David

Sounds incredibly vague to me. But then, I guess that may be the aim of it.

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.

How so?

Another factor to consider is that, while most people on this forum refer to the end section as a monolithic group, I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case. Whenever I’ve ventured up to that section to soak in some of the atmosphere, there is indeed a core group of lads at the very front, but the faces I’ve seen in the middle to the back of the section, and around that area, vary considerably. They also vary in age. I’ve seen very young lads who appear to be around 15, as well as older guys doing their best to lead the proceedings. My belief is that, while there’s an element of organisation concerning the drums, chants, and displays we see within the stadium, I don’t think we can hold the collective responsible for what happens outside of that. Once everyone leaves the stadium, I’d say that everyone is responsible for their own actions. For example, the section is known to sell scarves, t-shirts, and so on to help fund the banners and displays. What’s to stop me and three of my mates from buying some of the merchandise, showing up to the game, loitering at the back of the section, and then heading out after the game wearing the merchandise, all hyped up on adrenaline from a good performance, and deciding we want to cause trouble in a pub or have a go at some opposition fans? Would the guys who lead the chants and hold the drums be held responsible for that? The above theoretical situation could easily occur without me or my mates having ever really met the group as a whole. It’s for this reason that I believe the individuals involved in trouble in surrounding pubs and so on need to be held accountable as individuals. If they break the law and are charged and found guilty, then no one can complain if and when stadium bans are issued. Comparisons with the Green Brigade are, I believe, off the mark. As mentioned above, I’ve stood at the back of that East sStand section and in the section next to it and have heard very little in terms of political chanting. I’ve never seen a Palestinian flag, and apart from some jabs at the police, I don’t really see or hear much to be concerned about. My viewpoint is that I would hold the group as a whole responsible for planned in-stadium chants and banners, absolutely. That’s something they collectively work on and deliver as a whole. Incidents outside the stadium? Not for me. And I’m not saying those incidents didn’t happen. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see them. I’m just saying that those incidents should see the individuals responsible held accountable. Surely no one can expect the end section organising group to be held responsible? Regarding the recent boycott situation, I’ll reiterate my point that I believe any fan charged with a football-related offence should be suspended by the club, and then banned if they are found guilty by the courts. If charges are dropped, then the ban should be lifted. That’s based on the club’s actions being taken on the basis of the criminal charges. If the club has banned someone for an in-stadium situation that perhaps doesn’t require police action, then fair enough. That’s a different matter. Another question that's slightly separate I have is what qualifies as a “football-related” incident? Is there a specific set of parameters that define this somewhere? If I get into a fight with someone outside a pub on a Tuesday afternoon, it seems that I’m dealt with differently by the law compared to if I do the same outside a football ground on a Saturday evening, correct? When is the cut-off point? Two hours after a game finishes? At what point does the individual causing issues shift from being a “football fan” to just being a guy?

I said at the time that I felt the dressing room dynamic, with Kelly being captain and so on likely played a part. It's a big decision to drop your captain and someone so influential. It's all worked out now though.

I'll tell you what, I absolutely love being proven wrong. Last year it was Bair, and this season? I'm actually not missing Kelly and think Ox has been far better than I could ever have hoped. Him being our number one gave me the fear initially, but he's looking solid thus far.

Can you please point out where anyone on here has actually said that?

Again, absolutely no one is saying that the younger element of our fanbase is perfect. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that none of our fanbase is perfect, full stop. What is embarrassing is the way the young lads are looked down upon and basically sneered at by an element of our fanbase. I have no time for that. "you can do all the food drives and bucket collections you want but people aren't daft"? What kind of patter is that? I'd wager that the lads who run those initiatives have done a lot more for the local community than many who choose to sneer at them. I've actually got more time for the guys with their "annoying" drum and their over the top enthusiasm than I have the older types who like to spend 90 minutes red in the face while they hurl obscenities at guys who are often teenagers or in their early twenties.

