Motherwell Seagull

That answers the question I had. Was there not supposed to be some reciprocal agreement between us wee teams regarding ticket pricing, or have I just been off the booze for too long?

You may well be right on this point but I have seen funnier things happen. Should anything happen to Boyle, we could find that he has split his shares between family, or, god forbid, we end up with 2 yanks buying the franchise . I have seen power battles in the Board Room at Chelsea and Brighton simply because investors have been needed for Stadia (and if rumours are to be believed it would be foolhardy to think that we could manage an new stadium without investment from somewhere). Regardless of whether the Trust are on the Board or not, I would expect them to be advocating the best solution for the club. I suspect that we have little to worry about on this front for the time being as Boyle has already demonstrated that he will not sell just for the sake of it. Yes, being on the board will undoubtedly mean politics - but there again so does lobbying the board from the outside. I do not believe there is a perfect solution here, just a simple observation that being on the Board and having their voice recorded in the minutes will (to my way of thinking) provide a louder voice than being on the outside looking in. I certainly do not disagree with your last point about access, but when the Board and the Trust necessarily take opposite standpoints, how can the Trust be expected to maintain a direct line of communication with the club without having a formal relationship? Mr Boyle has already been seen (rightly or wrongly) to cut communication with the Trust over disagreements (I think it was No means No?). If you are correct in that there will only ever be a majority shareholder running Motherwell, it may be even more important to have a formal line of communication? I personally do not think lobbying alone is the answer - although I don't think that is what you are actually advocating. Lobbying can all too easily turn into pandering to the big boss, or even worse, just sitting on the fence. Worse still, it could be used as a reason why the Trust does not actually achieve anything: Not that I think a seat on the board should be the absolute goal, but if we are to have a Trust, then I want it to have some teeth!

I have mixed feelings on this one. As long as the club has 1 majority shareholder, a seat on the board means little in reality. Yes, attending board meetings and at least having a say can be useful, but a similar relationship could be struck by having a close working relationship with the club. If, however, the Trust and the Club Board take opposite sides of an argument, and that relationship deteriorates, not being on the board may well mean not being heard at all. I think its important for the Trust to be heard - especially when they have a different agenda to the club. Of course, if a day ever comes where we essentially have split ownership of the club - I would have thought that having a seat on the board is essential. Am not cynical enough to agree that a seat on the board takes away the necessary neutrality for representing the fans. The important factor here is that whoever the board member is must represent the Trust at the board meetings, and have no other Agenda; and it must be the fans who decide the Trust position and goals by participating in the initiatives etc that the Trust put forward.

Thats an interesting comment from McGhee for all sorts of reasons - none of which are really relevant on a Motherwell board. I thought he did well for Brighton, as he has done for Motherwell. The end for McGhee at Brighton covered nobody in glory (although I thought McGhee was dignified throughout - in public at least), and it appears that the folk behind the club are still to learn some lessons. At Motherwell he appears to have close to the full backing of the Chairman - I doubt he enjoyed that level of backing at Brighton.

A fitting reward for the big man - well done to all involved. Hope the game itself can be played on a half decent pitch!

Here is the thing - no organisation is perfect, and will never be 100% correct all of the time. A lot of the comments from this (and many other threads) simply say that the Trust is not perfect and therefore do not deserve to be supported. Ok, perhaps over simplistic, but at least the sentiment is right. The Trust has come out and asked for input. No matter how you look at it, this is a good thing, and should be recognised as a step in the right direction. If we all provide input, ideas, feelings and not simple generalisms (which is a cop out) then we can judge the Trust on their actions, and not their words. I reckon the trust would be happy with that! Given that the Trust are not forcing any of us to become members before ideas are considered, do any of us have anything to loose? The Trust should be a good thing for this club (and the supporters). In many ways they are asking for a second chance - is that really a bad thing?

Perhaps you are aiming too high Fraz? Not sure you need 1 big cause. The trouble with them is that once they are over, you need to find another silver bullet. Suspect that a well publicised programme of many smaller initiatives will begin to win the support round. Everyone will have different thoughts on what should happen - thats natural after all. A dozen different schemes that cover different aspects of the club eg youth, stadium etc (and perhaps even allows folk to get involved themselves without having to dip into their pockets all the time) may get a wider body of supporters involved and caring for the cause? Who knows - it may even begin to bridge the divide between some fans and the club?? I don't know anything about how the night at the Mega bar was arranged (I think its a great idea btw), but perhaps this is something that the trust can quietly begin to assist the club with in future? I am sure we would all rather the club improved their admin rather than organise good nights out for us all (and that is not a dig). Just a thought - but the next time the Trust get their publicity, or photos taken, how about pulling names out a hat of all those who contributed to the fundraising to represent the trust rather than having the same old faces in the photos? One last thing (whilst I am on my soapbox), I have seen the fanbase grow closer to clubs where initiatives such as lotteries for a couple of fans to join in training at the club etc exist. Takes a fair commitment from all concerned, but does not really cost the club anything, whilst helping to generate cash etc. I'll shut up now!

Lets hope this type of communication continues! Appreciate that Open Meetings are needed, and to be honest they should become a regular event - but the informal channels will always generate great ideas. Too many folk have become entrenched in their views (not sure I agree with apathetic), and meetings will not work for them. Forum's like this however...

