David

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.

When people say that we should tap into the US market, how do they propose we do that? And also, unless there's a family connection to the club, why would anyone from the US really be interested in Motherwell? Sure, there are soccer fans in North America, but they all have their own local clubs, and like the rest of the world, outside of that they have plenty of ways to access the English Premier League etc. It would be like a US team along the lines of Syracuse FC, FC MIlwaukee, or the Minnesota Blizzard looking to tap into the British market. Why would anyone here give a toss about those clubs?

If it's proving popular enough I don't see why not? Be interesting to see how it goes over time.

There's nothing better than someone starting a bit of a stramash only to respond with "end of story" when they get some push back.

This might be what has made him appealing. Much like regular double-digit goalscorers, clubs of our size and budget will struggle to sign an established "number 10", as creative players with that kind of ability generally don't have Motherwell high on their list of destinations. However, what we can do is bring in someone who has previously flirted with that kind of role and whom the coaching staff believe can be converted to playing there in the future, while also playing as a forward if needed.

It's not about who posts on social media, but what they post. If their posts on social media consist of exposing the extreme flaws in the executive boards logic behind supporting the Barmack offer, for example, then I certainly would take that into account when voting. The thing for me is that the board of the Well Society aren't tasked with executing business ideas. They're essentially guardians of the club. It's the job of the well-paid CEO and the team employed by the club to execute on business ideas. I want to elect a board that I can trust will not be daft enough to fall for the kind of nonsense that the former chairman and a few of his friends did. I want people who will safeguard fan ownership and ensure that any prospective investor looking for any kind of control is scrutinised in a manner that Barmack clearly wasn't. If someone can offer social media, marketing, accounting, or any other skill, they can be involved without being part of the board.