dennyc

Apparently I paid £400 up front so I don't suppose you have details of what that level was or meant? I have not kept any paperwork. Probably lost during various house moves.

I think those are valid issues you raise. Firstly, I don't believe you can now just join up for life with a one off payment. That is purely a historical situation. A Board member can perhaps confirm that? I suppose those who signed up earlier are reducing in number in any event, as time takes it's toll? I wonder how many we are actually talking about? Less than folk imagine perhaps? Secondly, as for signing up purelyto vote on a specific issue, I recall that for the Barmack situation, the signing up purely to vote was addressed and avoided. But yes, maybe you should be a member for a certain length of time to qualify for a vote. And if that requires a NEW member to contribute for, say, 12 months before qualifying then so be it. Again perhaps the Board need to clarify that. Maybe they already have. I know for a fact that this discussion has been noted by the Board and will be on their agenda.

I was not referring to you when I commented that some might be upset. If you took it that than way, then apologies. I was really trying to just explain the logic at the time. Red or white?

I can only tell you what I was told at the initial meetings I attended and what I understood to be the case when I made my payment. Same as other folk who attended their presentations. Hopefully their are official records/minutes from those meetings although given the time that has passed that might be a stretch. Also, let's be honest, the WS record keeping was not the best. The current Board appear to believe that such a deal was made, otherwise why ratify it now? But if you have documents that prove life membership was not the intention, then by all means make them public.

Some paid more than £300. Some folk also bought more than one Membership....for kids and partners etc. The WS Board were looking to gather in funds quickly to get things started. Others opted to pay monthly as that was more affordable for them. I know I paid more than £300 as I checked with Sally. From memory there were various levels but records are held to confirm who paid what. But yes you are correct in that Life Membership was the agreement. Might upset some newer Members but that was the deal back then. Different if someone joins now under revised terms. fair enough, they know what they are signing up to. Hope that explains things a wee bit. You might need some of that Isle of Wight wine to help though.

No doubt how many feel. And I get that. But way back then those folk purchased a life membership for whatever lump sum they were asked to pay. You may not like it but that is the deal the Society willingly entered into. And it provided a much needed boost to the funds ingathered on day one. I suspect that is why the route you suggest has not been tried. And also why, when these new proposals were first looked at. so called Legacy Members were protected. To the annoyance of some it appears. But if you seriously want to cancel the contract that was legally agreed, then how do you feel about refunding them the sum paid? Not a serious suggestion by the way but appropriate. After all, it is not as if those Members really get anything tangible from being a Member..... other than the feeling of helping their football Club. Any monies paid are effectively donations. Perhaps the real challenge should be to try and encourage those Legacy Members to start up a regular payment. Rather than threatening them that is. Some already do contribute monthly and I know a good few...myself included....who are considering doing so given the progress we have seen of late Board wise and operationally. Also, setting aside the Society, if you entered into an agreement to purchase something outright, be it a pair of football boots or a house...... or a Membership, would you react positively to being asked to pay again several years later? For something you already own. I think not. If the Society adopt a rule from now on that future contributors must make regular monthly payments or pay an annual fee then that is a different matter as those signing up accept those terms when joining. But it is an issue that deserves discussion. If only to clear the air.

I agree and there is still hope. A good few teams around the globe ...and top teams at that....often line up 4-3-3. I think it just comes down to whether you have a Manager who wants to win more than he wants to avoid losing. And it appears our new man is fairly attack minded given the right blend of players. The opposite of Kettlewell in other words. I guess Killie will switch from 4-3-3 to 3-5-1-1 or 4-5-1 this season. Their fans will love it. Hearts on the other hand might be looking at 4-3-3.

Even if he was out of contract and no negotiation agreed, I think Uefa brought in a rule following Bosman that might help us. Up until the season of a player's 23rd Birthday (in the absence of a negotiated agreement) every club that trained a player from ages 12-23 is due a proportionate share of 5% of any future transfer fee. But only if it is a cross country transfer, such as Austria to Italy. That is over and above any compensation due when he first signed for Sturm Graz. MJ is 23 in December 1926 so I think we are covered. It's a heavy read, but Uefa have a full section on Training and also Solidarity compensation (2 different schemes} which confirms the parent Club is compensated right up to age 23 in the absence of any agreement at the outset. I think. Fingers crossed.

I think that is a decent suggestion. Subject to them having contributed funds in line with others moved to the 1886....or whatever level is seen as sufficient. There hase to be safeguards but there are options. Just needs to be a willing. At least it is being discussed now and the Board are aware of concerns....from either viewpoint.