Not that its worth anything - but I agree with you 100%! I am already on record as saying that the Trust should not be competing with this board or any other sources of revenue the club may have to provide sponsorship etc. If all the jerseys etc are sponsored the trust should be looking at other avenues - but if they are not all sponsored then so be it. Perhaps the trust should focus on providing some sort of legacy - and as you point out, aim to provide solutions to some of the bigger problems where traditional funding methods will not suffice. Anything to help JP continue with the fantastic job he has always done should be a priority I would have thought. Does JP qualify for a testimonial?

You make a good point here Dodge - but what sort of initiative will unite at least some of the fans behind the Trust? I still think the trust needs to decide what its purpose is - although I believe they have taken the first step in that direction. I don't doubt this for a moment, but there remains a huge conflict of interest here, and truthfully I think it should be a bigger problem for MFC than it is for the Trust. That it is allowed to continue could be read as the club meeting the trust half way. Regardless, I believe that Mr Rose should not be on the Trust board if he is only 'unofficially' representing the trust on the Board of the club. If Mr Rose were to step down from the Board of the Trust, I do not see why that could/should diminish the role he currently plays - he can still provide opinions, direction, and unofficially represent the trust on the Club board - albeit with less of a profile.

Its a strange one - I got about 20 Brighton fans into a pub to watch the Cup replay with St Mirren. I was quite disappointed that night, both with our display, and the overall quality of the game. The Brighton fans however generally thought that it was full of quality and skill! I put it down to the difference between the SPL and League One! Having said that, St Mirren did start with a player who did not quite manage to produce the goods down at Brighton and got his move back home at Christmas.

McGhee always appears to spark debate within the fan base of the clubs he manages. My adopted home team Brighton (who are struggling at the moment) was no exception. It would seem that even with hindsight, opinion on McGhee is still divided - Clicky

And perhaps for the first time this season McGhee has a positive defensive decision to make! Does Coach come straight back in at the expense of McLean, or perhaps a wee rest for Reynolds??

Surely a fans representative should be allowed to make the various points mentioned on this thread as hypocritical to Mr Rafferty? That way we really can all look forward to... Perhaps we could even take it a step further, and make both of the Old Firm actually welcome opposition fans, and treat them with respect and courtesy, and perhaps we could even agree that the ticket levy imposed by the OF should be lambasted by all that care about Scottish Football? Without going off-topic and this degenerating into a slagging match for Frazzle, if MST really is re-inventing itself, this is something they should be all over IMHO (with the aid of our so called celebrity fans/reporters).

Been debating this point elsewhere. As much as I want Sutton to be a success, I think he needs to improve a fair bit before I would play him for a long ball game. Undoubtedly a direct, almost penalty box type of player, I just can't see him ploughing the channels and holding the ball up etc.

But isn't that what supporters are supposed to do - support the club, and the people that play for it?

And thats my problem. I can't remember a day when both have been on the box at the same time! The Brighton pubs will cover the Luton game, and am guessing I have no chance of seeing the Well game on a different screen. I may have to resort to an internet friendly pub

That gives me an unexpected problem. Brighton have the 2nd leg of a cup affair which will hopefully see them off to Wemburley at the end of the 90, and Motherwell will be Buddie bashing! Chances of a pub showing both games??

I'm with Mcghee Sutton with a brace and Clarky to keep his wee scoring run alive 3-0 well

If he is going, and for that money, then good luck to the big man. He put in a decent shift for us, and scored valuable goals. He also behaved with dignity throughout his term at Fir Park and represented the club well on and off the park. Now, who will be the next gem that we find?

Don't want to tar all with the same brush, but... I enjoy the away games as the supporters tend to get behind the team. Am always taken back by the amount of vitriol from the home support that is hurled at certain players like Fizzy, and before him McBride, and before him...... Can't believe this helps the players, and ultimately believe that they are doing their best. If it is not working for them, or they are simply not good enough then thats for the manager to deal with. I have never seen a player do any worse when the crowd are backing the team. Mind you, I am totally two faced - Paul Kinnaird and Andy Roddie always got dogs abuse from me!

Its strange how people's views on Hammell differ. I actually think he is a better player now than he was 1st time round. I feel that he is playing with an older head on his shoulders, and is picking out better passes etc when coming forward. Defensively he still gets caught out of position too much for my liking, and I often lament that full backs/wing backs no longer seem interested in preventing crosses into the box. Not like in my day!

You may have a point about the most vocal Well fans, but certainly not all of us. I enjoy seeing the boys come through, and getting their big move. 2 year contracts swing both ways - we get to offload the dead wood as well. I'd certainly like to give longer contracts to some, but would love to find out what the difference is contractually between a 2 and 3 year contract - presumably its more than just the term and a bit of money?

I think a lot of Porters headlines are made by the hard work of Clarky. McGhee has improved Clarky (not altogether sure when I could last comment on a Motherwell manager actually improving a player) and I suspect that there is a lot still to come from him. If he can become a regular goalscorer as well as maintain his link up play and tireless running he will be a fantastic player who will attract a lot of attention, and possibly a big bid or two (not that I am in a hurry to loose him). mon_da_well makes a good point - the improvement in the team from Malpas to McGhee is personified by the turnround in Clark'ys performances.

Can anyone remember if this formed part of the Creditors settlement?