Leaderboard

And I think that sums up the general mindset of our country. We limit ourselves at the outset, actually even before that. I get why we have the rain day mentality, there's various socio-economic reasons for it. Not a criticism lads, just our general make up as Scots unless you choose to buck the trend. I'm not suggesting we'd could do anything other than something appropriate or bankrupt the club, that would be grossly irresponsible. But you gotta aspire to more than the sum of your parts, trying to see that play out on the park is why we show up week after week isn't it? Being so focused on the here and now on stuff such as personal inconvenience gripes isn't for me. I've tried to illustrate why I think it could work and provided numbers (even if back of fag packet maths and no doubt with many holes), it's a bit more than nah it'll never work, we need to know our place, etc. Simply put Fir Park will always be limiting to our ambition and revenue. Maintenance will be like the Forth Bridge, the McLean is needing major work done to it throughout and probably the most pressing as we currently earn a fair whack of cash thanks to it. The POD is on life support and no longer fit for purpose. The Hunter will follow as it's roof needs addressed, then the floodlights and the Cooper, before the pitch or the McLean needs another touch up. All I've tried to show is rather than syphoning money into Fir Park that can be directed to a new venue that gives you 20-25 years with minimal maintenance. A new POD (is £8m fair? in construction and lost revenue), POD brought up to standard (£2m), other stands and infrastructure (£2m), ongoing maintenance over the next 20 years (£4m) and never realised commercial revenues because FP is hemmed into a residential area with limited premium options (£4m). I've highlighted that for ever 1,000 seats we make available to OF fans beyond their current 4,800 allocation (that brings in £2m extra income over 20 years, so sell 9,800 seats to OF/Hearts = £10m). Those all combined have us at £30m. If you feel that's generous, then what we're about to spend at Dalziel Park you can add in too as all the features of the new facility will already be part of any new main stand. That's all before you add in rents, SFA hiring the stadium for U21's etc, concerts and an expected boost in the home gate. Something of this magnitude can't be looked at as an isolated outlay but a long term investment. I do find it odd that folk are so quick to tell us to limit ambitions when pretty much most adults on this will buy or have bought a house worth more than they have available in the bank and in many cases will use every penny of the 5.5x their current salary to maximise what they can realise.

Overall AP was one of the worst signings we have paid for in a long time Always in the wrong place , 2 yards short, never really looked interested at all in his time here and permanently injured. Think he wanted away after two months here.

I think this is the crux of where we are at present. Whether anyone feels the board gets a free pass because of the managerial recruitment and the general perception that the club has been well managed in recent history is, ultimately, I'm sorry to advise, a matter of personal opinion. Likewise, some are seemingly quite happy to overlook ratified policies designed to protect everyone involved and provide clarity, because their personal ambivalence towards those policies appears to be directly linked to the state of our bank balance ..... £1m in the bank and operating loss "can you explain yourselves please" vs £15 million in transfer business in 13 months, "do what you like lads". You may believe that, despite those processes being in place, the ordinary fan shouldn't meddle. These are all positions I've seen voiced on this subject in the past month on both forums. But if you're going to argue that, then surely the alternative and fair position is that the 'owners' of the club should at least have been furnished with the bare minimum supporting documentation, allowing us to review it, ask questions and form an informed opinion. At the very least, it moves the discussion beyond the rather convenient position and potentially the banked on one of assuming a lot of fans will say "I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it." Keeping transfers ultra secret and family members in baseball caps and scarves is fun and welcome but for that in isolation. We were told at the AGM that the feasibility report had been received two weeks previously and that the board hadn't had sufficient time to digest it. But you're two weeks out from the one event in the calendar where you are directly accountable to the club's owners. Couldn't you at least skim it? Turn to the final page conclusions, understand the broad recommendations and provide a condensed summary to the people you're ultimately answerable to. The business we've done recently means we're at a fork in the road with true choices when before our path was very much defined for us. Reality check: in theory, we're a fan-owned club (yes, the italics are deliberate). With that comes an expectation, rightly or wrongly, of a greater level of transparency and accountability than you might reasonably expect from a traditional local businessman, whale or venture-capital. That's part of the bargain and covenant of fan ownership. And whether each individual fan personally has an appetite for that level of scrutiny is ultimately immaterial. A process was defined for matters of this nature. It was ratified, presumably for good reason, and it exists to provide protection and clarity for everyone involved. That process has, to a large extent, been ignored and a plan steamrollered. And that's the bit I find concerning. Not necessarily the outcome, not even necessarily the decision that was made, it's the precedent that has now been set. If a ratified process can simply be bypassed because, in this particular instance, it was inconvenient, expensive or ultimately could have been opposed to a desired outcome, what's to stop exactly the same thing happening again? If some recall, the club had to be reigned in when Sevco faced demotion to the 4th tier, Derek Weir and Dempster outlined the real implications for the club, but they still took it to the support/owners even if they personally may have voted the opposite way due to their roles as directors. However they then had a mandate. Once you've established that a process can be ignored because it worked out alright this time, you've rather undermined the whole point of having the process in the first place.

