Leaderboard

The threshold for securing a criminal prosecution and the threshold for a Club issuing a banning order will always be different. And that is only common sense and takes into account various factors..... age of the offender, nature of the offence, repeated offending, public interest, cost etc etc. Evidence can exist that justifies exclusion even if it does not lead to a subsequent prosecution. I could quite easily hurl abuse at McMahon and his pals, and believe me of late I have been very tempted. No doubt I would be ejected and banned. Quite rightly so. But I certainly would not be prosecuted. Not so much at Fir Park, but anybody who attends away matches regularly sees behaviour from Motherwell fans that is unacceptable. Many fans are afraid to comment or intervene for fear of reprisal. What was the phrase used in previous debate on this subject " Snitches get Stitches". Not just pyro stuff but also abuse of stewards and sometimes fellow fans. You can add objects being thrown on to the pitch, the occasional visit to the pitch area and confrontations with opposition fans before or after games. in previous discussions I detailed incidents I have witnessed first hand, only to be shouted down and told those incidents just did not happen. "Nothing to see here". I expect the same response to this post, from the same folk. The Thistle drum incident, which again some say did not happen despite numerous eye witnesses, suggests that matters are escalating despite repeated requests from the Club. Anybody who insists such incidents do not happen is either blind, has an axe to grind or just likes to challenge authority. Maybe all three. There may well be issues regards Bob Park and other Club officials that need addressed. Hopefully they will be. Discussions certainly need to take place quickly. And many people clearly disagree with attempts that have been taken to address anti social behaviour...in football grounds and beyond. But to use either to justify the actions of what we are told is a minority of the Bois is purely an attempt at deflection. And sorry, but to accuse Park and Read of using the latest incidents as a means of gaining revenge after losing the Barmack vote is just farcical. And to try to justify/play down the situation the office staff found themselves in is disgusting. Bottom line is that if behaviour does not improve, arrests and bans will continue. Regrettably some less guilty parties may also suffer. I hope not. We all demanded justice when Celtic and Hibs fans trashed the away end. Not to that extent yet, but is it not hypocritical to excuse our own fans' anti social behaviour? Like everyone on here I enjoy the atmosphere and colour the Bois bring to our games and openly support their charity initiatives and highlighting of teenage suicide concerns. But sadly unless things change it will not be the good they do which will continue to be the focus. Last word on this from me as both sides are clearly entrenched and agreement is not going to happen. How sad is it that, the day after such a fantastic victory and performance, most of the talk is about a group of supporters who have so much to offer if only they were prepared to limit their actions to supporting the club and the community. Then again I can think of one or two or four who just cannot bring themselves to acknowledge how good a performance two players in particular put in. Sad really. On both fronts.

If the ‘Bois’ just went to the game, supported the team, sing their songs, chanted their chants and so on then there would be no issues whatsoever. There would be no unwanted attention from the stewards. No club imposed ‘stadium bans’. No arrests. No legal proceedings. But that group seem to have no intention of simply supporting the team. They have previous for jumping on the park, setting off flares, pyro, arguing with and in some cases shouting blind abuse at police and stewards all while dressing themselves in black and covering three quarters of their faces with scarves or whatever. It is no wonder that their cards have been well and truly marked by the club and the police. But just like their idols in the Green Brigade they love a grievance and a reason to protest about something so I can’t see them ever changing their ways. Some of them might grow up and grow out of it but there will always be younger bampots ready to step up and follow in their footsteps. Groups like that are part of the problem, not the solution but I reckon they already know that anyway, despite what their “look at us” banners proclaim or their protests are supposedly based on.

