
Brazilian
-
Posts
5,810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Brazilian
-
-
26 minutes ago, weeyin said:
I see language about harassment and bullying, but nothing about dissent. Is there a particular policy amendment where that is described?
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,
-
1
-
-
On 6/14/2025 at 2:21 PM, Kmcalpin said:
I get that there's a lot going on just now. A new manager; pre season about to start; the prospect of comings and goings and so on. However, don't overlook the Well Society consultation on proposed membership changes taking place just now. It’s a chance to put across your views.
………..
Anyway folks it’s your opinions that matter. Get your responses in.
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
-
1 minute ago, GazzyB said:
Woolery making a big difference, he's fucking rapid.
I reckon we're on the verge of having a right good season if we can shore up the midfield.
-
2 minutes ago, MJC_mkII said:
2-2!!
Now let’s get this won before penalties.
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
-
5 minutes ago, Brazilian said:
Feed is At least 3 minutes behind but running ok for now
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
-
17 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
I'm sure you're right. However questions need to be asked of the guidance if different local authorities differ in their decisions regarding very similar situations.
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 -
41 minutes ago, weeyin said:
You know it's not the club that actually does the streaming, right?
It’s the club that are selling it
-
2 hours ago, Ya Bezzer! said:
This.
Going to be a similar situation as when Robinson took over from McGhee and it went to the bottom six split matches.
If we can take 5 points from the games leading up to the split that would leave us looking for 7 points post split.
Doable but still a bit nerve wracking. Would be a good time to break the Accies hoodoo though!
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
-
1 hour ago, underboyleheating said:
What’s our win record like against Tommy Wright?
It sort of rhymes with Tommy Wright
-
1
-
-
Killie and manager Dyer part company,
another little twist for one of the covid games
-
On 1/21/2021 at 6:07 PM, wellup83 said:
https://www.facebook.com/8585725981/posts/10159608643175982/
Missed him by a bawhair
And in the management team that replaced him
-
4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
GA saying we may appeal depending whats in the ref's report. He says Polworth did swear but at the Aberdeen player not the ref. Does that make any difference?
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
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, CoF said:
The initial decision reasoning put a lot of weight on the fact that postponing games is simply not an option this season. The SPFL found Celtic a Monday night slot because they wanted to do some extra training / rest some players, so there's that argument gone.
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
-
1
-
Society Consultation
in Club Chat
Posted
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