Goggles & Flippers

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.

Isn't there something to this though surely. Guys with a lot more experience than us in football, who see them daily at training and therefore have a better idea of what their inclusion brings over dropping them. You can't deny 3 different guys have all opted for them. You can understand Black following on from McCall's precedent but I get the impression Baraclough is playing a few because of no depth of cover, but he is still playing them. It seems clear to us to play Dom Thomas over Erwin on the left wing, but there's evidently more to it.

The following BBC Website Article has raised a question worthy of debate. Can't help feel Jim Murphy brought it up as a populist policy to try and stem the hemorrhaging of the Labour party in Scotland however the SFA have now entered a consultation. I'll start a poll to see what the general consensus is among SOL contributors. At one end we've got the status quo and the other would be similar to what's available to you when you walk into your local Wotherspoons. Obviously there are a whole host of other options in the spectrum between the above. So feel free to make suggestions. A regular point brought up by the pro-alcohol lobby is rugby games. I've attended many internationals and the general behaviour of rugby fans is very different to football fans in my experience. Also it was only just over a year ago that the south stand was left looking like downtown Baghdad after the unwashed arrived for a 7:45 KO, no doubt a few responsible were leathered. However attendances are in decline, would this encourage a few people back? If so, how much would you charge, how could you ensure booze could be enjoyed responsibly, etc.

Few questions GazzyB The radio described it as a 4-1-4-1, was this the case? Do you think Ramsden was played in the defensive midfield role because Baraclough didn't have full confidence in the ability of the back 4? Otherwise this is a game we're you'd go with 2 designated forwards, or 3 midfielders and 3 up front I reckon. You mentioned Grant dropped back in the second half and we lost our last third drive, when we went forward before this I take it he took up an playmaker/advanced position as the link man for Sutton? Lasley wasn't happy about being hooked, was there a case for Ramsden walking and Las staying on?

I didn't say I agreed with all of it, I said when he explained his motives, it made a few of them easier to swallow. Today's the same, we're judging things based on matchday performances however without being present in training for the past fortnight.

Just a question, if we were 2-2 and they scored late on would the vitriol on here be as much. A lot of it seems to stem from being 3-1 down with 25 minutes left and resignation kicking in.

The moderators should make you earn points before you're allowed to post anything, thinking something like a McDonald's badge system

While there is merit to a number of your points, reading that made me cast my mind back to the day after the Cup Final in 2011. I couldn't understand why McCall set us up the way he did. It made absolutely no sense to me and just added to the gloom of the day. Then he posted his managers email where he explained his tactics and reasons behind his decision making. I read it and I thought "well that makes some sense, yeah, OK, perhaps, OK, you got a point there". There may be more to today than we know. It's evident he is still picking elements of the team using alternatives rather than his options. We've got a good run of home games coming up, I'd like to see the outcome with the addition of his number two, but I'd agree, you'd like to see more of an influence in our play by now.

You must be thrilled that all your early McCall bashing that you had to put on the back burner can now be dragged out with a "told you so" waggy finger making you look like some insightful oracle. He didn't wreck the team. We won ugly last season pretty much all against bottom 6 teams, he didn't address our deficiencies over the summer (speed primarily), was culpable for the team being unfit and unable to compete, didn't read the riot act to the likes of Ainsworth and finally was unable to address the malaise.