I've built a club-by-club history of Scottish football and, being a Motherwell supporter, the Motherwell page is the one I've worked hardest on: https://scottishfootballhistory.scot/clubs/motherwell/ Every claim on it links to where it came from. The 1927 Spain tour, the treble season and the 1886 Glencairn/Alpha origins are all there, credited to Motherwell F.C. History and the Heritage Trust where the images are theirs. Where the sources disagree, the page says so instead of choosing. I'd like to know what you make of it - what you'd want added, what reads wrong, what's missing. There's a corrections page and anything you flag gets fixed and logged.

He scored 17 goals in 26 games for Newcastle Jets the season we signed him and had just broken into the Australian team. A team that would prove good enough to reach the World Cup via Asian qualifying. That’s not easy. When we signed him nobody on here thought it was a poor signing or that £250k was excessive. In truth folk got excited. For whatever reason it did not work out despite early promise. I remember a goal at Ibrox and a cracking strike at Easter Road. Whether it was family reasons, style of football, injury, homesickness, attitude or Managerial choice we will never know but it was certainly a signing everybody thought was refreshing and showed ambition. . His biggest critics appear to have forgotten that, or chosen not to accurately remember. But it did not work out and better for him to move on. I agree it could have happened earlier. I wish him well and would not be surprised if he is a success wherever he ends up.

Ceetainly 2.5m is a more reaistic figure if you base it on inflation rates since 2011. Im led to believe that the WS currently raise approx 200k per year?? so in theory it would take 5 years to reach the updated figure of 2.5m so in 5 years would it then need to be 3.5/4m to keep pace with inflation?. The 1.5m reserve will therefore always be a moving figure. Im supportive of the plan in principle as its a nice straightforward way of building up the reserve whilst releasing monies for 1 off projects which might not otherwise get funded through general expenditure. The most obvious example of this for me personally would to see lifts in the Cooper and McLean stands and some form of elevated viewing position for our disabled fans which the DSA have been lobbying for the last 10 years.

And a Stadium like St Mirrens would severely restrict our capacity for income. We have a capacity for 4800 away fans every game, St Mirren have capacity for 1400 that's why their average crowds were so far behind us last season (8620 v 6835) we had room for more home fans and alot of away fans. If we were to build a new stadium it cannot be with a capacity any less than 12,000.

I remember the £350,000 punt on Shaun McSkimming and £200,000 punt on John Hendry.......cheers big Eck

I wouldnt expect most fans to be abreast of all the information required to make a fully informed decision on whether to refurb Fir Park or rebuild elsewhere. Obviously there are emotions involved either way. Thats exactly why it is important to have the feasibility report published, together with a laymans summary of what it means for the club.

I have started to compile a dossier of your funny jokes that you have posted on here , I am on page one at the moment and that's still blank.😂

Hes probably just bored fielding the same banal shite from the media.

In my defence i have been here 37 years, so a wee slip now and again is ok 😃

We were a bit off it, but a self-inflicted 1 - 0 defeat at Ibrox at the end of an 11 games in 37 days run, wasn't that poor.

