Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[fatcalf]

42 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

I am very interested in the thoughts of the WS Board regarding the position taken here by our CEO on various topics.  

Once again, I suspect the tail is wagging the dug.

The mere fact that it fits nicely with the Bob narrative isn't coincidence I'd wager.

[craigkillie]

6 hours ago, Alanos said:

Aye, 3m apparently. 

Taylor was nowhere near that, closer to £1m. Club wanted £2m but were all over the place after Steve Clarke left and eventually caved on or around deadline day.

[Vietnam91]

1 hour ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

I am very interested in the thoughts of the WS Board regarding the position taken here by our CEO on various topics.  

Once again, I suspect the tail is wagging the dug.

There will be a few awkward questions posed to a number at the club AGM but that's six months away. In the meantime it is up to the WS as owners to continue with the scrutiny and offer direction as any owner would. Regardless if it is a committee of nine (soon to be 12) or an individual, their ownership shareholding should be respected. It should be consultative and not dictatorial.

In Brian's defence on the subjects covered in that video, every one of them seems to be mindful of the potential for legal jeopardy from how litigious our society has become over the past 20 years.

Safeguarding is already in force elsewhere and if we didn't act then we would be forced to. Can anyone say that a parent happy to let their cherub go to the football wouldn't be first onto an ambulance chaser solicitor first thing Monday morning if something adverse happened? I'm sure we can all see the redtop headlines now: "Well the 'Community' Club disregards most vulnerable".

As I got exposure to Fir Park in first year at high school through the claret and amber club I can empathise fully but I also appreciate our society has changed immeasurably in that time. Do I like it? No but I understand that every afterschool club or organisation now takes £x to cover public liability insurance they never needed to when I was a child.

The letters went out to those arrested as mandated by precedent, the club has to comply or face sanction for breaking ranks and being an outlier. A way to avoid it is don't get arrested in or around a ground or in colours. That however doesn't take into account a cop overstepping with a point to prove, but there aren't many of them .........

The lower tier is used only when it has to due to the possibility of H&S issues. No need to take undue risks when the upper tier causes no issues and Ketts seems to favour it. Surprised he hasn't moved dugout if that's the case <tin hat on>.

All I heard is a CEO protecting the entity he is employed to protect otherwise face a tidal wave of red tape and faff that takes him away from the stuff we all wish he could get his teeth into, increasing the revenues and securing players on watertight contracts.

Erik's scheme cost the WS +£8k plus we can't quantify how much in lost fundraising and membership expansion in the six months it consumed most of their board meetings. As for the club, you wonder what could have been achieved with season tickets and on the commercial side if club employees weren't defending Jim's binfire.

It does seem that a lot of heat the club are getting would be better directed at politicians, both local and national.

Edited August 28 by Vietnam91

[ClaretAmberb]

16 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

There will be a few awkward questions posed to a number at the club AGM but that's six months away. In the meantime it is up to the WS as owners to continue with the scrutiny and offer direction as any owner would. Regardless if it is a committee of nine (soon to be 12) or an individual, their ownership shareholding should be respected. It should be consultative and not dictatorial.

In Brian's defence on the subjects covered in that video, every one of them seems to be mindful of the potential for legal jeopardy from how litigious our society has become over the past 20 years.

Safeguarding is already in force elsewhere and if we didn't act then we would be forced to. Can anyone say that a parent happy to let their cherub go to the football wouldn't be first onto an ambulance chaser solicitor first thing Monday morning if something adverse happened? I'm sure we can all see the redtop headlines now: "Well the 'Community' Club disregards most vulnerable".

As I got exposure to Fir Park in first year at high school through the claret and amber club I can empathise fully but I also appreciate our society has changed immeasurably in that time. Do I like it? No but I understand that every afterschool club or organisation now takes £x to cover public liability insurance they never needed to when I was a child.

The letters went out to those arrested as mandated by precedent, the club has to comply or face sanction for breaking ranks and being an outlier. A way to avoid it is don't get arrested in or around a ground or in colours. That however doesn't take into account a cop overstepping with a point to prove, but there aren't many of them .........

The lower tier is used only when it has to due to the possibility of H&S issues. No need to take undue risks when the upper tier causes no issues and Ketts seems to favour it. Surprised he hasn't moved dugout if that's the case <tin hat on>.

All I heard is a CEO protecting the entity he is employed to protect otherwise face a tidal wave of red tape and faff that takes him away from the stuff we all wish he could get his teeth into, increasing the revenues and securing players on watertight contracts.

Erik's scheme cost the WS +£8k plus we can't quantify how much in lost fundraising and membership expansion in the six months it consumed most of their board meetings. As for the club, you wonder what could have been achieved with season tickets and on the commercial side if club employees weren't defending Jim's binfire.