What "house rules" have the individuals who have been banned broken then? If someone is responsible for smashing up seats, fighting in the East Stand, or something along those lines, then fine, issue a ban. I don’t think that has happened, though? The issue I have with your analogy, and others have done the same, is that you're using examples where abuse was hurled at someone in the stadium, or some sort of "house rule" was broken in the stadium. This isn't the case. If you left a Motherwell game and then got accused of getting into a tussle with some wank who supported the opposing team in a pub two miles from the ground, would you accept a ban? A crime that is hardly worthy of a slap on the wrist if you do it on a Saturday night in the town, but deems having you treated like a gun-toting gangster if you happen to have just left a football game? You’re right, though; a ban should not be based on a criminal conviction. But if that’s the case, why does the club issue such bans based on the police charges? That was precisely why these bans were put in place. It only makes sense that if the club issues a ban based on police charges, it should then lift the ban and issue an apology when the charges are dismissed. "Mistakes happen, no issue there." Well actually, there is an issue there. A pretty fucking big one. There's absolutely no way that should be glossed over. Some poor lad wrongly accused, put through the stress of what that entails and when it's proven he wasn't even in the country it's just a case of "mistakes happen, no issue there?" Not for me.

Their boardroom is full of Lords and Knighthoods. The Plastic Paddy stuff is branding for dafties.

What's false about behave and follow the rules and there won't be an issue, the vast majority of fans manage it, or is Block E a special case, enlighten us with your wisdom oh wise one.

I agree, we are not a club who can afford to lose a group of dedicated fans who, in general, represent the club well. i am also an old buffer and i hope something can be sorted out soon and these bois can continue attending games ……so they can at some point in many years to come, be old buffers too, still watching the ‘Well and bringing their own weans.

Also today such a great victory as tomorrow is 10 years since my dad passed away, huge well fan and reason I became a well fan even though a hamilton lad born and bred. He would have loved that today ❤️

Can we make it two in row? Big away support for this one? Will the skipper score another goal? Funny thing is I will be in Perth next weekend …..the one on the far side of the world Perth Western Australia…. COYW

A great afternoon to be a Well fan. I was sorry therefore that the Bois weren't there. They were a huge loss in terms of atmosphere. I know they overstep the mark at times and do things they shouldn't. I get that. However, they may have some grounds for complaint I don't know. I'm sure there's more to this than most of us old buffers know. I just hope therefore that they get together with the club and sort matters out. That may require compromise on both sides. Has the Society a role to play in mediation? Get it sorted folks!

That is the biggest ‘tragedy’ about this whole ridiculous episode. That these attention seeking bams have got themselves attention by having Motherwell fans arguing about their behaviour rather than discussing the team itself and our first league victory of the season. As I said earlier if they just supported the team without all the shenanigans with pyro, jumping on the park, shouting abuse at stewards, covering their faces and puffing their chests out like pigeons the second they are inevitably challenged for their behaviour then they wouldn’t have any issues whatsoever. But clearly they value their status as a group more than supporting the club itself otherwise they wouldn’t deprive the club and the team of their support.

Would be. Personally think any relationship will always be fraught as any indiscretion no matter the severity is jumped upon by the usual suspects who (and we know many have a hotline to Park) have the added measure of a QR code now. Society have a big challenge in uniting our support as a whole.

Totally understand pal. Would just be great if a good working relationship could get sorted . Fingers crossed

None of my jokes ever contain those categories but yup I am an expert at non funny ones!! 🤪🤪

You could tell a few jokes at said meeting to break the ice. Non political , non gender based , non sectarian , non religious , non offensive to anyone and after all thats removed , in fact non funny in general.

Still buzzing after yesterday. One of best performances for a while and I was pleased to see SOD and Halliday getting good reception as both contributed well, especially SOD. Watt is certainly doing everything to get Well fans on board. His run near end of game was excellent. Still a few random boos but those will disappear soon if he is performing well. Let's hope we can build on that..COYW

I think plenty said on all fronts regarding this so all I will input is what we need is WS, club and representatives of Bois to sit down and have an adult discussion and work on how things can be resolved going forward. COYW

Same posters, same false narrative. For those who understand no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t no explanation will suffice.