Still mulling this over. Plenty of good intention but yet to be convinced. Also trying to leave the emotional fan owned buzz out of things. First thing that strikes me is the reserve figure of £1.5m as the target originally set…..in 2011. That figure equates to almost £2.4m in 2026. So it’s nowhere near like for like or close to the level of emergency funds that were visualised as appropriate in 2011. Should it therefore be £2.5m we look to have before we use any excess funds for ‘projects’? To give us the same level of protection that was seen as required in 2011. That initial target was for the exact same scenarios set out in the Broadcast. Effectively relegation. Hard to understand why relegation nowadays would have less of an impact than in 2011. I don’t believe using St Mirren and £500k as a yardstick is wise either. Pretty sure other Clubs have identified relegation as having greater financial implications than £500k, even allowing for an immediate return to the top division. My other concern is ‘Why now and who is driving it?’ Fund raising initiatives have worked well this season. And congrats to all concerned. Mrs Baillie’s as an example. So why not carry on in that manner meantime? Walk before you run. Or perhaps, is the upgraded Training Ground and the apparently hush hush Fir Park Report playing a part here? Bearing in mind external funding is not straight forward as the WS hold a First Charge over Fir Park. Lenders don’t like being second or third in the queue if things go belly up. The WS is also a much cheaper source of finance. And per the broadcast, we may have heaps of transfer monies due but only in increments over the coming years. ‘ We do not have £10m in the Bank’ as a direct quote. So how are those two projects being funded? Perhaps I am being too cautious but, until convinced otherwise, I would rather build up to £2.5m before proceeding as proposed. Interested to hear what others think.

But of course........no way would Tam Cowan be in it! 🤣🤣

Now maybe called Georgie Thug now instead of Gent. Thought he was great at Motherwell.

Reading the exchange between @Goggles & Flippers & @Speedie85 I think there are really two separate questions being conflated here. The first is whether the Dalziel Park project falls within one of the mandatory triggers in the Major Votes Policy. On the wording as it stands, I don't think it does. The policy is quite specific about the circumstances in which a ballot must take place, and capital investment in a training facility is not one of them. On that narrow point, Speedie's interpretation is difficult to argue with. The second question is different though, and I think this is where the discussion becomes more interesting. The policy also gives the Society Board discretion to call a vote on matters outside the listed criteria where there may be an impact on the club's structure, financial stability, governance or identity. That doesn't mean every large decision has to be put to the membership, and nor should it. The Club Board has to be able to operate and make significant commercial decisions without everything becoming a referendum. But equally, the discretionary clause has to mean something. If the figures being discussed around Dalziel are broadly accurate, and the club is committing several million pounds to a long-term infrastructure project on land it does not own outright, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the Society Board considered that discretionary provision and, if so, what led it to conclude that a membership vote was not appropriate. That is not the same as saying the policy has been breached. For me, that is the important distinction. The mandatory criteria create certainty. If one of them is triggered, the Board has no choice about whether members get a vote. The discretionary provision exists for significant situations which fall outside those criteria, where the Board still thinks the implications are serious enough to justify wider member involvement. Acknowledging that discretion does not make the specific criteria redundant. It simply means the policy has two levels, mandatory matters and exceptional matters requiring judgement. Where I think the argument in favour of scrutiny is strongest is not around the semantics of whether "selling a training ground" should somehow also mean "developing a training ground". I don't think the current wording supports that. The stronger issue is the nature and scale of the investment itself. If the club is ultimately putting £3m, £5m, or whatever the final figure turns out to be into Dalziel, members are entitled to understand what the club is receiving in return. What are the tenure arrangements? How long are they secured for? Who owns the improvements? What happens at the end of the lease or agreement? What protections exist around the money being invested? What alternatives were considered? Those are proper governance questions. The same applies to the financing point. It is obviously positive that the club is in a position where it may not need to borrow to fund major projects, but the absence of debt does not automatically make a capital allocation decision a good one. Equally, debt is not automatically bad. What matters is the cost, the security, the repayment profile, the risks and what asset or long-term value is being created. That is particularly relevant if there is a wider stadium discussion taking place at the same time. There is an opportunity-cost question around committing several million pounds to Dalziel now versus retaining some of that capital as part of a future stadium or combined infrastructure solution. That doesn't mean one option is right and the other is wrong, but it is a strategic question worth understanding. I also think it is worth being precise about what fan ownership means here. The Society is the majority shareholder, but that does not mean members should be approving day-to-day or even every major operational decision. The Club Board still has a proper governance role and has to be able to exercise judgement independently. Fan ownership does, however, mean there should be clarity around which decisions sit with the Club Board, which sit with the Society Board, and which are significant enough to go back to the membership. So for me the fair position is this: Dalziel does not appear to trigger an automatic Major Vote under the policy as currently drafted. But that does not make the discretionary clause irrelevant. Given the potential scale and unusual nature of the investment, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the Society Board considered exercising that discretion, and if it did not believe a vote was necessary, to explain why. That is a governance question rather than an accusation of procedural breach. If anything, the debate probably shows one area the Society may want to tighten when the policy is reviewed. The current wording is clear around ownership changes, debt, asset sales and relocation, but much less clear around very large capital commitments. A future version could distinguish more explicitly between mandatory reserved matters, discretionary major matters and ordinary delegated Club Board decisions. That would probably prevent exactly this kind of argument next time.