I would add that for years the WS records were a shambles with incorrect or no EMail or home addresses on file. A fact admitted by the new Board early doors and highlighted by the folk that stated they received no correspondence regards Barmack. And not everybody reads SOL or P&B for info. So how many of the Members on file in 2015 missed out on info re the changed contribution structure. I for one received no correspondence either on line or written. And my details were up to date. As recently as last week we were told some records are still incomplete despite strenuous efforts by Admin. Basically, not everyone was made aware of the change to Monthly Subscriptions. The current Board have done a heap of work and are righting many wrongs. But they inherited a minefield and any change and the implications need to be understood. But things are certainly better than they were.

Again a valid view regards £5 contributors opting out early doors. I would have thought safeguards could easily be put in place to ensure no abuse of the system…..retained Membership after 4 or 5 years continuous contributions or when an agreed total level of funds paid in is reached….£400/£500? It just feels wrong that someone like Electric Blues could donate so much…all after 2015…and then possibly hit circumstances that end his Membership. I am not talking about someone who has chipped in £50 and then bailed out. But he is not alone as an example. When the WS was established much talk took place about how it might deter folk from donating if they knew their Membership would be cancelled if contributions stopped, for whatever reason. So the lump sum contribution, life time Membership was a compromise. No one seems to have an issue with those Legacy Members. It’s just strange that someone who has contributed thousands over the years by way of post 2015 contributions could be binned without a thought, unlike me who paid a lump sum pre 2015. Surely there has to be some sort of middle ground? And having some sort of Lifetime target might actually encourage newbies to sign up. And boost funds at a faster rate. Interesting discussion though.

I agree this has been a worthwhile discussion, with valid points made on both sides. At least, prior to voting, it has been highlighted what the implications are for folk like yourself who joined after 2015 and who for whatever reason might have to stop contributing in the future. When you quantify the amount you have contributed so far, it certainly justifies the debate.

I take your point re gym membership but I think that is a totally different scenario. With gym membership you get the use of the facilities, equipment and a personal trainer to guide you along. So it costs the gym for upkeep and to have you as a member, for which they should be reimbursed. No question. And the more members the greater the cost. And with a gym etc, folks pay a subscription where effectively with the WS supporters are making a donation with no expectation of any tangible return. With the Society, how much does it cost them each week to retain a Member who has paid in a sizeable some over the years, but can no longer afford to contribute? The Society do have running costs but not tied directly to Member numbers as a gym, sports club etc. I do agree being an active Member should be reflected in some way though, in comparison to a non active Member.

I’ll certainly do that. Hardly needs much detail though. Decide on an amount and apply it. Fairly straightforward is it not? The Society maintains records of how much each member has contributed so it should be simple enough. As I said earlier. If you really want to distinguish between the two groups, simply remove from those that stop contributing some of the frills that attach to those that do contribute. Like training opportunities and hospitality draws. It really does come across like the Board are looking to punish those that stop contributing, even if for perfectly genuine financial reasons. Not a good look.

Can you confirm the example I gave about Membership cancellation when contributions stop is accurate? And, if it is, that you consider that fair and reasonable. And you also avoided my suggestion of a minimum amount in total to guarantee life membership.

Philip I think Brazilian has raised valid points. If my understanding is correct, someone who has contributed on a monthly basis will in time lose their Membership if personal circumstances change and they can no longer afford to continue payments. And please note the hardship many people are experiencing and which is likely to be made worse by the proposals currently before Parliament. As an example, will someone who has contributed £20 per month for 10 years (£2400 in total) be binned after 12 months non payment? But an original member who donated a much lesser lump sum (me) will retain Membership and all voting rights? Is that really what is being suggested as fair and reasonable? If that is what is being proposed then my vote will be 'No'. And every Member should follow suit as they could end up being the person dropped through no fault of their own. And regardless of how much they have contributed over the years. Who knows what is round the corner for any of us. By all means distinguish in some way between those contributing on an ongoing basis and those not, but removing Membership and voting rights is punitive. And it certainly is at odds with what agreed all those years ago. At the very least have a minimum level which when reached ( £300/£400?) guarantees Life Membership etc.

You could be right regards the minimal time he has spent at each of his Clubs. But only time will tell if the same thing happens with us. Hopefully he will turn out to be the long term solution we need. Of course we could have gone 'safer' by appointing either of the two you mention. Some no doubt would have preferred we had gone down that route. You also highlighted that you go along to games to support the Club that is in your blood, even though on most occasions you do not expect to be entertained. I wonder exactly how much you would have have enjoyed what either Neilson or Docherty would have dished up entertainment wise? Wimmer was a breath of fresh air and for the first time in what seemed like forever I actually enjoyed going to matches. It was no longer a chore which I felt obliged to carry out. So I was disappointed family circumstances brought about his departure. But I still don't know if he was any good as a Manager. Comparing him to Askou, it strikes me that Askou has more of a track record and might have more to offer. But every appointment is a gamble so we will just have to wait and see how things work out. Maybe come the end end of the year we can revisit whether going to watch Motherwell is less of a habit and a bit more of an entertainment. For both our sakes I hope it is.

