Pepper
-
Posts
1,638 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pepper
-
-
22 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:
what do you consider to be our fan base and how many people do you think it is? how much of that is this “large section” you mention? and how do you know their views?
I know this is a rough back of a fag packet calculation but even though it’s a poor measurement at least it’s measurable in some sense.
from memory last year there were around 2750 members of the society eligible to vote of which around 1500 had voted when the voting was cancelled due to EB withdrawing his interest.
Of that 1200 had rejected the offer while 300 had accepted it giving roughly a 80% majority of those who voted or 44% of the society in favour and 11% against with 45% undecided.
If you extrapolate that to the feeling of the fan base then 11% in favour isn’t really “a large section of the fan base” unless your argument is that everyone who hadn’t voted or not a member of the WS was in favour of EB’s takeover offer.
Large scation was a deliberate exageration but that's not the point I was making anyway.
It was that you would have envisaged the society having to protect the club from people on the outside traying to gain control rather than it's own supporters, board members or whoever it may be with their feet already under the table.
-
I never thought that the Well Society's most important function would become protecting the club from a large section of its own fans, but there you go.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, smiddy said:
2.30 will be good they are askin the pundits what they think,
craggs will be good , he had all the stats on SK Last week
It was going quite well until Billy Dodds continued to peddle he myth that Kettlewell resigned because of abuse aimed at his family.
Derek Ferguson also seems to think it must have been abuse from well fans located in the main stand, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Neither statement challenged.
At least the message that whatever it was must have been from a minority of fans (as absolutely no one knows what the abuse actually entailed) is finally being addressed.
-
2 minutes ago, star sail said:
We are no better and no worse as a fan group. I don't think that justifies the behaviours.
What has brought this debate about is that a manager has called us on it.
It opens up a very interesting debate.
What interests me most is that I am clearly in a significant minority that believes SK has good cause for complaint. Every football manager in the country probably has good cause for complaint.
Regarding the double standards, I am very clumsily referencing the comment about SOD because he is obviously considered fair game, whilst by comparison the Motherwell support collectively sees itself as beyond reproach or criticism. The context is different but I believe the sentiment to be the same
Judging by the mood, I have been loosing the argument generally on the forum over these last few days. That of itself is very instructive and makes the discussion really interesting and worthwhile for me. It is always interesting to discover that your views are not representative of a collective you previously believed to align with on some level .
Hopefully the double standards comment is slightly clearer (clear as mud possibly). It is all good discussion for as long as it does not become personal.
I agree with the sentiment of your posts, even if not all of the points you make,
Apologies if I have played the man and not the ball in an earlier reply.
There is definitely a discussion to be had regarding what is considered to be an acceptable level of abuse in football, not only abuse directed at managers and players from fans, but from managers and players towards officials, and that extends across all levels of the game.
In all honesty, I'm a bit bewildered by the whole sorry episode.
-
11 minutes ago, star sail said:
Resume. I like that!
Ok. If that's your opinion of what is acceptable and you would be happy with members of your own family been subjected to similar statements that is fine.
What I don't understand is that you are offended when the media, SK, SOD, the Motherwell board questioning those very same types of comment. That does not make any sense to me?
None of these people have made anything like the comments referenced above. It smacks of double standards.
None of this is new though. You'd be forgiven for thinking we were the first fans in history to give their manager stick.
Just so we are clear, and it goes without saying, any fan who was personally abusing Kettlewell is an arsehole.
Ii don't get the double standards comment, these are not the same things.
-
9 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
I agree with you on all of these points. But some fans are saying he wasn't abused at all (particularly on Facebook). When other fans are saying they witnessed it. I was stunned by the society statement tbh - I personally don't need to be told how to conduct myself at a football match.
If the club had said in the first place that it was a section of fans acting like this - it would have been more appropriate
The general consensus seems to be that he received the same or lesser levels of abuse than others have in the past. I don't think there is any merit in that debate anyway as there are obviously things we will never know.
Thee has got to be more to this for to merit the sort of reaction we are seeing, almost entirely across he board. I suspect we may never find out.
-
1 minute ago, star sail said:
I have been watching Motherwell since 1980. I have been on this forum since about 2008.
I know what goes on. What I am saying is that for me personally, the levels of abuse, I find generally unacceptable.
What really interests me most is that the Motherwell support seems to be collectively offended that it's behaviours are being questioned. No abuse from any quarter, just questioned.
I assume you think it is fine?
I could have put my mortgage on you giving me your resume...
Yes I think that post was absolutely fine.
The vast majority of the support are quite right to be offended, as they have done absolutely nothing wrong. The way the broader support is being portrayed, regardless of what abuse was actually directed at Kettlewell, is disgraceful.
The club statement, society statement, sky interviews and the latest twitter video from the club are a PR disaster. I have no problem with anyone offering Kettkewell support and questioning a victims lived experience is just not tolerated these days, but there must have been a better way to do it that this. How to alienate your fans in 3 easy steps.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, star sail said:
In the context of what we're are currently talking about, is this comment acceptable ?