Apostolos Stamatelopoulos will continue to divide debate within the Motherwell Support for evermore. There were those who had him pegged as a donkey early doors and that is a hill they will die on. There are those who will forever believe there was a player in there and "circumstances" were all that prevented him from showing his best. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in between. He has however now moved on. And so should we. That Callum Hendry is a dud. Lets get him out the door.......😉😉😉

A quarter of a million pounds is not a punt, Theo Bair was a punt.

Very much so. Transport links are generally improved when there’s appetite to do so by key stakeholders. Still, question was asked on how others view redeveloping our current home.

100% spot on that sums up his time here perfectly, he was dross.

Regardless of your opinion on stay or go, this IS a major decision for the club, which lets remember, IS owned by the fans. I think the feasibility study requires to be published, if only for transparency purposes. The board should then put forward their preferred option and any alternative for the consideration of the clubs owners. Its not quite up there with the Barmack proposal in terms of importance, who owns the club will always top the list. But where we play our football is a close second.

I'm fully with you this Goggles, as I've said before. Now we could discuss ad infinitum on this thread about the actual size of a proposed new stadium ranging anywhere from 10K to 18K and all stops in between, but thats for another day. Yes, a new stadium would be very expensive but so would staying at Fir Park as you show here. Costs apart, Fir Park is now no longer fit for purpose in 2026. As you rightly say our stadium is hemmed in by a 20th century land use legacy. The footprint is very tight and limits what can be done. Specific points: * The POD is on life support and needs demolished and replaced urgently. Space for development is severely restricted by the housing near Mrs Baillies. That will never change. * The Hunter Stand at minimum needs a new roof. Its the wrong shape, with access limited to one end and as we've seen recently long queues building up on busy match days. There is no room whatsoever to expand to the east. Catering and toilet facilities are poor and always will be. The views are also poor due to the low inclination of the seating and steel supports, which result in impaired access for some. * The McLean Stand is ageing and replacement of seating is already an issue. * The Cooper Stand is probably in the best health, but the hospitality facilities are sub standard and access for disabled fans is problematic, if not impossible. * At some stage, the floodlights will need replacement but I've no idea of the cost of that. No doubt there other maintenance issues about which we are unaware. Safety standards are ever evolving and each year more work needs to be done, at considerable cost, just to maintain the status quo. The world has changed but Fir Park hasn't kept pace and never will be able to. Fans in 2026 will simply not tolerate the same standard of facilities our predecessors did 60 or 70 years ago.

You have very eloquently expanded on some of the thoughts I was having and put flesh on the bones of what I was trying to get across. Very well done! 🧡❤️🧡

