The CEO’s monthly chat

[santheman]

The problem seems to stem from youngsters who turn up at the game having bought tickets online then getting knocked back because they can't prove their age at the gate.

Surely then the club could come up with some sort of register where if you're 14-16 say, you register with the club providing proof of your D.O.B and emergency contact details, (important if someone takes ill during the game for instance)

An online account could then be set up by the club and some kind of ID card issued to be shown to ticket staff and stewards that would avoid the majority of the scenes we currently witness at the turnstiles.

Not foolproof by any means and there would be a cost and some effort required by the office staff but surely something worth looking into.

Assuming there's no real problem if they have season tickets??.

[Kmcalpin]

I can't be bothered trawling through club websites as information is often buried away but Claretamberb posted on Pie and Bovril "The information isn't always that easy to find online but Dundee Utd the age limit is 12. St Johnstone is 12. Rangers is 13." We seem to have set the bar a bit high.  

[santheman]

10 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Im not 100 per cent sure but I think a pass ID card or a young Scot card is sufficient for ID. Part of the issue does seem to come from over zealous stewarding - maybe a reminder from the club for young fans to bring ID with them. 

Aye something as simple as a message on the online platform to that effect.

Not every kid carries ID though.

[Kmcalpin]

I'm struggling to find the relevant guidance on age restrictions on the official website. I first heard about it through a relative, not the club.

[dennyc]

Liverpool appear to be 16 minimum as well.

Strangely, and I know SPFL and SFA are different entities, The SFA have a ruling that U16s need to be accompanied if attending Internationals and the Scottish Cup Final at Hampden. But can Rangers apply SPFL/their own rules when hosting matches there.? And what rules apply for the League Cup Final which is SPFL run? Perhaps at Hampden SFA rules apply at all times. The whole thing is a minefield.

The ruling needs standardised across Scotland, if not the UK.  Surely the SPFL/SFA should just issue a uniform rule and take the matter out of Clubs' hands. In my opinion, 14 minimum age for unsupervised attendance makes sens but when did common sense ever come into it? Maybe some good can come out of this whole issue. And can the WS, via Motherwell, ask for it to be put on the Agenda for the next meetings of the Governing bodies?

A uniform ruling might then stop individual club security officers interpreting guidance for their own purposes and establish a basis for discussion if matters are not operating smoothly.

Meantime I'm off to Perth hoping for a decent atmosphere, plenty of team support and no goings on that break St Johnstone ' house rules'. 

[andalg]

12 hours ago, Mootherwell86 said:

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.

I assume that is to be on the safe side 

[Kmcalpin]

Update: St Mirren and Dundee also 12 years of age and Ross County appears to be the same. 

[Big Stall]

Do we actually enforce it? Pretty sure i was 14 and dogged school to go to the Dortmund game. I cant imagine them saying to all of us, naw your not getting in (even if it had been the rule).

[steelboy]

3 hours ago, dennyc said:

 

The ruling needs standardised across Scotland, if not the UK.  Surely the SPFL/SFA should just issue a uniform rule and take the matter out of Clubs' hands. In my opinion, 14 minimum age for unsupervised attendance makes sens but when did common sense ever come into it? 

Why? What makes you thinks that kids who are sitting in Third Year at school today can't go to Fir Park unaccompanied without a safety issue?

[steelboy]

1 hour ago, Big Stall said:

Do we actually enforce it? Pretty sure i was 14 and dogged school to go to the Dortmund game. I cant imagine them saying to all of us, naw your not getting in (even if it had been the rule).

Aye the stewards have been enforcing it and even knocking back older kids who don't have ID. 

Complete idiocy. 

[dennyc]

2 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Why? What makes you thinks that kids who are sitting in Third Year at school today can't go to Fir Park unaccompanied without a safety issue?

I don't. But the age limit whatever it is needs to be made uniform. That's the point.  I suggested 14 because that's a middle ground that I think most parents and Clubs would be comfortable with. Maybe as a starting point to be reviewed.  I really couldn't care less what age it is, make it 12 if you like.  That way everyone knows exactly where they stand, every ground has the same rules, and security officers cannot make up rules to suit their own agenda. I thought that was actually what you wanted?  But no matter where it is set someone will complain. I know 12 year olds I would have no concerns about but I also know 14 year olds I would not trust to cross the road. A number is only a number, but for clarity it needs to be set and uniform.

