The CEO’s monthly chat

[SteelmaninOZ]

 

 

[Mootherwell86]

1 hour ago, SteelmaninOZ said:

 

 

I’m completely unconvinced on Brian.

Turning 14 year olds away from Fir Park is detrimental to the long term future of our club. SPFL guidance is set at 12, why does BP and BC deem it appropriate without consultation to set ours to 14? Third Year High School students can’t attend football with their mates? Crap.

Away fans being sat in the top tier is crap and it’ll rightfully deter them from attending Fir Park. I suppose the bottom tier will be in use when the Old Firm are in town… Completely out of touch.

I hope I’m wrong but I fear he may only be paying lip service to his support of Fan Ownership. I suppose time will tell.

[steelboy]

55 minutes ago, Mootherwell86 said:

I’m completely unconvinced on Brian.

Turning 14 year olds away from Fir Park is detrimental to the long term future of our club. SPFL guidance is set at 12, why does BP and BC deem it appropriate without consultation to set ours to 14? Third Year High School students can’t attend football with their mates? Crap.

 

It looks like he knows he has made an arse of this but doesn't want to back down after having his recommendation to accept 'Erik's' bid kicked into the bin by the support.

The signs at the moment aren't great.

 

[steelboy]

What he's saying about the police operating a defacto blacklist is something that needs to be looked into. Why aren't they using banning orders?

Havering complete pish about it being down to the SFA when it clearly wasn't in place last season.

"The last thing we want to do is knock people back" says the guy who knocks people...

"People of my generation went at that age no problem". Naw kids born in 2010 were going no problem in May this year.

[Cameron_Mcd]

Fully welcome the improved Comms but I don't find myself enamoured by him like others do. He was one of the ones the voted for the Barmack scam yet he's managed to escape from it unscathed and with the majority seeming to praise him. The previous 2 posters have summed my thoughts up quite well.

[Keith mac]

I am so angry at this 14 year olds need to be accompanied biggest load of crap i have ever heard. as a yong lad my dad would take me to motherwell games when i was under 12 up in Scotland on holiday i would attend southend united games with him every week and sometimes away games when we went on the train.  he passed away when i was 12 and I  carried on the going to see southend at home and more games away when i would go on the train. I f i had not been allowed to go to football because i was not accompanied with an adult it would have devastated me.  

[ropy]

To clarify, 14 year olds are allowed in on their own, it is 13 year olds who are not.  Is that correct?

[santheman]

2 minutes ago, ropy said:

To clarify, 14 year olds are allowed in on their own, it is 13 year olds who are not.  Is that correct?

My understanding is that it's 14 years and above.

Now it's public knowledge and we know the legal reasons behind it, can the ones who are maybe borderline(ie look young for their age) not just bring some form of ID with them then we don't have the situation where they're denied entry by the stewards or is that too simple.

[Mootherwell86]

3 minutes ago, santheman said:

My understanding is that it's 14 years and above.

Now it's public knowledge and we know the legal reasons behind it, can the ones who are maybe borderline(ie look young for their age) not just bring some form of ID with them then we don't have the situation where they're denied entry by the stewards or is that too simple.

I personally witnessed various groups of youngsters being denied entry on Sunday by overzealous jobsworths in hi-vis. Again, the SPFL guidance is 12 years old, why are we making it harder for young people to attend Fir Park? 

[Mootherwell86]

Just now, wellgirl said:

Rangers are 13 and under. It's not just Motherwell. 

I’m not interested in Rangers. 

[Mootherwell86]

5 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Good for you.👏👏

The point I was trying to make is that we aren't the only spl club with this age limit. 

BTW. I agree with you on the over zealous stewarding 

Straight from Rangers website…

See Rule F

[santheman]

10 minutes ago, Mootherwell86 said:

I personally witnessed various groups of youngsters being denied entry on Sunday by overzealous jobsworths in hi-vis. Again, the SPFL guidance is 12 years old, why are we making it harder for young people to attend Fir Park? 

Truthfully I don't know but I assume it's up to each individual club to set what they think is an appropriate age to meet the safeguarding guidelines.

Don't know about other Scottish clubs but Man Utd don't let any under 14s in but Fulham is under 16 for example that's why I'm assuming it's up to individual clubs but I could be wrong.

I used to get dropped off at home games when I was 9 but that was in the 60s but the world's a different place now.

Authorities overreacting? Possibly but that's a social and political argument.

Personally I think 12 is about the right age.

[santheman]

10 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

No. It's under 14s that can't go to a game on their own. 

That's what I said, 14 years old and above can be unaccompanied.

[0Neils40yarder]

It's absolutely mad that we (as in Scottish football, collectively) are making it difficult for teenagers to attend live football...

 

Don't care what the actual reasons are for it, just think it's dreadful 

[Mootherwell86]

26 minutes ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

It's absolutely mad that we (as in Scottish football, collectively) are making it difficult for teenagers to attend live football...

 

Don't care what the actual reasons are for it, just think it's dreadful 

Spot on.

[Kmcalpin]

I can understand the logic behind this age restriction. Despite how it's dressed up, its all about protecting the organisation legally in our increasingly litigatious world. That being the case, just say so. 

It's quite ludicrous though that there's no consistent standard being applied throughout Scotland. Why not? 

[Mootherwell86]

9 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

I can understand the logic behind this age restriction. Despite how it's dressed up, its all about protecting the organisation legally in our increasingly litigatious world. That being the case, just say so. 

