agree 100% with your comments re strategy but worry that it will take several years to rebuild a youth programme that has been diminished over a number of seasons under several Managers. Certainly the Loanee numbers are farcical and those you highlight are certainly no better than the youth quoted. But that bar is pretty low. And unless they have improved leaps and bounds I'm not sure any of the current crop are first team standard, or have that potential. Wilson looked to be the best of the lot but he has fallen off a cliff of late, although I believe he can bounce back given strong support. The players currently out on loan are doing ok, but no more than that. I guess what I am saying is that, like the first team, the youth squad has been weakened over a number of seasons and it will take quite some time for both squads to be rebuilt to an effective standard. I suspect that long term aim was why Wimmer was chosen for the job in the first place. It will be interesting to see whether he makes changes to the coaching staff at several levels over the summer. I know a few think Wimmer will move on at season end no matter what, but I hope he stays and is given scope to develop a coherent strategy that covers all age groups. A complete reset is required. In my opinion anyway. Others will disagree.

I agree. In the right set up he could be an asset. I don't think he would demand a fortune in wages. Once he got riled up by Holt yesterday he really showed what he can contribute. Perhaps along with the rest make a point of handing him a nice wee fitness programme and diet sheet over the summer though. That said, no matter which attackers we end up with I hope we don't isolate a single striker and hope for miracles. On that basis I'm looking forward so seeing what a fit and supported Ap Stam can do with a decent run in the team.

Casey has deserved a fair amount of criticism this season but for that first goal I think others were far more to blame, yet Casey is singled out by some. The way we set up to start with, Casey was on the left of a back three with SOD in the middle and Katroumbis on the right, to be supported by by Sparrow as right wing back. The goal came down our right, Sparrow was caught out by a clever pass and not one right side midfielder tracked back. Could Casey have gotten across to cover a bit quicker? Maybe, but he was only required to do that because two or three others were at fault or asleep. Anyway we won so that's what really matters. Wimmer deserves credit for changing the set up when it was clear our back three was being dragged all over the place. Much more solid with Katroumbis as a regular right back and Sparrow able to concentrate on pressing forward and making a nuisance of himself. Less reliance upon him to defend. I had hoped Seddon might have gotten a run out late on for Thompson on the other side but I guess the way the game developed knocked that on the head. Just seen your Edit. Cheers. I wasn't sure who the player who let Kirk go was. Kind of hoped it wasn't Miller.

And who was the midfielder that stood and watched Kirk run on to the ball? Was it he who must not be criticised or the one that must always be criticised?

A bit harsh on Casey who was trying to get across to cover from the left side. The players at fault for the first were Sparrow who was caught out of position and whoever stood still as Kirk ran into the box. Miller? Not sure who lost the second goal scorer but the goalie should have saved it anyway. Wimmer changed the set up after the first goal with Sparrow being pushed further forward lessening his defensive duties. Became a back four with JK at right back. Looked far more solid to me. I also thought, surprisingly, that Casey looked a lot better playing alongside SOD than he has playing alongside Balmer, Blaney and even Gordon. Not saying SOD is the answer at CB, but the partnership was less of a bombscare.

And I assume they totally ignore the loss of income/reduction in season ticket games from the lost home fixture. For me switching the Hearts game was a no brainer but no doubt it was a question of big club/support v wee club/support. I'm guessing neither Celtic or Rangers have ever lost out. Even if Hearts had made top six at the expense of St Mirren I think we would have still been shafted. Then again, our Club voted in this set up. Will not make any difference but I hope MFC have registered a complaint about the whole situation.

Another factor to build in points wise, is that these teams all play each other so in every game points will be gained by one or both teams. Eg Killie play Saints so one at least would get to 39.....from that game alone If we lose all 5 games (IF) then we are in big trouble.

Option 2 with a 6/8 split after two rounds of fixtures followed by a further two rounds. Ends up 36 games for top section/ 40 for the bottom group. No unfairness possibly affecting Title or Relegation and retains the split as something to target. Then enough games second half for both sections to change around a bit throughout the remainder of the season. Of course Clubs would vote that down as the bottom group lose an OF home game and potentially a couple of others against Clubs with a large travelling support. Partially offset though by an extra home fixture over the season. Or alternatively back to 18 teams playing each other twice with no split. Again no chance given the loss of home fixtures against the big boys. And Sky demand as many OF clashes as can be squeezed in. Money takes precedence.

Worked out exactly as I feared. Let's be honest here, the only teams that are guaranteed an even split are Celtic and Rangers because anything else might impact who wins the League, and give one of them and their media lapdogs grounds for complaint. They don't care about any other team. The uneven split also denies us income from one home game. And no compo from the Authorities to offset that loss. St Mirren did well out of it though. An extra home game against a well supported top six team.

Thanks. Hope that’s how it plays out. So possible we get Hearts at FP in addition to Killie and St J. Should find out fairly soon.

I agree with your game comments, but are you certain we will get 3 home games? We might be due that to give us a 19/19 split, but I think we are only due Killie and St J at Fir Park. County, Hearts and Dundee have all visited us twice I think. So who is told to visit FP for a third time given how tight the bottom six is and how critical home advantage is likely to be? As has happened previously , teams can end up with an 18/20 Home/Away split even though that is unfair. Hopefully you will tell me my calculations are wrong?

Not only would writing off that Loan have removed a barrier to the ground being sold or used as Security for external funding, it would also have eliminated the Society's position as a Preferred Creditor in the event of MFC failing. Not seen as likely when the Society was established (and hopefully not now), but a sensible safeguard that was one of the main reason funds were originally to be Loaned rather than Donated. Repayment of those monies in a worst case scenario to assist a rebirth of the Club if ever needed. Despite that agreement I believe the former WS Board authorised the release of funds in excess of £1m by way of donation to MFC. That is £1m of fan contributions that have gone forever. Looking forward, I understand the current Society Board have indicated that future funds will primarily be provided by way of Loan? Unless my take on the recent AGM is incorrect that is. Why the 2 Society Reps then on the Executive Board saw fit to recommend any deal that involved the removal of those safeguards (and potential repayment of monies) defeats me. I did ask the question at the time, but received no explanation. So how is the revitalised Society doing? A positive start with a great deal more communication and openness. Expectations were high following the plans/ambitions that were set out. Maybe too high? My concern is that the Society are expected to carry out duties that should primarily be the responsibility of the Executive Board. I'm also sad to see Jason moving on after 8 years. I wish him well.