Thanks for proving my point 😂

Man, the sheer bitterness from some of our fans towards a segment of the younger support is actually embarrassing. "You can do all the food drive an bucket collection you want but people aren't daft" Fucking hell.

How so? Their contracts ran until the end of the season. I assume their new "rolling contracts" will run from the start of this season until the end of the same season, with added security that it can be extended to next season if all parties agree? I don't see how we're bolted down to anything?

Yes, but you can't dismiss all the excitement and tradition associated with supporting a football club. You're essentially saying, "If our football club weren't actually a football club..." but it is. And it's fan-owned to boot. There aren't any fan-owned cinemas, gyms, or restaurants with such a devoted following of individuals who are there week in and week out, scrutinising the ins and outs behind the scenes. If Motherwell were just another business, we’d likely be sitting here now looking forward to the era of Barmack. In a traditional business, decisions are made by the executive board, while "customers" don’t tend to care all that much. We can’t ask the fans to be vocal and express their views, making those in charge uncomfortable when it suits—such as with a dubious bid—and then complain when those same fans voice their opinions on other issues.

Indeed they are. But if the majority ownership group wants those bans explained to them, and the rationale behind them backed up with facts, that's surely understandable? The people discussing this, many of whom are Society members, aren't just punters who drink in a pub or customers of a business.

I agree. I don't think another forward is really required.

I personally know of a few lads who used to go to games together and had season tickets. They've had to cancel this season. Could that mean season tickets that might eventually become adult season tickets, with all the associated spending in places like the Cooper Bar, on merchandise, Society membership, and so on over the next 10, 15, or 20 years? Potentially. If we're prepared to let that go to enforce this rule, then so be it. That's the club's choice. One thing I would point out is that while the CEO is approving these policies, it's not solely his decision. There are other departments, individuals, and opinions involved.

What "house rules" have the individuals who have been banned broken then? If someone is responsible for smashing up seats, fighting in the East Stand, or something along those lines, then fine, issue a ban. I don’t think that has happened, though? The issue I have with your analogy, and others have done the same, is that you're using examples where abuse was hurled at someone in the stadium, or some sort of "house rule" was broken in the stadium. This isn't the case. If you left a Motherwell game and then got accused of getting into a tussle with some wank who supported the opposing team in a pub two miles from the ground, would you accept a ban? A crime that is hardly worthy of a slap on the wrist if you do it on a Saturday night in the town, but deems having you treated like a gun-toting gangster if you happen to have just left a football game? You’re right, though; a ban should not be based on a criminal conviction. But if that’s the case, why does the club issue such bans based on the police charges? That was precisely why these bans were put in place. It only makes sense that if the club issues a ban based on police charges, it should then lift the ban and issue an apology when the charges are dismissed. "Mistakes happen, no issue there." Well actually, there is an issue there. A pretty fucking big one. There's absolutely no way that should be glossed over. Some poor lad wrongly accused, put through the stress of what that entails and when it's proven he wasn't even in the country it's just a case of "mistakes happen, no issue there?" Not for me.

The thing is though, if there wasn't evidence to convict, then how does the club know their behaviour was unacceptable? Or are we just giving the powers that be the power to ban anyone they like without scrutiny? This isn't "any other business", this is a fan-owned football club. Some people may not like it, but they do have to be held accountable to the fans on occasion. Especially when it comes to banning people. And for the record, anyone caught and convicted by a court of carrying out football-related violence or trouble should face the consequences of their actions. However, when there isn't enough evidence to convict, that changes the story. Innocent until proven guilty and so forth.

Well, it's got all of us discussing it across two internet forums and on social media, hasn't it? So they've managed to shine a light on an issue that otherwise wouldn't be discussed had they just showed up at the Hearts game as if nothing was wrong.

It's bad enough that someone can be treated as though they're already guilty when they've only been charged (accused) of a crime, but that they're still on the banned list when that accusation is thrown out? Absolutely ridiculous.

