MY first reaction to the suggestion that FA Cup replays should be scrapped was one of dismay.

Here we go again, I thought, the Premier League once again only thinking of themselves by demanding that ties be settled at the first time of asking to ease fixture congestion.

Yet further devaluation of a competition now largely a shadow of its former self.

I personally don’t have a problem with replays and don’t subscribe to the notion that top teams play too many games.

Players are fit enough and squads big enough to cope. But, just for the sake of argument, I ask this question – why do we need to have cup replays?

Would the competition be that much worse for it?

The semi-finals and final have already done away with them, so why not extend it to all rounds?

The argument for replays nowadays is largely centred around giving lower-ranked clubs a chance to earn more money and perhaps a trip to the likes of Old Trafford.

But solely making money is, unfortunately, not the point of the competition.

The neutral wants to see upsets, which are becoming an increasingly rare breed these days as the gulf in class ever widens.

Would not Exeter have had a better chance of beating Liverpool in the third round earlier this season had the first tie, which ended 2-2 at St James Park, gone to extra-time or penalties?

In the qualifying rounds, where Worcester City begin, you can also make an argument for scrapping replays.

Logistically, it’s not great because games have to be hastily arranged within 72 hours.

Teams have to sort out travel and players need to take time off work for matches that weren’t originally in their diaries.

Why not use the midweek slots during the early stages of the campaign to get a few more league fixtures scheduled before the bad weather and dodgy pitches all come into play?

While it’s easy to dismiss changes to the format out of hand, while citing the destruction of the competition’s heritage, these are all legitimate questions worth asking if there is to be a debate about the future of replays.