bobbybingo
-
Posts
2,119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
35
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bobbybingo
-
-
10 minutes ago, robsterwood said:
Dug shit. Could write the script. Every team that are on a honking run of results give us a hiding. Need big changes for next season.
Out of interest, which teams on a honking run have given us a hiding this season?
-
29 minutes ago, steelboy said:
If you are bringing up a single allegation against Motherwell to deflect from 80 odd convictions against a child abuse network operating inside Celtic Park then i'd say true colours are really on show.
I'm not deflecting anything. Celtic's handling of the allegations at the time and ever since, using lawyers and the courts to drag cases out in an attempt to save themselves from potentially huge payouts has been horrendous. I hope that's a clear enough view for you.
As for our club, even if it was a single allegation against Motherwell, does that mean it doesn't matter? You seem to be saying, pay them nothing unless they take you to court and win. In what way does that make things easier for the victims?
-
7 minutes ago, Happy Dosser said:
Yes, I liked this season's traditional strip and fear a crazy design for 2024-5 "just be different", perhaps even worse than the Jester's Outfit. I would always keep the "home" strip pretty traditional. The designers can have the other two strips to mess about with (and I agree that Celtic's change strips have generally been absolutely honking).
Then we can concentrate on The White Shorts contoversy 🤣.
Always preferred the claret shorts cos those were generally what we wore for years after I started going, but I quite fancy a wee return to the white ones next season. I'd go with a single band/hoop, the top on here's a bit busy for me.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
The reason that Motherwell did not call police was because the parents didn't want them to. That's been reported in the press. If any mistake was made it was not alerting other people to these allegations.
It was a joint decision between the parents and the club, according to Jim McMahon. I'd like to think that wouldn't happen these days.
'We exist to improve people's lives' - I know that pisses off a few folk on here, but I think it's a great way to look at the club and they certainly do that in many ways that make you proud. I hope that we act accordingly on any wrong doing uncovered by the internal investigation. What others do, or don't do, is up to them.
-
2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:
If the individual concerned was not convicted of any of these allegations then statements like that can get you in a lot of trouble, and they have no place being discussed on a football forum of any club.
Why would I get in trouble for repeating what the club have publicly admitted and issued an apology for?
-
4 minutes ago, Cameron_Mcd said:
Get this talk fired straight into the bin. This is a forum about Motherwell, not on children being sexually abused at another club decades ago.
I would've agreed, but since that can has been opened, what part of kids being sexually abused by a Motherwell employee is not about Motherwell?
-
11 minutes ago, steelboy said:
Aye there would have to be a legal process.
You really see the true colours when this topic comes up.
There are no true colours involved here, we're not the Old Firm and it's not a competition to see who was worse. You raised the subject, so I'm asking about our responsibility.
Should we as a club not make things easier for the victims, rather than as difficult as possible, as you - rightly - accused Celtic of doing? Leaving Hart aside, individuals who worked for Motherwell were clearly involved in allowing this abuse to continue elsewhere, whatever their justification, then or now.
-
1 minute ago, steelboy said:
Has anyone took legal action against the club?
No idea. The club admitted two parents came to them alleging he had touched their kids. He was sacked, but it was decided the police should not be informed. He later committed the same offence at Partick Thistle. No one at Motherwell informed them of why he was booted from Fir Park.
Are you saying we shouldn't pay any compensation to the people involved unless they can prove our culpability in court?
-
15 minutes ago, steelboy said:
The 'point scoring' deflection argument is what has allowed them to treat the victims with contempt for 30 years. You had no problem opining about bigotry and George Square but when it comes to this topic apparently you need to be an expert with all the facts to comment. Funny how that works.
There have now been six convictions of abusers who were operating in their club. Clubs like Chelsea and Man City settled with their victims as soon as possible. Celtic because of the particular mindset which is prevalent in their club refuse to accept any responsibility and have made like much more difficult for the victims than it needs to be.
Have we paid any compensation regarding John Hart?
-
3 minutes ago, weeyin said:
Apologies in advance that you're never going to unsee it.
Very true 🥴
-
8 minutes ago, Mad Dog said:
They use it in the highlights packages after every game.
My appointment's on Friday.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
Where did you pick up this footage? The early scenes don't seem like Fir Park.
Scottish Cup 4th Round (Quarter Final) 1921, Motherwell 2 Partick 2. Replay 0-0, Partick won the 3rd game at Ibrox 2-1 and went on to lift the cup for the only time in their history.
