Brazilian

full adult membership got you one share in the society, each and every member would only ever have one share, it was the very essence of the sales pitch to own a share. (To then own the club) Any ongoing fees were for the maintenance of benefits,, (rarely delivered and often changed as club realised they carried the cost of benefits which was then changed) even the initial switch to monthly standing order deposits was to allow payment towards a full adult membership . As the Society board were given targets by the then club board to grow membership to viable numbers.. many opted away from the benefits (which have been vaguely delivered since and to date) to use monthlies to join up family members etc to grow membership numbers. If I had the energy I’d contest the recent board’s interpretation that the switch to monthlies years back didn’t entitle adult members life ownership of their single society share when meeting the adult membership fee, but tbh they’ve pitched their work and got their votes. Good luck to them It’ll be interesting to see the actual impact of the policy , on published membership numbers going forward when they roll out the cancellations

Hi weeyin , what is one person’s dissent is easily construed as bullying or harassment, but I get your point , but since the code of conduct isn’t published in its final form, there’s only a vote on introducing it that’s probably my concern, around it the initial draft was woefully off and offering some tweaks isn’t exactly confidence building but tbh I’m more concerned that adult members are going to be stripped of membership,

Be not been active much around here but glad to see there is still some names I recognise and some subjects that are very important being discussed I’m dismayed that the new society board are trying to strip away the one member one vote rights that were very hotly debated over many sessions when the society was formed and when subsequently tweaked Vote subject #4 on adult membership definitions , will if voted in, ruin the society model for many If any adult member, who could have made significant contributions to making the society work, sees a change in circumstances and can no longer contribute for a period of time (1year) the change strips them of their membership, with no consideration or value given to their contribution that made the society into club owners it makes a mockery of the years of selling ‘join to Own Motherwell’ as it’s taking away that membership share in the society that makes adult members an owner, (timeshare memories anyone) it might possibly be measured as misselling as by paying up the adult membership to become a share holder in the society , they are now proposing, you will no longer be a member and have no share so no vote if you don’t pay annual fees, I can see some will possibly think that’s ok , but the society was founded by members money solicited to buy that one share one vote, if circumstances changed for members , all that was to be lost were the society ‘benefits’ and it was always agreed the membership share would be retained, allowing a member to hopefully resume contributions when circumstances changed for them. please read through the proposal and please Stop the change to adult membership definition change . I’m also very uncomfortable with the proposal to silence dissent, for a member led organisation, it seems like a step too far. please do vote , these changes are getting pushed through with little debate or discussion and on feedback from only a small fraction of the society membership

Holloway appearing on the pints with Nigel Farage show on gbnews is quite a bold move if he is a candidate

2-0 FT ... job done....

Big van Veen could’ve had his hat trick stream down again

Yikes, No bother woolery

Easy

Going forward we seem ok Donnelly Carrol et al look like they couldn’t give any effort Get in!

Albion rovers levels

Expected that after chances

10 minutes 35 seconds for the sadly normal interrupted service to resume utterly shit service

Feed is At least 3 minutes behind but running ok for now Motherwell v Queen of the South Motherwell starting XI: Kelly, S. O'Donnell, Carroll, Lamie, O'Connor, Maguire, Donnelly, Cornelius, Lawless, Van Veen, Watt subs: Fox , Woolery, Amaluzor, McGinley, Crawford, Parker, Johnston, C.O’Donnell, Wilson

But they don’t differ? the chat started with the clown claiming it was an non-government party led authority offering different allowances, ignoring we are in an authority controlled by parties not in government , then an insight of the many factors was offered and it’s clear it’s nothing to do with clarity or political affiliation in the authority , it’s simply complex with many variables in a changing environment . the biggest factor possibly being the authority having to consider everything that’s happening within its boundaries not just one event. non football people will be amazed at what’s being permitted to date

It’s the club that are selling it

7 points in the 5 games post split would mean bettering the average achieved in the 28 games to date. with a team that shown almost no fight or desire unless they’re being showcased it’s doable but we need to see the action to improve the tally in the 5 games before the split

It sort of rhymes with Tommy Wright

Killie and manager Dyer part company, another little twist for one of the covid games

And in the management team that replaced him

No - so it would be stupid having admitted to foul and abusive language, for the player or manager to even consider an appeal if that’s reason in ref’s report

Business borrows money all the time to operate especially to fund the systems required for them to function/operate in direct competition with their competitors why should football be any different N.b a lot of our fans seem oblivious that our club do the same thing including accessing this govt loan ( or a similar scheme) which is on hugely preferential terms to some alternative s ps I consider many in football to have lost touch with their privileged position in society at this time, but borrowing money to sustain trading at the level they are practicing currently is just normal business

that fixture was played exactly within the same calendar ‘round of fixtures’ it was originally scheduled. there are plenty of flaws this season including for Celtic, but a Monday night slot was not ‘found’ i had sympathy for the clubs impacted by covid, and still feel for public health reasons it was correct that our games were postponed/ cancelled as it wasn’t clear if the players that would have turned out were covid clear and safe to interact with our players and the officials having read both reports, it’s clear that both clubs didn’t treat the protocols with due respect or even common sense from the govt advice. the punishments handed out were harsh, but at the same time the panel choose to only punish events that the public health bodies felt led directly to the transmission of the virus. as such , the appeal could easily look again at all the breaches, St.Mirren in particular had an appalling list of failings, many of which were noted , but not punished. if this was the case and level of punishment was more balanced, Killie could receive a lesser punishment and St.Mirren probably deserve to be hammered as they truly did not implement the required controls almost mocking the seriousness of the situation.

Surely we could petition the SFA not to register a player unless the development compensation is paid