Lengthy rambling post incoming, btw... I think there are two different lines of thought being discussed here. The first is whether the Society should ever use some of its money to invest in the club rather than continuing indefinitely to put everything into the reserve. On that, I can see a strong argument for change. The second is whether this particular structure is the right way to do it. I’m less certain about that. One thing I wouldn’t underestimate is the risk of doing nothing. As a club, we are competing against clubs where private owners or investors can put additional capital into training facilities, stadium improvements, commercial infrastructure, recruitment systems and sometimes simply provide financial headroom when it’s needed. That doesn’t guarantee success, and badly spent money can obviously achieve very little, but over a number of years that investment can compound. Better infrastructure can help develop players. Better commercial operations can generate more revenue. Better facilities can improve recruitment. Those things can eventually feed back into the playing budget. So if Motherwell cannot generate enough surplus internally to fund that type of long-term investment, and also decides not to access Society or external capital, there is a genuine risk of falling behind structurally. For me, that is probably the strongest argument in favour of the principle behind Active Investment. Where I think we need to be careful is making the jump from: “Motherwell needs access to investment” to: “therefore this particular annual rolling-loan model is the answer.” They aren’t quite the same thing in my opinion. The £1.5m reserve is still the first thing I would want clarified. If £1.5m represents the amount the Society believes it prudently needs to protect the club against relegation and an unforeseen event, I still struggle slightly with the logic of diverting half of the default subscription income elsewhere before getting there. If £1.5m is simply a longer-term target rather than a minimum safety level, that's a different matter. But I think members need to understand which it is. I also don’t think simply inflation-adjusting an old £1.5m number necessarily gives us the answer. The correct reserve in 2026 should be based on the risks facing Motherwell in 2026, not just what £1.5m from years ago is worth today. The consultation explains that around £1m could be required in a relegation scenario, plus another £500k for an unexpected loss of income. That sounds reasonable as a starting point, but I’d be interested in how far the downside scenario goes. For example, what happens if we spend two seasons in the Championship rather than one? What happens if relegation also affects transfer income? The consultation itself acknowledges the importance of recent player sales in covering potential shortfalls while the underlying operating deficit is reduced. If we were relegated, there is at least a possibility that player valuations fall, buyers know we are in a weaker negotiating position, some players want to leave, commercial income drops further, and the timing of sales becomes less favourable. That doesn’t mean £1.5m is wrong, by the way. It just means fans might like to know that those risks have been considered together rather than relegation being treated as a single isolated £1m event. I also agree with the point made above about the difference between productive investment and plugging ordinary losses. If the Society lends £200k for a project that has a credible business case and will save the club £60k a year, increase commercial income, improve an asset or otherwise produce measurable long-term value, I can see the logic. If the money gradually starts disappearing into normal annual operating expenditure, that is a very different proposition. The answer there could be a pretty firm rule that Active Investment is for identifiable investment projects, not simply another source of working capital to reduce the club’s normal deficit. That also brings me to the loan structure. Calling the scheme “Active Investment” is understandable, but what is currently proposed, from what I can see, is essentially an ongoing shareholder-loan arrangement. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Private football club owners use shareholder loans all the time. The difference is that a private owner is normally risking their own capital and may ultimately extend the loan indefinitely, convert it into shares or write it off. The Society is deploying money accumulated from thousands of supporters, so I think the terms deserve more scrutiny. When the consultation says the investment will be “protected”, what exactly does that mean? Is the loan secured? Does it earn interest? Where would it rank against other creditors? What happens if the club cannot repay after the stated period? Is rolling the loan expected to be the normal outcome? If loans keep being rolled for ten or fifteen years, is the Society effectively providing permanent capital anyway, and if so, would equity sometimes be a more appropriate structure? I don’t have a predetermined answer to those questions. I just think they are fundamental rather than technical details. There is also a broader point about how the projects are generated. I’d much rather the sequence was: “Here is a project the club believes is worth £250k. Here is what it costs, what it saves or generates, the payback period and why Society finance is the best funding source.” rather than: “We have £200k of Society money available every year. What can we spend it on?” That distinction is important, I think, because otherwise the existence of an annual funding pot can eventually start driving the spending decision. That is something private owners also have to guard against. Access to easy capital can be useful, but it can also reduce financial discipline. So I’d probably be somewhere in the middle on the whole thing. I don’t think continuing forever with every penny going into a bank account is necessarily the best use of the Society’s position as majority shareholder. If other Scottish clubs are investing significantly in their businesses and Motherwell refuses to access any additional capital, there is a legitimate risk that we fall behind over time. But equally, being the majority shareholder should mean more than simply being the easiest source of finance available to the club. It should mean deploying capital selectively, independently and with a clear understanding of both the upside and the downside. That’s why I keep coming back to what seems like an obvious compromise. Agree the Active Investment framework now if members support the principle. Put the project appraisal process, loan terms and safeguards in place. But unless there is an urgent investment opportunity that makes waiting genuinely disadvantageous, why not maintain the existing default until the reserve reaches whatever level is finally agreed to be prudent? At that point you have both sides of the model in place: a properly funded safety net and a mechanism for investing in growth. For me, the question isn’t really whether the Society should invest in Motherwell. The answer is that It probably should. The more important question is how it does that without weakening the very financial protection that supporter ownership was designed to provide.

Every game I witnessed when he was playing he was always out of position, off the ball never anticipating where the ball was going in the box and two yards short in the box ,he was truly woeful. Most of his goals were penaltys , that bad no one would buy him from us. Probably McArthur FC got Tesco vouchers to take him off our hands.

I don't that quite captures the welcoming and "safe place to fail" ethos that has helped create our current level of success.

Yet another joke recycled from last season.