It's quite ludicrous though that there's no consistent standard being applied throughout Scotland. Why not? 

Totally understand your point regarding legally protecting the club.

However, the standard is set by SPFL guidance which is Under 12s. The club of its own volition has decided to make it Under 14s. That is the part that I cannot understand.

[joewarkfanclub]

There seems to be a lot of folk getting their knickers in a twist about what ultimately is the Safeguarding of Children in a football stadium.

I get the fact that when we were younger we all had the opportunity to attend the football unaccompanied at a younger age, but times have moved on.

As KMcAlpin quite rightly says, we live in a far more litigious society than ever these days. 

Clubs and organisations are held accountable to far higher standards than ever before, so rightly or wrongly, there has to be some sort of legislation or guidelines to cover these things.

I do think that there should be a benchmark that all Scottish clubs should adhere to so that it is the same for everyone but as there isnt, the club has to pick a number and there will never be unanimous agreement on these kind of things.

Motherwell have picked 14.

Rangers have picked 13.

Some clubs in England (I checked Sheffield United and West Ham) are 16 for goodbess sake!

There are loads of things folk could quite rightly have a go at the club for. Im just not sure this is one of them.

[santheman]

12 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

I can understand the logic behind this age restriction. Despite how it's dressed up, its all about protecting the organisation legally in our increasingly litigatious world. That being the case, just say so. 

It's quite ludicrous though that there's no consistent standard being applied throughout Scotland. Why not? 

I'm sure all the CEOs of the clubs meet up regularly so that's something that should be on the agenda.

Its daft having different ages at different clubs because it just causes confusion 

[stv]

25 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I agree. Man u and Liverpool have exactly the same rules as us. 

They have a lot more supporters inside the ground than us

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

It's not just about protecting the club - it's about safeguarding young people surely. As for there not being a consistent standard - that must be down to the SFA

Of course, its a bit of both.

Its totally absurd though that one of our fans, aged 13, cannot attend one of our home games unaccompanied but could attend an away game on their own. You couldn't make it up. Yes, its down to the SFA or SPFL to set a common standard but in its absence, you'd think the clubs could unofficially agree one. This is 2024 not 1224.

On another topic, Brian mentioned the banning protocol. There are 3 issues here. Firstly, the protocol itself, which needs amending. Its wrong to ban someone simply because they've been arrested. If found guilty thats a different matter entirely. Steelboy's comment about Police "blacklists" and banning orders has some merit. That of course is a Scottish wide arrangement and needs changed at that level. Thats not down to us, although we could put forward suggestions for change. Secondly, there are clearly problems with its implementation. If Police are not present at games, which they most usually aren't, then the club must be passing information to them.  It would appear that mistakes are being made here for example in terms of identification. Also, the Police should be notifying those involved before the club informs those parties of bans. This clearly hasn't been happening in all cases. Again, a system failure, by Police Scotland. Its all very well having protocols but once you set them up, you have to adhere to them. Thirdly, when mistakes are made, then the affected individuals should be offered compensation i.e. free entry to X number of games. Brian didn't cover these points off. All that said, fans must behave and responsibility lies with all of us in that respect.

A final word on his interview. He mentioned that there is a need to replace seats in the South Stand. That may well be the case, I'm not familiar with them. However many seats in the POD Stand are far, far older and not in good condition either. They are for home fans not away fans. He makes no mention of replacing them. 

Good on Brian for coming out and communicating with fans; thats a start. However, there's a few issues he skirts over or doesn't address. That needs to change too. 

[0Neils40yarder]

9 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I agree. Man u and Liverpool have exactly the same rules as us. 

What a garbage example...those clubs don't need or (probably) want to sell cheap tickets to weans...unfortunately we do, to ensure the clubs survival. 

I'm thinking of weans who's parents support the old firm, but the wean gets into 1st year, meets new pals and fancies going to Fir Park with them but can't...but he can go to Ibrox or Parkhead with his da.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot

[David]

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.

[Kmcalpin]

We need to be encouraging young fans to attend games. Now, I appreciate thats complex and requires a bit of effort but they are the future lifeblood of the club. Could a small supervised section be set up for youngsters in the affected age group? Some creative thinking required.

So its ok for a 13 year old to travel some distance on his/her own to a game but not to actually get in?

As for "unofficial" or de fact blacklists banning, its absurd that if someone commits misdemeanours at away stadia but behaves themselves at home games its ok for them to attend all home games freely. We all know who that would affect. Laughable.

[steelboy]

24 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

 

So its ok for a 13 year old to travel some distance on his/her own to a game but not to actually get in?

 

The crazy thing is we have a CEO admitting that he can't make the stadium a safe place for 13 year olds despite the stadium having been a safe place for 13 year olds for the past few decades. 

He's on the video giving it a Helen Lovejoy 'but there might be a fire alarm'. What happens if there is a fire alarm in McDonalds, or Asda or Vue Cinema where there are unaccompanied youths? What's makes Fir Park riskier than than those places. There is a clear culture nowadays of management people who are unable to deliver the core tenets of their job so they create daft rules to enforce so they can point to having achieved something. I saw a Scottish Government idiot on Twitter the other day bragging about Scotrail only having a 2% cancellation rate despite the fact that they achieved  that by removing 29,000 services from the timetable. Caldwell seems to be cut from the same cloth.