I'm probably miles out here but I vaguely remember him playing right midfield/wingback for Dundee arriving late at the back post a fair few times to knock in a few goals.

It was written elsewhere...whether accurate or not...that Wimmer returned to Germany due to a serious illness in his family. There were more details given but it is a private matter so I am not going to expand further. Regards where an employee lives, there are numerous examples of Clubs insisting that players and Staff live within a reasonable distance of the home ground. What is 'reasonable' can likely be negotiated. It might restrict who would be interested in the job but having been bitten once, perhaps we should consider that stipulation. Even if it does add to the cost to the Club by way of resettlement expenses.

There is no evidence we are talking to anyone. And credit to the Club for keeping matters under wraps. So this is just a general discussion about possibilities with various names thrown in.

And what about the current Motherwell players that overreact to challenges in an effort to get fouls or opposition players booked/sent off? Not saying it is right, just that it is sadly part of the game nowadays. All Clubs have players that opposition fans hate for that reason. Budget has nothing to do with it. Or do you think it was only Brown that acted that way? He was just especially good at it. Like Armstrong at Killie. If it's your team's player it is ignored, but if it is an opposition player it's disgraceful.

I’d be quite happy if we were to go for Scott Brown even though I detested him as an opposition player. And can anyone deny he is a winner? Then again I’m against all this analytics bullshit. It all feels like a bit of a cop out to me. I can hear it now ……’Ah but the data suggested he was the man for the job’. Pretty sure even Kettlewell would have come out well using that system. Did that route not steer Hearts to opt for Cathro, as well as Critchley who outscored McInnes at the time? Crazy and hardly a strong recommendation for its use. I’m old school so let’s draw up a list of favourites from home and overseas, invite them in for an interview/presentation and offer the job to the one that comes across best whilst meeting the ethos of the Club…community, youth development, Society interaction etc. I wonder how many very successful managers would ever have gotten near their first appointments had analytics been the primary driver? Sometimes gut feeling and what you see with your own eyes might just be the way to go. As for Scott Brown, let’s set aside the Celtic connection and the Kipre red card. He had a job to do for his Club and did it very well. Just as he did as a player with Hibs. He is a young, ambitious Manager who is doing well and is highly regarded at Ayr. Did a good job at Fleetwood who were flirting with relegation before his appointment. He left after a season or so with the Club in turmoil behind the scenes and up for sale. The Ex Chairman was jailed for fraud. We could do a lot worse than Brown. Whoever we appoint has a huge job on their hands so we need to get things sorted soon.

And a terrible deal if you are the employee charged with securing sponsors. Money talks sadly. Not sure many fans would opt for the sponsor shirt if they had the option to go sponsor free. I think they sell kids' tops without sponsor names but that is as far as the leeway goes. Can't have a six year old advertising gambling sites etc I guess. Or alcohol in the good old days.

I would not be surprised if he sets Killie up totally differently from what he subjected us to. He backed himself into a corner with the squad he built at Fir Park whereas at Killie he can start afresh. And he has a youth team that just won the Cup which suggests he might have a good few young players coming through. He may well have landed on his feet......if his ego allows him to learn from previous mistakes. Then again pressure will ramp up quickly as expectations will be high and he will have to win over another bunch of dubious fans. And he is not taking over from a Stevie Hammell which gave him some leeway at Fir Park. I doubt the Killie Board will be as patient as our Board was. Could well be gone by Christmas. I wonder if grizzlyg will be sneaking off to Kilmarnock to catch the odd game! Anyway Kettlewell is old news. Far more interested in who turns up at Fir Park. I hope Van Der Gaag is next up but I fear we will end up with a 'safe pair of hands' who has a record in Scotland

The game was a better watch without VAR. Yes, referees made mistakes and we all had a good moan about it. But by Tuesday we had moved on and were looking to the next game. Now the whole situation rankles for weeks...maybe longer....because even with numerous looks at incidents our officials are still making horrendous errors and wilfully ignoring the Laws of the game. And those Officials are unaccountable...unless their error affects the OF....and many seem to revel in the limelight. Then there is the cost which will increase substantially if the upgrades suggested are implemented. And how are we going to upgrade the quality of Official and hold them accountable for ludicrous outcomes that determine match outcomes. Apologies are meaningless. For the sanity of the paying customer we should ditch VAR. We have been sold a pup which is destroying the game we all love.