dennyc

Simo Valakari’s son on debut for Finland scores against France. An attacking midfielder born in Motherwell per Wikipedia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And cue Killie opting to play League Cup game midweek but requesting League game following weekend v Livi be postponed. Farcical.

Not sure how much difference it makes but I think we're a category 2 country. The larger, higher ranking countries are category 1. I wasn't sure so could be. There is a table kicking around which sets out per category. I'll try and find it 60k per year Euros if Category 2 . And we are Category 2 per the list just found. Thanks.

That's my reading of it anyway. The compensation was introduced to try and reward the developing Club. And if a player moves between Associations after the Training Compensation age limit has passed, Solidarity payments kick in based yet again on the "Training Years". Every club is due a payment from the transfer fee for every year between ages 12 and 21 that they developed the player. in practice 5% of the transfer fee is set aside and distributed amongst the "Training Clubs" on a pro rata basis reflecting the time spent at each club.. Later years are rewarded at a higher rate than earlier years. Again in an attempt to compensate clubs for player development. So two separate compensation safety nets, both linked to training and development. The bugger is that the moves need to be cross border. Then a set fee is paid based on a criteria drawn up by Fifa (I think) and adopted by Uefa Associations and others worldwide. Think back to Cadden, Unlike Uefa, the US had not signed up to the schemes so Columbus argue we are due nothing. If he had gone to Oxford we would have been automatically compensated. Annoyingly the US Authorities agree the compensation scheme has merit and intend getting on board. May even have joined up by now. But perhaps too late for us. Within Associations the Clubs can either agree a fee (with add ons if possible) or go to a Tribunal which usually sets a "one off" fee with no add ons. The best examples I can come up with in Scotland are Ferguson from Accies to Aberdeen (Tribunal), Hastie to Rangers ( Clubs agree terms). Accies ended up with a flat fee and no add ons, Motherwell got a negotiated fee plus add ons. If Campbell was to move to Hibs or Aberdeen, it would likely be better for us to negotiate a transfer fee with add ons in January rather than risk a Tribunal when his contract has run out. Lottery time! Accies were certainly not happy with the outcome of the Ferguson Tribunal.

I read that we offered him a fairly lengthy contract but that he chose to let his existing contract expire and then join Stoke. Nothing more Motherwell could do to stop him. He was with us for 10 years I think, so we should benefit from training compensation, based on training costs from age 12. It does not matter that he waited until his contract expired before joining Stoke. Training compensation is due for training costs from age 12-21, and payable in respect of all future transfers up to the end of the season of the players 23rd birthday. So every club that develops a player gets a slice of the transfer fee,. Last I read, for cross border moves the fee due per Uefa is 90k Euros for each full year from year 12. I assume we are a Category 1 club as in the top league of a Uefa affiliated country.

That's the case every season regards Season Tickets and the cash generated from that source is used in all sorts of ways not directly related to matchdays. Its the additional income from cash paying fans on a match by match basis that will be used to cover/partly cover the actual cost of opening the stadium week to week. Last season our average home gate was just under 6000 , including visiting fans. Allowing for ST Holders that leaves around 2000 punters paying cash. At £15 a head (and I think I am underestimating) that works out at a minimum of £30000 per game cash income to cover costs. £570, 000 a season. At £20 a head that is over £750000 a season. Motherwell have likely lost that cash anyway this season, but to add to that loss by opening the ground long term for no financial return is madness. And I am pretty sure you would not be happy if attending games was limited to cash paying customers only in an effort to restrict losses. And as for losing income from Season Ticket holders by giving fans the option of carrying unattended games forward to next season, it is exactly that...an option. Having watched the games online I am positive many if not most fans will not take up that option. In my opinion Motherwell have handled the situation extremely well and that includes looking after Season Ticket holders.

In that case, if Killie cannot field a team against Falkirk through their own or their players negligence then they do not take part at all and it becomes a four team mini league. That way nobody but Killie are penalised and nobody is given an unfair advantage over the rest of the Group. If it happens later on in the Group their Earlier games are deleted from the standings. If it happens in knock out, then the opponent goes through. But none of that will happen as it would set a precedent that might hurt a big team. Hard to deny us the Cup if we get to a final and our opponents default through CoVid.

Kid comes home from school, infects his Dad who just happens to be a footballer. Dad infects team. Team forfeit game. Team get relegated by one point. And that's acceptable/ Really?

Not sure about nowadays, but there used to be a guideline that if any Club was stuck down with a bug affecting xxx number of players, or if they had above a specific number of players on International duty, a game could be called off if requested. CoVid should be treated just the same. That way you might just get some consistency and the St Mirrens of this world would not get shafted by random. illogical decisions. To pass the buck to local Health Boards is just abdication by our ruling body. Everybody knew teams were likely to be affected so why were no hard and fast rules put in place before the season kicked off? Example, Three first team squad members struck down or isolating and you play. Above those numbers, game off. Subject to independent medical confirmation. Might be a few more games cancelled than in normal times but we would cope with a little bit of effort. And no way should Kilmarnock be forfeiting any games, no matter how those players caught the infection. That action would affect more than the teams directly involved. If the Club or the players got it wrong, impose fines as with Aberdeen and Celtic. I can just see it now. Last game of the season and we need to beat Accies to avoid relegation or play off. Bug strikes and we have to forfeit a game for the first time all season and therefore are relegated. Cue meltdown.

I think this is spot on. And if there was no forfeiting of games as a result of Aberdeen and Celtic players blatant disregard of agreed practice, how can you punish Kilmarnock......no matter how the infection was caught? And I for one am delighted that Accies in Aberdeen's case and St Mirren (I think) in respect of Celtic are not sitting with an extra, unearned on the pitch, 3 points. Our League survival might be tough enough without the lottery of who gets CoVid and who does not. In truth Aberdeen and Celtic were punished, financially, which I think is reasonable as it punishes only them and not others who could be adversely affected by rivals being awarded league points. Then again forfeiture might be our only hope of defeating Rangers. St Mirren are the team which I think has a valid complaint and who should be demanding answers.. And we still don't know what the criteria is for cancelling games. Even now. Is it one player down, three, six? Or does your former manager need to be in charge of Scotland? Is the decision made by the local Health Board? That criteria should have been established and made known prior to a ball being kicked. But then again the people in charge of our game are not famous for being open and forward thinking. The contrast to cup games is a good point.