When I spoke to Caldwell about this after the Q&A I pointed out that he would be barring kids in Third Year at High School and he didn't believe me at first so they obviously haven't looked at it very thoroughly. The SLO started up with some hysterical 'what if' scenarios about issues with young fans but didn't seem very happy when I suggested they contact other venues that allow unaccompanied youths such as cinemas or fast food restaurants for advice if they couldn't figure it out themselves.

Motherwell football club are just the same as any other business, commercial premises, pubs and clubs etc ie they have the legal authority under their terms and conditions, operating policies, code of conduct etc to ban any individual or group of individuals from their premises if they feel their policies have been broken. So no need to refer to courts etc, so the individuals might not have been convicted but in the eyes of the club their behaviour was unacceptable so action was taken. There is a simple solution to this, support the club without all of the ultra bullshit and there won't be an issue.

Block e and club disagreements will take a wee bit of give and take I feel from both parties. The situation with the 14 age group is just total madness. We go to high school at age 11/12 meaning for most down street at lunchtime into the local big town etc and generally more leeway from our parents. This age group want to run about with their pals and we need all support we can get so whoever came up with this idea and whoever followed it through must quite frankly be not right in the head.

I think there is some blame on both sides with this. Block E drop the wee hard man image and the balaclavas they would undoubtedly get the backing of the majority of the support but they also need to behave and not let a few spoil it for the rest. On one particular employee of the clubs stance it appears from the outside looking in he wants to make a name for himself on a power trip he never managed to achieve in his previous employment . I ask a few questions as a supporter and a society member 1. where were the banning orders and prosecutions after the various pitch invasions against Celtic 2. as safety officer why does he think it’s ok for stairwells and emergency exits to be blocked every time the Glasgow two come to town with nothing done during the matches to resolve the issue 3. why did he allow the John hunter stand to be used for a full season whilst there were no suitable emergency gates or safe access from the front of the stand 4. why was their an error on the finish at the front of the stand after the pitch was done and whose error was this and at what cost ? 5. was their really a concern over the safety certificate from the local council which was used as the reason for the debacle over removing seats and putting new barriers in to obscure vision and again at what cost 6. Has the black tarpaulin\netting at the back of the stand been checked by the local authority as part of the safety certificate or was that ok to exclude because it was his idea I keep hearing about the society wanting to bring everyone together , build the support and the ask the usual suspects to dig deeper maybe before they do that we need to get our house in order from the top down

In this specific type of situation its totally unacceptable. It would appear that the root cause of the problem is the protocol between the SPFL and the Police. That needs to be revisited. Football fans should not be singled out and special rules applied to them. Quite apart from that, it woud appear that the rules are not being followed consistently by Police Scotland. I agree with Derek that bans should not be handed out until someone is actually found guilty. Compare this to the BBC / Huw Edwards situation. What about the principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty? As far as the club is concerned, it may be caught between a rock and a hard place. Damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. However it would appear that it isn't completely blame free. Before any banning order is enforced it should not be actioned unless the individual concerned has received confirmation. That would then put the emphasis on Police Scotland to get their house in order. If charges are dropped or someone is eventually found not guilty then the club should compensate the innocent party by providing free entry to games or a complimentary season ticket or whatever. In short, A complicated situation. All parties need to be involved and examine themselves. * The Bois to stay within the law, even if only just. * The club to treat innocent parties fairly * Police Scotland to ensure its data sharing protocol is consistent and fairly applied. * The SPFL to renegotiate the protocol with Police Scotland to ensure fairness for fans and clubs. As a start, the Society needs to get involved with the club and Block E, if it isn't already. Perhaps also write to the SPFL, as this issue is not peculiar to ourselves. No reason either why local MSPs should not be brought onside. This needs sorted out and a start would be to get round a table at Fir Park. Whilst I'm on my high horse, Police could have pulled up a mature Hearts fan for goading Well fans pre match, whilst standing a few feet away oblivious.