It does seem that a lot of heat the club are getting would be better directed at politicians, both local and national.

I agree. Pretty sure he also said in that video that the bottom tier seats needed replaced at a cost of 150k to the club 

[TheMotherwell1]

Brian Caldwell should either get on the same page as the WS Board or leave. He cannot continue to issue communications that are at odds with the views held by the WS Board.  That type of behaviour  exhibited by those involved in the running of the club almost had us sold to a complete chancer.

SPFL Guidance is Under 12s, why has Brian Caldwell and the powers at be decided that ours is under 14s? Why do we seem to be so desperate to make it difficult for young people to support Motherwell? 

I take it the H&S issue in the lower tier of the South Stand will have magically disappeared by the time we play Celtic on the 26th of October? Surely we would not be stupid enough to overfill a stand that we deem to have H&S Issues.? Housing thousands of supporters in an area we've deemed to have 'H&S issues' would be gross negligence and opens the club up to much greater liability and compliance issues.

The decisions been taken by Brian Caldwell seem to be completely counterintuitive to the club and only seem to serve in the best interests of a club employee. Maybe a bond was forged between the 2 during 'Erik-gate'?

 

Edited August 28 by TheMotherwell1

[ClaretAmberb]

1 minute ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Brian Caldwell should either get on the same page as the WS Board or leave. He cannot continue to issue communications that are at odds with the views held by the WS Board.  That type of behaviour  exhibited by those involved in the running of the club almost had us sold to a complete chancer.

SPFL Guidance is Under 12s, why has Brian Caldwell and the powers at be decided that ours is under 14s? Why do we seem to be so desperate to make it difficult for young people to support Motherwell? 

I take it the H&S issue in the lower tier of the South Stand will have magically disappeared by the time we play Celtic on the 26th of October? Surely we would not be stupid enough to overfill a stand that we deem to have H&S Issues.? Housing thousands of supporters in an area we've deemed to have 'H&S issues' would be gross negligence and opens the club up to much greater liability and compliance issues.

The decisions been taken by Brian Caldwell seem to be completely counterintuitive to the and only seem to serve in the best interests of a club employee. Maybe a bond was forged between the 2 during 'Erik-gate'?

 

He has to align with the society or go? Who are we going to get in next then? 

[TheMotherwell1]

19 minutes ago, ClaretAmberb said:

I agree. Pretty sure he also said in that video that the bottom tier seats needed replaced at a cost of 150k to the club 

I take it these will be getting replaced before we house 4,000 Celtic Fans in the stand? Or is Brian Caldwell talking pish regarding a H&S issue?

[TheMotherwell1]

1 minute ago, ClaretAmberb said:

He has to align with the society or go? Who are we going to get in next then? 

Of course he has to align with The Society. Have you been living under a rock?

[ClaretAmberb]

Why dont some people who have some clout on this matter open up some dialogue with Caldwell over this matter and take it from there. 

[standupforthemotherwell]

7 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

I take it these will be getting replaced before we house 4,000 Celtic Fans in the stand? Or is Brian Caldwell talking pish regarding a H&S issue?

Maybe he has been advised by experts that the seats might only have a limited number of uses left before they have to be replaced whereas the top tier seats have been used much less. It makes sense to use the ones in better condition unless the higher capacity is needed.

I don't have an issue with any of his explanations. They all seem to have a valid basis from a legal or league point of view rather than being made up for fun.

Edited August 28 by standupforthemotherwell

[Vietnam91]

37 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Brian Caldwell should either get on the same page as the WS Board or leave. He cannot continue to issue communications that are at odds with the views held by the WS Board.  That type of behaviour  exhibited by those involved in the running of the club almost had us sold to a complete chancer.

SPFL Guidance is Under 12s, why has Brian Caldwell and the powers at be decided that ours is under 14s? Why do we seem to be so desperate to make it difficult for young people to support Motherwell? 

I take it the H&S issue in the lower tier of the South Stand will have magically disappeared by the time we play Celtic on the 26th of October? Surely we would not be stupid enough to overfill a stand that we deem to have H&S Issues.? Housing thousands of supporters in an area we've deemed to have 'H&S issues' would be gross negligence and opens the club up to much greater liability and compliance issues.

The decisions been taken by Brian Caldwell seem to be completely counterintuitive to the and only seem to serve in the best interests of a club employee. Maybe a bond was forged between the 2 during 'Erik-gate'?

 

You don't know if nine of the current WS board support Brian's position or not. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be as black or white as you make out. There will be nuance and like everything when exposed to the full facts it tempers decision making and positions.

The issues with the lower tier will continue until its addressed at significant cost. It obviously hasn't got to the stage where it limits use but also the club seem to be both managing it and not wanting to exacerbate issues with it. I'm sure it will be open for both the OF and if Aberdeen and Hibs sell over 2,400 it will be open too.