Maybe this is supposed to be tongue in cheek but if it is not I don't think it is acceptable.
For those who think it is acceptable, ask yourself the question ' If somebody was saying this about a member of my family on a public forum, how would I feel about it?'
SOD himself has taken unacceptable levels of abuse from our support in recent times. We can't simply pretend that all the negativity is just a media led conspiracy.
I assume you are new to both football and the internet?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Richie said:
The Daily Record is saying we're going for Robinson.
Tony?
-
Comically bad stuff.
-
Halliday's hand ball was, going by the current rules, a stone waller.
-
1 hour ago, David said:
The most recent thread that was locked on this forum seems to have been over six months ago. It was a transfer thread that was closed because the transfer window had ended, and a new thread was created for the next window.
Based on the records I have access to, over the past five years, I have locked five threads. Three of these were the aforementioned transfer threads. One was a thread about Tony Watt after he left, which had degenerated into discussions about Albion Rovers. The last was a thread about David Turnbull after he left, which had shifted to discussions in the former player thread.
It seems that my so-called "tyranny" amounts to closing, on average, one thread per year over the past five years or so. Not bad for someone who has "form" for closing threads!
If I did close a Robinson discussion thread, you can be fairly certain that there were reasons beyond me being offended by the content. If I were to close every thread where people were posting material that I found ridiculous or in poor taste, I would be closing threads on a weekly if not daily basis.
The reality is that this forum is remarkably lenient when it comes to allowing certain individuals to air their negative nonsense, which has caused some posters to drift away over the years. There are posters on this forum who simply wouldn’t be allowed to post what they do elsewhere.
But aye, continue to discuss the bois as you see fit. So long as you don't go over the score with what you say, you won't face the brunt of my tyrannical ways! 😂
I don't seem to recall accusing you of being a tyrant. But it's convenient you don't have access to the records for the thread I'm on about. It stuck out to me as I enquired about why it was closed on another thread and was told he had left so we were not to discuss him, despite there being a former players thread where similar former employees are dicussed at length and he'd only just left. It was obvious why it was really locked and I wasn't the only one to comment.
So it seems it's not only the Bois who have trouble admitting when they are wrong.
-
1 hour ago, David said:
Really? Which threads?
If anything, I receive more complaints from individuals on the forum about the moderating staff being too lenient, suggesting that we should be taking a firmer approach.
I suppose it all comes down to perspective.
The Robinson thread is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Your pal was getting it tight so you decided that was that, discussion over, which was baffling given it was practicality the only thing posters wanted to discuss at the time and the forum was otherwise dead. Around the time of the P & B mass exodus if I remember correctly.
Back on topic - to be clear - I think it would be an absolute travesty if the Bois group were to be lost to the Club, wider fans, and the community. Far from sneering, I have lot of respect for what they have achieved, but, sometimes blunt criticism is deserved and is actually very necessary. They seem to have lost all sense of self policing that was evident in the past and have crossed the line on one too many occasions. The first thing is admitting when that happens. The lack of self awareness, and the "we are the victim" narrative gives me the boak.
As much as us "outsiders" might be criticised for not being in the know, there are clearly some who are so close that they can't, or simply will not, see the wood for the trees.
Support the team and don't act like wee dicks, it's not that difficult.
-
6
-
-
7 minutes ago, David said:
How so?
You have form for closing threads on topics that you no longer deemed fit for discussion even when there was an appetite on the forum to continue the conversation. Why? Because the viewpoints bejng expressed didn't match your own.
I can see this going the same way.
-
David and The Riddler talking nonsense again.
At least we're still allowed to debate this topic, that's a change for you David when the debate isn't going the way you would like.
I've given the Bois as a group plenty of praise in the past and acknowledged all of the good things they do. In fact I've yet to see one person who has offered criticism that hasn't.
However, the narrative that the group is trying to push that they are some sort of hard done by innocents is simply not true.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I thought football fans didn't want to be treated differently to everyone else? Is that not the main reason The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act was repealed?
I love the idea that they are now claiming they weren't boycotting the Hearts game only their usual section. Hilarious.
Noone is going to take anything they say seriously until they at least acknowledge the have as a group made mistakes and behaved poorly. You can do all the food drive an bucket collection you want but people aren't daft, more than enough have seen first hand their behaviour to judge them accordingly.
Well Bhois - they did that one to themselves!
-
1
-
1
-
-
Get it up the doubters
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, dennyc said:
You may have a point regards how some people regard the Society and fan ownership. But that is hardly the issue here. To focus on the Society at this time deflects greatly from the real issue. In fact that deflection is exactly what the sponsor of this proposal has orchestrated.
The only issue that needs focusing on immediately is that the Exec Board (fronted by a Chairman desperate to retire) has put forward a proposal lacking content which will immediately yield control of the Club to a minority Shareholder. Although in time that minority will almost certainly become a majority and lead to the demise of the Well Society.
