Goggles & Flippers

Yes it's voluntary with a degree of popularity required. However if you're given a job and you're not up to it, there's a simple solution.

That's the thing with Babestation Daytime, don't even have to get your chebs out

You need to ask him about Anderson Strathclyde, Ravenscraig and Motherwell Bridge, he's doesn't tend to mention them much ..........

Why because I'm one of the few calling them out? Difference is, I make realistic targets and therefore deliver on them. If I can't make it then I don't just bury my head in the sand, I approach those affected and advise I need an extra few days. I have no interest in managing them, didn't realise asking for delivery equated to a desire for that. However as a member of the WS I'm entitled to hold them to account. I do take it you give a fuck about them honouring their promises? It's all about managing expectations, if they say you'll have stuff this week then do it. If not, don't say so in the first place. It's a pretty simple thing to do. If things are allowed to continually slip then it becomes accepted and it will permeate through everything. I've seen it happen repeatedly in all facets of life.

Erm No, the option was not to (as everyone connected has been guilty of to date minus a few grumblings on here) or press them to deliver. I opted for the latter, I have no desire to keep my mouth shut and see if they manage it without cajoling as they've repeatedly failed to deliver. Even the response to my earlier post they admitted "that one is admittedly overdue" with respect to an update on Les. How many "breaks" do we give them? So what's the 3 options? Say nothing, they deliver, happy days. Say nothing, they fail to deliver, I get to say "told you so" or say something and they're held to account and we find out what's going on. I'm not interested in points scoring, I'm interested in this body reporting back in a timely manner and honouring promises and if that gets your panties in a twist, so be it. I'll be content not to get the stick out but only when they can prove they don't need hit with it.

Good read, thought you may have directly cited the SFA Euro Qualifier prices like you did in the podcast though.

I tend to play it on my computer when I'm working away, is it more beneficial for you for us to register via iTunes even if that's not our preferred way of listening? Thinking of your prominence and potential ad revenues if it ever gets to a substantial number

I'm tending to agree with this. Ainsworth is the McFadden of season 2014/15. He came in a year later, did and job and impressed, got a deal, then went off the boil. Almost carbon copy, only difference was McFadden was trying and it wasn't happening. I can't see him being here past May unless there is a massive improvement. If we won't make anything off him as he'll be released. Therefore no reason not to play Thomas. We're in line to make something from him if he can be tied down on a Dundee Utd style contract. Which AB hinted at was going to be happening over the coming weeks. Our biggest prospects at present are Moore, Erwin, Leitch, Watt and Thomas. I hope they can all be secured.

Just feel we have to keep you on your toes. As this is Thursday evening, and as you've delivered on one out of the three, then there are still two announcements remaining and only a few days of this week left. I don't expect to see anything on Saturday night so it really only leaves today, Friday and Sunday. Manage expectations and deliver on them, I'm only bringing this up as the WS haven't had the best track record for doing this.

Adding onto Al's comment, I was trying to make a joke of some elements of the SOL fraternity who would find fault in anything that happens, using that quote to justify their behaviour

remove the "/rss1" from the URL after you click through

Or ....... "All this stuff off the park is taking the players minds off the task at hand with unwanted distractions"

The voting trend has stayed pretty consistent. From what can be derived, approximately 50% are looking for no change or minor changes where corporate guests can drink in view of the pitch. The remaining 50% are looking for varying levels of booze being available, all of which would need a change in the law and infrastructure at grounds. By no means scientific or representative of the whole or our support but also not a landslide for booze to be available as has been suggested reflects the public mood.

Glad to hear it. Just please start volunteering information rather than being asked for it continually and please convey something more than what's already available in other media outlets otherwise what's the point.

Listening to the podcast with Andrew Wilson prompted me to revisit this thread. By now the deal should be done with Les. I imagine a lot of us really want to hear: Any final bits that couldn't be shared up until now due to confidentiality What's next What direction the club is heading What plans are in place Where the society needs help from its membership (other than the "go out and recruit message") Anything else not in this list you may want to volunteer And finally, an idea of realistic timescales, delivery and expectations I'm all for the board managing things within an executive function but the level of engagement without people on these boards poking you with a metaphorical cattle prod is unacceptable. Releasing Les' interview then going back to ground for a month is not what we expected or deserve. You are an entity that has over £500k of supporters money. Let's progress past something that seems to echo a Blue Peter bring and buy sale to something worthy of the club and those who have contributed. If you have been working away feverously in the past month and reading this is galling, then by all means convey what has been going on. Come on folks, time to be proactive than reactive.