But what age would you suggest? And do you accept that the Club have the right to ask for proof of age?  Like happens at other venues, even the cinema you referred to. Or is that a step too far? More authority to challenge?  I did agree with your point re Fire Safety by the way. If this is going to be resolved there needs to be compromise and willing on both sides. There appears to be no acceptance of that from some. Is the issue the rule? Or is the issue Bob Park?

On a broader note, I asked you previously if you attended away matches. In response to your comment that you have not witnessed any questionable fan behaviour within Fir Park. You did not answer that one. So I'll give you another question. If a Motherwell fan of any age is found to have taken pyros into a ground, or set them off, or entered the playing area, or abused stewards, or thrown objects onto the pitch do you think they should be banned from all grounds in Scotland? Some folk suggest that if it does not happen within Fir Park it should not affect attending Fir Park. Where do you stand on that one? And how about away fans that do the same at Fir Park.....you can add seat damage to the list. Should they also  be allowed to carry on elsewhere, regardless?

[steelboy]

28 minutes ago, dennyc said:

 

But what age would you suggest? 

On a broader note, I asked you previously if you attended away matches. In response to your comment that you have not witnessed any questionable fan behaviour within Fir Park. 

If there has to be an age limit then make it high school age. Councils say that kids are capable of travelling up to three miles a day to school unsupervised so going to Fir Park shouldn't be an issue at this age. 

I don't go to many away games since the lockdown, probably less than a dozen in that period. I don't like pyro so banning people for that wouldn't bother me and might cut back on it but the process has to be above board and transparent with a right to defend yourself. The current system which magically appeared with Brian Caldwell clearly isn't. 

[dennyc]

26 minutes ago, steelboy said:

If there has to be an age limit then make it high school age. Councils say that kids are capable of travelling up to three miles a day to school unsupervised so going to Fir Park shouldn't be an issue at this age. 

I don't go to many away games since the lockdown, probably less than a dozen in that period. I don't like pyro so banning people for that wouldn't bother me and might cut back on it but the process has to be above board and transparent with a right to defend yourself. The current system which magically appeared with Brian Caldwell clearly isn't. 

Seems fair enough. I could agree with what you propose and the logic behind it, along with the transparency, which should cut both ways. I do think there has to be a minimum age or else at what age does it become too great a risk....11. 10. 9?

But what about the points you did not cover? Those other behaviours....I have witnessed all of them in recent years... and whether bans should cover all grounds, as long as the bans are based on evidence.  Or is pyro the only misbehaviour you think merits a ban? And what about proof of age? Is that a compromise worth accepting to show willing? Might even make Stewards' jobs a bit more straightforward. If not, why not.... on both counts?

 

[steelboy]

15 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Seems fair enough. I could agree with what you propose and the logic behind it, along with the transparency, which should cut both ways. I do think there has to be a minimum age or else at what age does it become too great a risk....11. 10. 9?

But what about the points you did not cover? Those other behaviours....I have witnessed all of them in recent years... and whether bans should cover all grounds, as long as the bans are based on evidence.  Or is pyro the only misbehaviour you think merits a ban? And what about proof of age? Is that a compromise worth accepting to show willing? Might even make Stewards' jobs a bit more straightforward. If not, why not.... on both counts?

 

We are talking about two different things here. I don't think young high schooler are the ones causing bother.

As far as the bad behaviour goes I don't really care. It's part and parcel of football in a working class area, it's like going to Spoons and complaining that people are drinking irresponsibly. We all know that going to Motherwell games is a very safe experience and no one was crying out for any of this prior to Caldwell being appointed. 

[wellfan]

If you’re old enough to take yourself to high school, you’re old enough to take yourself to a football match.

14 and above is ridiculous. This policy is unbelievably shortsighted and will undoubtedly cut off a significant proportion of the next generation of kids from becoming regular paying fans. Access to football is already prohibitive enough without implementing this nonsense.

I’m really disappointed in Caldwell over this. It’s completely changed my view on the Club in this context and made me question signing up my wee man to be a junior WS member, as what’s the point?! 

 

[Kmcalpin]

4 minutes ago, wellfan said:

I’m really disappointed in Caldwell over this. It’s completely changed my view on the Club in this context and made me question signing up my wee man to be a junior WS member, as what’s the point?! 

Don't be too hard on the Society as don't know its view on this issue. I'm not in favour of running to the Society over every single issue but this does impact directly on fans. As such  why not email the Society about this. Its an important issue and has caused a fair bit of online discussion. 