As for the three members of the Society Board who supported the proposal, I think it is telling that not one has gone on record, despite numerous requests, to outline why they came to that decision. Exactly what benefits they thought Mr Barmack would bring to the Club, and by association the fan base/Society. Why is that? If they have valid reasons, help me to understand. I am big enough to accept I may be missing something . In contrast to the other six Board Members, who released a statement explaining exactly why they voted against the plan and detailed the threat they believed it presented.
Historically, the Society began well and grew at a reasonable rate, in line with the hopes of those that fought to bring it into being, and for the purpose it was created. Not perfect by all means but then what new Organisation is?
Sadly over time, through several Club Board changes and aided by influences within the Society Board itself, the Society became more and more sidelined and it's manner of operation changed dramatically and secretly. And not to the benefit of Society or fans. Recent changes to that Society Board brought about a re-examination of the purpose and operation of the Society. That brought about increased resistance from the Club Board. A tightening and closer scrutiny of funds being passed to the Club plus a desire to be respected as the major shareholder being prime causes of that friction. Ironically, the exact factors many detractors of the Society, including myself, wanted addressed!
And then, out of the blue, we are faced with this urgent need for outside finance, despite assurances only a couple of months ago from our Chairman that all was fine financially....no need for panic. And suddenly it is the responsibility of the long ignored Well Society to come up with an alternative should the Barmack proposal be rejected. A proposal they were not afforded to opportunity to be part of negotiating. Despite their status.
Of course the Society needs to look at itself and seek improvement in several areas. Communication, Record keeping Online presence being three that spring to mind. But progress has been made and without the influence of certain individuals I believe that improvement will gather pace.
But the issue before us right now is the Barmack proposal. That proposal is what we must not be distracted from looking at in detail. Despite Mr McMahon's best attempts
I understand, and agree, with all of what you say.
It almost makes me think the end game was always to get rid of the society, one way or another.
-
2
-
-
I have the fear a large section of the society membership have never really believed in fan ownership and have at best viewed it as a stop gap until something, anything, better came along.
Given three members of the society board voted for this, coud their views be more representative of the wider membership than we want to admit?
I've had this concern from the minute the society voted to hear the proposal.
Now we have the potential of this whole thing turning in to a unmitigated disaster no matter what way the vote goes - it should never have got this far.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, robsterwood said:
Think the Wrexham documentary idea was paper talk. By all accounts deal on the table appears a risk not worth taking.
It's literally mentioned in his statement!
-
"We have always seen the WS money as an insurance policy against a major downturn in our finances"
There's half the problem right there.
A broadcaster recently approached us about a docuseries on the club that could open considerable commercial opportunities.
So this revolutionary form of investment is exactly as we suspected - trying to do a Wrexham.
GET THIS IN THE SEA.
-
21 minutes ago, wellfan said:
Maybe, but why should it have taken until now for the Society to up its game? Why wasn't the Society actively examining and proposing meaningful ways to increase the membership and raise further inward investment? Why has it taken until now for the Society to confirm that 3800 members don't correlate with 3800 active monthly direct debits? Has the Society been in cruise control for many years, resting on its laurels until it felt a threat from the Club? Both the Society and Club are within their rights to propose anything concerning ownership and inward investment, and perhaps it's just that the latter got its finger out first. I am a monthly paying Society member and have been for a long time, but there are so many other unanswered questions and points of speculation to be had from both sides, which has me questioning what's going on behind the scenes. This whole thread is becoming a tit-for-tat nonsense. Keep it up, everyone.
I agree with an awful lot of what you say. I think the Society has maybe been complacent, to put it politely. However, I'm mindful that they have been operating during extremely challenging times of late and I'm not about to start criticising those who have volunteered their time and unquestionably give their all to the cause. That doesn't mean, however, those with some fresh ideas could't provide some much needed impetuous and from what I'm reading signs are very encouraging.
Regarding the discussion I don't see much wrong with what has been posted in this thread and there are more than two sides to this story. I do agree however it looks like it is set to become a polarising issue and that's no good for anyone.
-
1 hour ago, bobbybingo said:
It sounds very like yourself, and some others on here, have taken the stance that any outside investor should be hunted, even before any discussions as to their intent, because their intent will inevitably be bad.
You might well be right, but it can't be that simple. The Well Society is a large group of individuals, so not everyone will share that view, obviously. And the glaring questions remain - whre will the Society drum up substantial no strings attached investment, and why wait till now to start doing something about it?
That's not what I actually said though.
I'm not even disputing the fact that it is going to be challenging for the Society to raise investment.
-
1 minute ago, bobbybingo said:
If it's left to the Well Society to find additional investment, where would that come from, given the idea any investor is not going to want full control is laughable, in your opinion? Or do you want them to find thousands of new members willing to donate money on a regular basis?
The point I'm making is that the Society, at the very least, should have been given the chance to raise that investment whatever form it may take, without being undermined by those running the Club.
Kilmarnock V Motherwell 5 April 2025
in Club Chat
Posted
That red card was a total joke