Interesting points, certainly what stood out for me were Jay's about alcohol and subtext and seemingly unrelated issues with the SFA. When you think about them combined it does bring it all into a context. I agree it should be articulated further. Second was the fact that Andrew wasn't being partizan about the alcohol debate which in this day and age is refreshing (even if he's no longer in frontline politics). Showed a degree of maturity that sadly is in short supply. Also in the way he was diplomatic about some of the more short tempered and impatient among our own support. Third was what Derek Weir has done behind the scenes which goes beyond what I think a lot of people would do or expect him to. Hopefully the explanation of the budgeting should put to bed some of the more knee jerk comments levelled on here. Finally, the Well Society. I have been critical (with a number of others) over the communication disseminated especially back in December and pushed repeatedly for an update as the deal went through in January. However in the intervening 4 weeks I've not kept this up. While I don't think it's a place an ordinary member should be to act as a cattle prod, I also think that until this body can be proactive rather than reactive it's something that needs to be done until someone there takes full responsibility. Over to that thread now to rattle the cage.

Uploaded tonight?

I'd go with the back 4 however I think Hammell is still a wee bit off returning. If that is the case, I'd opt for Watt over Straker and maybe Ramsden over Laing. I'd have Pearson in before Carswell (however I think he may still not be risked). I'd be expecting a display from Las. I'd bench Johnson and play Dom Thomas. Johnson can replace any of the two wingers or Sutton if required based on what I've read. Based on Saturday I think there's only 4 players who are guaranteed a start, Long, Kerr, Grant and Sutton. With McManus trading on his experience and CV it's hard for Baraclough to drop him but I would.

If you want a quick recap, about a year ago I did the worst team poll, a quick search will bring back a host of evil memories. Definitive Worst Motherwell XI

Well thats an even more ludicrous reason than the one I gave. That has to be cleared from the statute book.

Can I ask those who say, "max I'd be able to drink is two pints", what's your tipping point between being merry and drunk? You must have an idea. Nothing to suggest a number of people would get tanked outside the game and those two pints inside tip you over the edge. If people could be trusted to drink responsibly then our A&E and weekend cells wouldn't be rammed. Walking away from FP after a Celtic game is menacing enough without having the extra danger of a number of them having drank some instant "brave juice".

To cover a few points raised. We've seen only 15 months ago what Friday night, booze and stupidity result in, a trashed stand. Also, launching idiots out who over indulge, we already know what group mentality is like without drink, someone needing kicked out surrounded by half a dozen mates also inebriated is a job that no steward or cop would relish. Our game is tribal and people congregate around a common cause regardless of merit, more so because they are wearing C&A. I used to see the blinds go down in the Cooper or South because the fans sitting in the cheap seats aren't allowed to see the corporate/hospitality customers drinking at half time and thought that is crazy. Most rational people know you are judged under different circumstances and you're on better behaviour when in a box. I accept that part of their package allows drinking, is it screened from me to avoid jealousy, glamourises drinking or protect the kids? That prohibition era ruling in our modern day licencing laws is why a lot of our pubs are dark dingie little hovels with either tiny windows or opaque glass. Absolutely mental. Unfortunately human beings as a collective don't behave, there will always be an element rebelling or being bloody minded for the sake of it.

From memory, Ladbrokes said "never again" when they packed up. Don't know if that's because they were cast aside or regulatory stuff or it didn't justify the return.

I would have thought Flow would have taken you to the side and had a word about you posting on here by now.

To suggest people would rock up at the football and that's where they'd have their first pint is naive. Maybe the majority will but in this argument it is the few that will define how things pan out. I suspect there will be an element who will abuse it and cause hassle. They'll be the ones who arrive merry enough to avoid the eye of the cops/stewards but inside a few beers could result in bawbagery. Everything about rugby is different, the players respect and don't intimidate the referees, the fans aren't as tribal and I can't ever remember seeing or reading about crowd violence despite it often happening on the pitch much in excess of football pitches.