Sounds like the prosecution missed a trick by not giving you a call. They didn't have enough evidence to do anything, but you seem to know more than they do!

Sure, they all sit in the same section of the stadium, but that doesn't mean they’re all on the same page about everything. Just because they’re physically grouped together doesn’t turn them into a single-minded entity. People might be in the same space, but they’ve got their own opinions, interests, and ways of doing things. The same goes for this section of the stadium. While it might look like one big group from the outside, there’s a lot of diversity in how they think and behave. It’s not fair to lump them all together as a “hive mind” just because they sit in the same section. And that applies even more outside the stadium. When individuals and smaller groups are on their own, how can anyone attempt to control them as part of the group?

I think some people may not think it's worth doing, but I don't think that means it's seen as a problem. As I said in my post, my concerns are more to do with stretching the volunteer manpower we have already, most of whom are dealing with fairly pressing matters. If some of our US members, including anyone who ran for election and wasn't successful this time, alongside some other volunteers wish to look at a US workstream it's certainly doable.

No one said it was a problem? If those who wish to help promote the club in the US market are up for it, then great.

No he isn't. Far from it, in fact.

Oh, by all means! If there's a way for a workstream to include those US fans and those who think it's a good idea, then absolutely! If a few US-based fans want to help spread the word, then that’s great. That's true, but from the perspective of the club and the society, what value do those Facebook fans from Uganda or elsewhere actually provide? Are they purchasing matchday tickets? Dining and drinking in the Cooper bar before a match? Buying season tickets? While someone posting on Facebook might seem cool, it doesn't really contribute any tangible value to the club or society. I'm not sure how many Society members we have in Uganda just now? As I said, most fans based overseas who support Motherwell tend to have family ties to the area, if they're not actually from the area themselves and have left for various reasons. Wrexham has a lot to answer for, doesn’t it? The truth is, no one cared about Wrexham before they were taken over, and honestly, no one cares about Wrexham now. People are interested in the owners of the club. That’s the real draw. I’m fairly certain I saw somewhere that the new seasons of the documentary series included a clause in the contract requiring the owners to appear on screen for a minimum percentage of the time. The distributors know that the audience isn’t tuning in to see how Wrexham are performing, or because they’ve suddenly fallen in love with the club. They’re tuning in to see a reality series featuring two fairly well-known individuals who are willing to put themselves centre stage for entertainment. Hasn’t Tom Brady invested in a football club as well? And the guy from Creed? Why aren’t they taking off and making huge waves in the US? It’s likely because there’s no compelling documentary story for people to follow. The US interest isn’t in Wrexham. It’s in the “reality” show being filmed around it. That's a line that Barmack was also pushing, and there were numerous flaws and issues highlighted in that particular model. A great deal of information on Pie & Bovril was pointed out by people who know the entity and the business model far better than I do. Ask those individuals who are watching those podcasts and YouTube shows if they’d be willing to pay a tenner a month to each channel in order to continue watching. It’s not just about the cost of running it; it also concerns the amount of time that people involved need to invest. Having observed the various workstreams associated with the Society recently, it’s clear that their time is already stretched to the limit for many. We have a multitude of tasks that need addressing, from revising and improving the governance, sorting out the executive board, and understanding why the representation from the Society board essentially "went rogue" on the Barmack vote, among other things. As I mentioned, if we have US fans who want to get involved, donate their time, and create a US market workstream, then go for it; there’s certainly no harm in it. The same applies to those who believe the US market is ripe for the taking. @wellgirl, you were expressing concern about the female representation on the Society board. You don’t need to be a board member to get involved. If you think we’re missing an opportunity in the US market, then get involved with others who share the same view and make it happen. What I don’t agree with is people who think the Society should be pursuing this market or that market, but who expect others, whose availability is already stretched, to do the work. That's an issue that needs addressing. The turnout was ridiculous, and there has to be something done to find out why that was the case.