Aye it's not hard to see what's going on here. Instead of going through courts which require some transparency and where individuals have the right to defend themselves they are using 'licensing' as a parralel system to enforce whatever rules suit people like Bob Park. If the club are questioned about it they will just dribble on about 'best practice' and vague threats of 'sanctions' (they seem to have replaced the big bad auditors under the bed as a catch all threat).

Bob Park still thinks he is employed by Police Scotland and acts like it. He needs reminded that he is employed by Motherwell FC and should be accountable for his actions

Bob Park and Suzanne Read were both publicly in favour of the Barmack scam and ended up with egg on their face when we told him to GTF. They are probably looking at this as an opportunity to reassert themselves here. Bob Park should be moved out asap and Read should be told to concentrate on her actual job. At least Caldwell tried to pretend he was in favour of fan ownership, the other two were totally out of order and would have been disciplined for their social media posts about the takeover in any serious company.

It's bad enough that someone can be treated as though they're already guilty when they've only been charged (accused) of a crime, but that they're still on the banned list when that accusation is thrown out? Absolutely ridiculous.

I posted this on P& B where a similar discussion is ongoing..... "Young fans will always be a bit "edgey" and want to push the boundaries of what is allowed. It's what makes it fun for them. Its also what allows for rules to be changed that are quite frankly ridiculous. If we all sat there and did as we were told by the authorities without challenging anything, then women wouldnt have the vote and you could still beat your wife with a stick no bigger than your thumb (extreme examples, I know). That said, there needs to be some acceptance and collective responsibility from Block E and The Bois, that when they get it wrong and push it too far, the club simply have to act. The club is also subject to the rule of law and also SPFL / SFA regulations. If they continued to flout them, ignore them, push the boundaries, they will eventually be fined/punished. Dialogue is the key. That way we can all get on with supporting Motherwell however we want to do it in a safe and enjoyable manner."

He's never been as bad as some of our boo boys would have you believe. He went through some sticky patches but he always gives 100% and frankly deserves credit for sticking with it when some might have stuck two fingers up when he got pelters.

Up the Well

I think SOD is a very underrated player who plays his heart out for Motherwell. I know he's had his wobbles along the way but he's always been a decent footballer in my view

Just from watching the highlights there......Tom Sparrow could have sat on his heels and we don't get that crucial third goal. I think he's done really well to follow up that mistake from Salazar cos a lot of players wouldn't have bothered and nothing comes out of it. That's a good example of the kind of things that you need to do in a game to get three points. Hopefully we can show that commitment more often.

He was literally the worst. Second lowest save percentage and a complete disaster at set pieces.

That's the biggest difference. The fact that he was involved with Scotland seemed to blind a lot of people to the fact that Kelly was the worst goalie in the league by a fair distance last season. Some of the stuff he was doing was absolutely mental and teams were aware of how much of a liability he was and targeted him. Big Aston should have been given a chance much earlier.

It makes a difference with a competent goalie.

Robinson has a thankless task playing in an isolated position with two defenders marking him closely all the time . He's strong and has neat feet for a big guy and if he gets the chance to turn and run at a defence he can cause problems. He just needs closer support and I'm sure a goal will do wonders for his confidence. Funny how well SOD and Halliday played, given the often negative comments on here from some posters. Young Wilson is really growing into his role/position and I look forward to him developing his partnership with TJ. Great persistence from Sparrow to score the vital third too so for me overall this was our best home performance in yonks. If we can get all our crocks fit we should have a squad for the top six. Sorry to be so optimistic: will thrash myself with birch twigs and lie down in a darkened room.

Probably yes, because we were 'pretty poor from open play' apparently. At least he posted his grudging admission that we won, where as the other three posters of the apocalypse are clearly marked absent, as they always are when we win.

Let the boycotters boycott, and the supporters support. Viva Motherwell.

Did ye, aye ?