Nah not for me........3-0 or 4-0 would be lovely

Cmon proper English please "Cheque" 😉😁

Held to Account yes. 100%. Undoubtedly. However, the Club Board do have the expertise to operate like any other football club board. They have done that pretty well so far. Seating aside 😂. That responsibility surely includes managing infrastructure projects. The only difference is that they have ‘bosses’ to report to who can intervene if appropriate. In effect that arrangement should provide extra security for us fans. My question is whether the Society Board are strong enough to disagree with the Club Board/Brian and say NO. That has not always been the case in the past. They certainly appear to have sidestepped the POD seating issue. But hopefully those days are behind us. The current proposal has some merit. But are we in a position to commit at this time? I guess that is the question folk have to answer for themselves.

That’s like Trump, “I’ll send you a check”.

Thank feck someone worked it out, owe ye a pint

Alex Guiness Luke Skywalker Thats tenuous, even for you Grizzly! 😆😆😆

Not any more or less concerned about this game than the others. The hard truth in this league is if you're not at it, any team can take a point or three from you. If we are at it, I think we can win by a goal or three. Robbo, of course will be trying to kick us off the park.

For some players a move simply doesn't work out. It could be for a whole bunch of reasons, often many of them not even football-related. As a club, we've seen our fair share of successful player moves, so when one doesn't go as well as we'd hoped, we just need to accept it and move on.

Any thing like St Mirren would be a disaster it's the worse viewing and match day experiance In the league with St Johnstone second worst only because of a higher stand with slightly better view of the game. Fir Park has to be revamped . But history and tradition seem to take second place now with some . A new stadium will leave us with massive debt to pay off diverting money from the team budget. Better struggling to get tickets for a full Fir Park than playing in a half full new one. Supporting Motherwell most of my life for over 55years we won't be playing this type of football forever more seen it all before highs and lows . We need to keep our feet on the ground and be realistic . Revamp FP and keep the rest for a rainy day. New stadium will be a weight around our neck for decades to come.

You've thought this through haven't you? 😁😁 Great post pal and very well detailed

As long as the SFA and SPFL are run by this current mob of inept incompetents, nothing will improve. Anything they propose will only make things worse and somehow manage to make an already stupid situation even more stupid.

Ye big Shaun was unfortunate as he was signed as Uncle Phil's replacement plus he didn't decide the fee. Not the worst......definitely better than Davie Shanks! ( one for 1980's fans)

To be fair, I'd trust every national team selector above Scotland's.

A shame it didn't work out but he never really seemed settled. Still a better option than 2 of the 3 strikers he's left behind.

Miles better. I don't mind that we took a punt on AP. We need to keep looking in different markets for players. Sometimes you get a Priestman sometimes you get an AP. Just and Watt were punts that worked, and we have taken a few more this season that look like they might work out. In fact our hit rate has been pretty high recently, so statistically we're due for a couple of absolute Casagoldas. Although I see he did hit 51 goals in 87 appearances for his last club, Crossing Schaerbeek, on Belgium. So he did find his level in the lower leagues there.

I probably more than anyone banged the Stama drum but injuries just never meant he could get a run. Lone striker not suited to him. I felt him and JT were developing a partnership until....yup...you guessed it..........stama got injured. Certainly not worst striker I have seen but just didnt work out

After a break and some training time, we are going to absolutely muller them.

Outdated coaching methods, outdated and poorly qualified coaches, a governing body thats not fit for purpose, a league structure thats set up to pander to two teams at the expense of the other 40, lack of talented players, academy players struggling to get game time, a governing body that thinks it can do no wrong,, useless crap referees, a compliant media only interested in two teams. Thats a few reasons to be going on with.

Lets start with the SFA...

I've never understood the offset rule! 🤪🤪

It’s non fitba but have a laugh

It wasn't just those on the pitch, or damaging the away end. The conduct of some of those who presumably had comps/media passes, or were there in a Celtic capacity was at best antagonistic. Passed Kyrk McMillan/Diirectors box on way out, while the aftermath was still unfolding and said they shouldn't be allowed back. It was fortunate there was no retaliation from the East Stand, or things exceeding verbals in the main stand. Obviously its ridiculous to be fighting in the ground, but it was a highly charged atmosphere and fans were completely incensed by things on and off the field. Will be completely unsurprising when they do it again and wreck the new seats in the away end. If that happens then there is no option, but to cut allocation, otherwise the club look like utterly pathetic cucks. To add, its a tough gig to try and lay down the law to Block E etc when they see massive liberties being taken - with very little recourse - in the away end.