[Spiderpig]

Just now, wellfan said:

If you’re old enough to take yourself to high school, you’re old enough to take yourself to a football match.

14 and above is ridiculous. This policy is unbelievably shortsighted and will undoubtedly cut off a significant proportion of the next generation of kids from becoming regular paying fans. Access to football is already prohibitive enough without implementing this nonsense.

I’m really disappointed in Caldwell over this. It’s completely changed my view on the Club in this context and made me question signing up my wee man to be a junior WS member, as what’s the point?! 

 

This is not a Motherwell thing a quick search on Google and most of the English premiership seems to be under 16's need to be accompanied so I would assume the FA, EPL, EFL SFA , SPFL etc are all issuing guidelines for the clubs to follow.

Caldwell mentions in his update he thought 16 was too high so Motherwell made it 14, so there is obviously some leeway for the clubs to set their own policies. The clubs obviously have legal and regulatory constraints on them so limits need to be set.

[steelboy]

The idea that we are about to be cracked down on for letting teenagers into the ground despite the fact that the SFA have looked the other way about huge amounts of criminality at other clubs is quite funny.

[dennyc]

Forgot to add Quote before replying. Comments in response to the following

 

"We are talking about two different things here. I don't think young high schooler are the ones causing bother.

As far as the bad behaviour goes I don't really care. It's part and parcel of football in a working class area, it's like going to Spoons and complaining that people are drinking irresponsibly. We all know that going to Motherwell games is a very safe experience and no one was crying out for any of this prior to Caldwell being appointed. "

 

I don't think it matters what age we are talking about. It's about behaviours, respect and common decency. If it is not the youngsters, then fair enough, I accept that. If it's an older set then that almost makes the goings on more questionable. But, yes, if the youngsters are being accused of things they are not guilty of then that is wrong. But from what I have witnessed at games there is a mix of ages involved.

As for accepting that the behaviours I described are part of football and should just be written of as life, sorry but that's just nonsense and a cop out. Will you still be saying that when someone you know gets injured?  Maybe tell that to the young boy that got hit in the face by a flare at Dunfermline. " Man up son. It's life. You chose to go to the game so live with it"

And these things were an issue long time before Caldwell signed up. But it is a good excuse for you to have a go at him and maybe his handling of things could have been better. Maybe it's just that he is the one that is addressing matters whereas others have refused to act. Type in 'Pyrotechnics at Scottish football grounds in Scotland' in Google and read the top article which pops up. Dated May this year I think and covers attending football matches. That maybe gives a clue as to why Clubs are now being forced to intervene. Might explain a lot in fact. Pressure has certainly been applied. 

[wellfan]

17 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Don't be too hard on the Society as don't know its view on this issue. I'm not in favour of running to the Society over every single issue but this does impact directly on fans. As such  why not email the Society about this. Its an important issue and has caused a fair bit of online discussion. 

I’m not blaming the Society, I just think the Club’s policy is at odds with the Society’s drive to encourage childhood support. I’m sure WS directors are reading and will take action. 

[wellfan]

14 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

This is not a Motherwell thing a quick search on Google and most of the English premiership seems to be under 16's need to be accompanied so I would assume the FA, EPL, EFL SFA , SPFL etc are all issuing guidelines for the clubs to follow.

Caldwell mentions in his update he thought 16 was too high so Motherwell made it 14, so there is obviously some leeway for the clubs to set their own policies. The clubs obviously have legal and regulatory constraints on them so limits need to be set.

The difference is that EPL clubs have an unlimited supply of fans willing to pay into their model, but we don’t. We need to hook local kids early and this will prevent that.

The 14 and over is absolutely a Motherwell thing. It should be 12 at worst. 

[Busta Nut]

The amount of examples given for that are teams that rake in 40k people is fucking wild.  

[Mootherwell86]

17 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

The amount of examples given for that are teams that rake in 40k people is fucking wild.  

Comparing Apples with Rhinosauras‘ 🤣🤣

[Spiderpig]

10 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

The amount of examples given for that are teams that rake in 40k people is fucking wild.  

They might be wild and as you say the issue won't be a problem for teams with huge crowds every game. But the guidelines  / policies in effect are not based on attendance figures so they apply equally to every club.

Given the guidelines seem to give the clubs a fair bit of leeway I have no doubt  Motherwell could reduce the age limit to 12 if they wanted to, so they must have their reasons for choosing 14.

[SteelmaninOZ]

October update