Onthefringes

Turn it up. Hardly immaterial given they’re asked to perform very different roles, hence, apples and oranges quip. May be some merit in individual points you make, but, can discount your headless chicken claim. Suppose it’s all in the understanding of the game. Don't think his inclusion when Hammell (who rated him highly) was emptied can be understated. Certainly wasn’t coincidence the upturn in form of Goss and the freedom afforded to Spittal. It’s all a moot point anyway.

Comparing apples with oranges.

One doth protest too much… For me, the tribute act are beyond parody- they’ve become everything they hated about the other and then some. Just to echo sentiment of others, 2 cheeks, same arse.

Fair comment. Worked in our favour.

🤣 Nae bother. Read what is being said and not just look at the words… Nothing said was a slight on the person. To think he didn’t look after himself to fit the narrative of being Motherwell minded is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, out of context. Not disputing all of what you’ve said either, certainly not a slight on the player himself. His signing of that contract protected his interests post injury every bit as much as ensuring the club who developed him were looked after. He didn’t walk away from that contract for nil for example, hence, David Turnbull was David Turnbull minded.

Lots of variables in an ever difficult process. Hypothetical for now as we don’t know players’ intention. I’d expect those with the grasp on development football and particularly those involved in this player would argue club haven’t moved enough to protect their asset. In reality, it’s more than signing of a contract which you’ve correctly said can’t be forced. Any development monies are questionable despite set fees as the terms of future incomes are negotiable. I’ll rely on club accounting. David Turnbull was David Turnbull minded.

Not sure that would be accurate.

In your mind? Suppose so. Aye, it’s no wonder the club find it difficult, not enough über fans like you. Tragic. As for your closing statements, stop the world the free thinking amongst us want to get off! Just from experience home & abroad, injury is highly unlikely. That’s why many don’t get bent out of shape over it. Goes back to why you and others have chosen to reference pyro and its use. That’s another debate which bears no relevance to current protest or representations to the Society leadership & Club. Makes your dribblings a moot point at any rate.

Nearly as bad as your holocaust patter on here then. “football factory” tsk. Give your head a wobble. Got a grip.

😂 Am I? Sides are splitting. Nobody has professed the Bois are angels. You and others constant reference to them show the lack of understanding on the subject also. A denial as you put it by the evil villain/employee mentioned has little to no bearing on the protest, but, it’s not fitting your agenda - suspect the information which is will be known as the proposed meeting happens. Away and throw shite at the moon? Really? Act your age and not your shoe size never more apt. As for the personal slate? What’s a bammer? Nobody was injured, has there ever been? The disabled fan himself would take you to task too, he even laughed what is your version of any incident off online. I’d say it would be unfortunate but, not the target practice you seem to think it is. Rightly, the culprit (in a worse case scenario) should be called out and be suffice - no issue with that. But, running to the powers that be (the club have enough as it is I’m told) is behaviour worth the watching. it’s grassing. Remember snitches get stitches 😉

Right, so you’ve gone from ‘lobbing into’ then ‘throwing’ to ‘they threw them indiscriminately in a direction towards’. Well, now that you’re sure… took you three goes to decide. A lot of facts there. Pissing yourself at someone being injured as you alleged? I bet, you go down a storm at a party. On your media outlets quip, fair to return the pedantic baton to yourself. Burn injury would have received exposure on plenty of platforms. It didn’t & not for the reason you’ve given. Get real? Have been throughout, much to your chagrin obviously - not once have I defended throwing pyro devices so your rambling is erm, pointless. 100%. Nobody likes a grass either.

No they never. Read what they said & not just look at the words! Nobody threw anything ‘into’ the crowd… Wheres the evidence of this burnt hand? Befuddled. Given the scaremongering going on this would’ve made the media outlets without a doubt.

In your opinion. Suspect if they acted like you say they do the powers that be would have ‘em disbanded toot sweet. Flying with the crows is way off in this instance.

😂 I knew you would. Gepetto? Deary me. Pedantic as I am, point me to where I am defending the matter? You claim ‘fact’ - when all that was asked was to keep things factual. Recall it being mentioned real time, felt it was exaggerated then as I do now. Poster above gives fair reasoning though. Tell your friend I’m definitely not in the group, never have been nor ever will be. I certainly don’t mind their company on occasion and understand their aims. It happens when you expand your mind.

Fair comment.

You’re peddling that again… We get you’re not in favour. And for your information they were pilloried for the action in plenty of circles. You’ll see it’s never happened again even when similar situations arose.

Your opening gambit is where they are. Discussion is planned I hear, those wishing to chair are basing any talks on ‘social media’ output and not on behaviours including that of employee(s) so it’s felt by many the tone that will likely be taken. Think the requests by others to be represented who have no links to any group is pretty telling. Those who are in support of the groups and action being taken aren’t disagreeing that groups should be complying with rules, the constant reference to release of pyro is for another debate, as I’ve mentioned issues are not inextricably linked. Fairly balanced reply although off on a tangent for me. Not in reply to yourself, anybody saying ‘lobbing flares into your own support’ give off heavy Pinocchio vibes.

You’re on the right track…

How parochial. Any ‘beef’ is due an employee offering information on numerous occasions that has lead to zero convictions whilst innocent parties (as ruled by the judiciary) have been subject to dawn raids of late amongst other unusual practise. It’s not just that section of our support having issue, plenty with no links have registered complaint too.

Hysteria. At least keep your point of view factual? You are correct, there needs to be a solution - assuming the majority think that one individual is the problem and not them isn’t the case no matter how many times you & others tell yourselves.

If the viewpoint is constructive why not? Not going into the rights and wrongs, abuse or threats isn’t a good look - I’m of the opinion incidents of that nature are few and far between.

Conjecture? Not on my part. All that was said was ‘access granted to the away support’ which it was - in advance or not is nether here nor there. Don’t recall anybody mentioning one group gaining more access than the other? For the avoidance of doubt, the representations to the club by many including those not in any of the groups & any protest isn’t down to no access to have displays.

Semantics Mr Park. Entry to the ground with at least one box full of glossy copy paper isn’t exactly sneaking the stuff in so ‘access granted to the away support for a display’ isn’t an untruth.

😂 ‘can’t be disputed’ yet, easily discounted.