-
8 hours ago, weeyin said:
I like what they do, but could live without the fake film scratches on all the vids.
Mibbe I need a trip to Specsavers, but when was the last time they did that?
-
25 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:
If new manager doesn't want him as part of new team it will be time for him to "Sail Away".....cueeeeeeeee 🤪🤪
Our man can 'Babylon'.....
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:
That door's set to 78rpm. Cue some ex Easter Road numbskull telling us they need to get the next appointment right.
-
1 minute ago, wellgirl said:
Like other people have said we don't cash in on goalkeepers as a rule anyway. I just think it's a shame in a way - maybe because I think we might get sold short because we are Motherwell if that makes sense. On the one hand it's great that other clubs recognise the talent we have. I just think too many other clubs think they can get our players on the cheap. Just need to wait and see how it all pans out.
Yeah, I think you're right, we'll probably be sold short because we're Motherwell. Unfortunarely, it's just the way it will always be. Clubs understand we have to sell our best players and know we can be forced to accept less than a bigger club could hold out for. It would take the emergence of a very, very special talent to change that and even then, they wouldn't be around here long enough to be seen as anything other than a prospect, which would impact their price.
-
17 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
We don't know if he's going to improve or not as you say . I would suspect on current form that he probably would.
I hope he does.
I think there are key differences between the players you mentioned. Kelly and Spittal were both in the final year of their contracts - Kelly's dip in form was unlikely to see anyone make an offer for him, while Spittal's improvement was guaranteed to attract bigger fish and provide the player with an opportunity he was unlikely to ignore. By the time he became a financial asset/must keep, it was already too late.
Bair's form in the first year of his deal potentially allows the club to make decent money from selling him - I doubt they'll take a gamble.
-
2 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
We can. If we can let Spittal go for nothing and Kelly go for nothing we can let Bair go for nothing. I absolutely agree with the fact that we will probably need to sell him but if we can let other players go for nothing at the end of their contract then why can't we keep Bair? Or at least hold out for a much better offer. 1.5 min before add ons in my view.
Holding out for a better offer works if Bair maintains, or improves, his form. If he doesn't, which is entirely possible, and we've failed to cash in, it's a double whammy. Holding on to him till January might seem like an ok compromise, but as someone else said, finding a half decent, fit replacement during that window will be virtually impossible. Our decision may depend on what Theo Bair wants to do, I suppose.
-
15 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:
Did he ever really exist?
He was flat sharing with Eddie Nolan.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, texanwellfan said:
We obviously have to sell him before his contract is up so can we keep him another year?
Only if we can get him to extend for another year. Although, there's always the risk of rejecting a decent offer only to see a player lose form or get injured.
-
25 minutes ago, wellfan said:
It's grim that the club budgets for (and seemingly tolerates) pathetic early exits from domestic cups on an annual basis, for example. Such a mentality puts zero pressure on anyone to achieve anything optimistic and is tantamount to rewarding failure. It's a results-driven business, not a job for the boys and good guys club.
They may just have been the final nails in their coffins, but pathetic cup exits were the last games Baraclough, Alexander and Hammell oversaw. And sarcasm or not, the suggestion any Motherwell manager would have a job for life is demonstrably untrue. Kettlewell will go the same way as all the rest - the board has had enough, he has had enough, or we're successful.
-
8 minutes ago, wellfan said:
The emphasis in my post was on the cup run requirement because I acknowledge that that is a more realistic target than an annual top 6 finish. On your point re. Kettlewell, he's achieved neither, which is shit, but he's kept us safe so is invincible.
“we should be aiming for nothing less than the top 6 and, more so, a good cup run”
Good cup runs can be harder to achieve than decent league finishes if your luck's out. First knockout round draws at Ibrox or Parkhead and, realistically, we're done. Obviously, going out meekly to lower league teams should never be seen as acceptable, but I think circumstances have to be taken into account - achievable targets rather than absolute requirements.
-
6 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:
Strangely though, as others have said, having Hollis in goals didnt stop us getting top 6. But he had much better defenders in front of him.
Hollis played the majority of his games in 2013/14 when we finished 2nd. We conceded 60 goals that season - so far, we've lost 54 this year.
-
1
-
-
Just now, steelman1991 said:
I'm so out the loop these days its crazy. 😀
First I've heard of it too. A wee bit of publicity might help.
Hibernian v Motherwell 15/05/2024
in Club Chat
Posted
Ok, Arsene.