Edited August 28 by Vietnam91

[ClaretAmberb]

6 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Of course he has to align with The Society. Have you been living under a rock?

 I dont talk to people who only want to insult others. Hth 

[ClaretAmberb]

1 minute ago, standupforthemotherwell said:

Maybe he has been advised by experts that the seats might only have a limited number of uses left before they have to be replaced whereas the top tier seats have been used much less. It makes sense to use the ones in better condition unless the higher capacity is needed.

I don't have an issue with any of his explanations. They all seem to have a valid basis from a legal or league point of view rather than being made up for fun.

I don't either 

[TheMotherwell1]

1 minute ago, Vietnam91 said:

You don't know if nine of the current WS board support Brian's position or not. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be as black or white as you make out. There is nuance to everything and like everything when exposed to the full facts it tempers decision making and positions.

The issues with the lower tier will continue until its addressed at significant cost. It obviously hasn't got to the stage where it limits use but also the club seem to be both managing it and not wanting to exacerbate issues with it. I'm sure it will be open for both the OF and if Aberdeen and Hibs sell over 2,400 it will be open too.

The away fans are being housed in the top tier to convenience Bob Park. 

[TheMotherwell1]

5 minutes ago, ClaretAmberb said:

 I dont talk to people who only want to insult others. Hth 

eh?

[Vietnam91]

3 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

The away fans are being housed in the top tier to convenience Bob Park. 

Bob must have beilin then when the 2,401st Hearts fan bought a ticket and foiled his masterplan. Those pesky Ross County fans only bringing enough to justify a move into the POD, what was Bob's endgame there?

I take it you are unaware steel rusts when exposed to the elements for 30 years? Add in that metal bent over and bent back umpteen times thanks to youthful over exuberance.

Then throw in the manager reportedly likes it, this conspiracy goes pretty deep.

The stadium manager has some stuff to answer for but this isn't it and to claim it is nothing more than a useless distraction.

[TheMotherwell1]

1 minute ago, Vietnam91 said:

Bob must have beilin then when the 2,401st Hearts fan bought a ticket and foiled his masterplan. Those pesky Ross County fans only bringing enough to justify a move into the POD, what was Bob's endgame there?

I take it you are unaware steel rusts when exposed to the elements for 30 years? Add in that metal bent over and bent back umpteen times thanks to youthful over exuberance.

Then throw in the manager reportedly likes it, this conspiracy goes pretty deep.

The stadium manager has some stuff to answer for but this isn't it and to claim it is nothing more than a useless distraction.

Far more aware than most.

For someone so against Club Employees going rogue against the WS, you seem fine with Brian Caldwell making these decisions without any consultation with the WS Board. The Under 14s rule is totally ridiculous. 

I would much prefer a far more collaborative approach between WS and the Club. We should be actively encouraging people to attend Fir Park not putting stupid obstacles in the way. Communications from both entities needs to be consistent.

[Vietnam91]

40 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Far more aware than most.

For someone so against Club Employees going rogue against the WS, you seem fine with Brian Caldwell making these decisions without any consultation with the WS Board. The Under 14s rule is totally ridiculous. 

I would much prefer a far more collaborative approach between WS and the Club. We should be actively encouraging people to attend Fir Park not putting stupid obstacles in the way. Communications from both entities needs to be consistent.

No, I'm saying Brian's position here seems reasonable in light of where we are in our wider society. However, your posts are unreasonable. If you know something we don't by all means share it, certainly the subtext of what you've been posting.

I can't speak if the 14 year old thing was made by Brian himself or he took it to the club board which if you aren't aware consists of four at present due to the flux of the past two months. He mentioned it at the WS meet the manager event earlier in the month, I'm not sure if I heard you pushing him on that.

You'll also be aware the WS met for the first time since the election on Monday and getting three co-opted so each workstream has three board members on it and sorting out representation on the club board. Next thing is getting the shareholder agreement finalised and ratified so there is no ambiguity or assumptions in the relationship going forward.

As for my position don't think I differ much from the majority in taking issue with anyone or anything threatening something I care about. Also like most I'll fight to preserve it, especially if its sold on the shakiest of foundations and reasoning with a thought out response if I can stop the red mist descending. You should maybe give that a go too.

Edited August 28 by Vietnam91

[Archie McSquackle]

I'd be interested to see what age other clubs use.

I got the impression it's a preference not to use the lower tier due its deteriorating condition but it's still able to be used if required.  Seems reasonable to me until we can afford the large scale repairs required. 

[camer0n_mcd]

Looking forward to spending 150k on the McLean stand just for Celtic fans to immediately destroy it at the first opportunity they get.