Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Archie McSquackle]

7 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

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

Or we don't spend money on it, let them destroy it and then pay for repairs. Simples!

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour 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 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'?

 

The Well Society interviewed Brian Caldwell and recommended him to the Executive Board.

Pretty sure they are on the same page.

[TheMotherwell1]

2 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

The Well Society interviewed Brian Caldwell and recommended him to the Executive Board.

Pretty sure they are on the same page.

He then voted for the Erik proposal against the wishes of the WS.

I am sure he’s a very capable CEO and will do well for us but it’s pivotal that his decision making is in line with the wishes of the WS board. 

[santheman]

24 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said:

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. 

Most have safeguarding guidelines if you have the time to look online but Rangers for instance have set their age limit at 13.

Think it would be a good idea for all the clubs to get together and set a consistent age so everyone knows where they stand. 

SPL guidelines say 12 I believe.

Edited August 28 by santheman

[joewarkfanclub]

5 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

He then voted for the Erik proposal against the wishes of the WS.

I am sure he’s a very capable CEO and will do well for us but it’s pivotal that his decision making is in line with the wishes of the WS board. 

The structure of the club at the moment is such that things like that are not black & white. Hopefully in the next few months that will change and everyone will be aligned.

[Archie McSquackle]

40 minutes ago, santheman said:

Most have safeguarding guidelines if you have the time to look online but Rangers for instance have set their age limit at 13.

Think it would be a good idea for all the clubs to get together and set a consistent age so everyone knows where they stand. 

SPL guidelines say 12 I believe.

14 does seem a bit old seeing as a lot of kids make their way to high school on their own and 12 year olds can go to the cinema unaccompanied. 

Regarding the banning of those being charged, I get that there are rules in place which we have to follow but am very uneasy about these rules. Whatever happened about being innocent until proven guilty?

[rowsdower]

No much point having a CEO if he has to consult the board every time a decision is made. Just go back to having a general manager.

Also no point in comparing to when we were young, it's a different world, and it's not changing.

If the club is following the same information sharing agreement with the police as other clubs, and are required to ban folk that they're told to, what can they do? As shite as that whole idea is, it seems to be a police problem, not Motherwell one.  Not sure where we can be creative there. 

Couldn't care less where away fans sit. It's a cool view from that top tier though.

How do kids prove that they're 14?

['WellDel]

5 hours ago, camer0n_mcd said:

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

Maybe the Celtic fans visiting is what they're waiting for before starting the works. Potentially knock a good few quid off the refit bill if they take care of the first stage by doing the rip out free gratis like they normally do. Good business sense from us imo.

[Well Fan]

To any youngsters stopped at the turnstiles. Tell them you've no identification but you identify as a 14 year old reptilian (age compliant) and stop harassing them! 

At this point, you'll be given VIP treatment of free bovril and chasni pies in an area with no other koonts around (away stand, lower tier or Sect E if still on boycott ) with a police cordon. 

Stop all this bs and collectively agree on 12 or whatever. It's safe at the football compared to the 70's outwith The Auld Firm. 

Fed up now and I'm away for a lie doon in a darkened room. 

Sort it out Motherwell. 

[ropy]

5 hours ago, rowsdower said:

No much point having a CEO if he has to consult the board every time a decision is made. Just go back to having a general manager.

Also no point in comparing to when we were young, it's a different world, and it's not changing.

If the club is following the same information sharing agreement with the police as other clubs, and are required to ban folk that they're told to, what can they do? As shite as that whole idea is, it seems to be a police problem, not Motherwell one.  Not sure where we can be creative there. 

Couldn't care less where away fans sit. It's a cool view from that top tier though.

How do kids prove that they're 14?

Is there a DOB on their free bus passes?

[DerekWatson]

11 hours 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.

I can’t speak for everyone on the board, it’s important to note that since the recent election concluded last week we’ve only met with the full board once since, but I’ll give my personal opinion.

i understand Brian’s reasoning for the under 14s rule and I think he’s trying to do the right thing to protect the club and bring us in line with the way he operated down South. That said, I don’t think it’s necessary and I think consultation before implementing may have helped the situation. Like others have highlighted, these youngsters are the future of the football club. When I was in first year we got cheap season tickets through the school and I went on my own with my pals. I lived a 10 minute walk from the stadium so my family knew the area well and trusted I’d be safe. 20 years down the line I’m still friends with the people I met from that experience and we still all go together, some now bring their kids. It’s created bonds that will last a lifetime. I believe that if we create barriers for participation we risk losing that. I’m not of the opinion that a one size fits all approach is the best way forward in football; it’s obviously more of a risk for kids to be travelling across cities to go to a game at Ibrox, Hampden, Celtic Park etc. when there’s 50,000 people in attendance than it would be to walk 5 minutes from your house in an area that you frequent every day and walk into Fir Park with just 5,000 people, and in our case when you probably know or at least recognise a lot of those people.

I’ve made my point on the boycott on here previously, I don’t think the club, the SPFL or the Police should be implementing bans for people who have had charges dropped or who have not been found guilty unless they have substantial evidence to hand. I think it sums the whole thing that the bans only apply to home games; if said individuals pose such a risk why is that the case? I do feel the club are in a difficult position with the potential sanctions and the SPFL need to revisit this. I hope the club and those involved can come to some agreement before the cup game. It’s not beneficial for anybody. 
 

I think Brian explained the top tier decision and I get it. I actually think fans make a better noise up there because the sound bounces off the roof and then moves out, but I also think it’s a better advert for the game if we’ve got fans behind the goals in the lower tier rather than empty seats. I don’t think it’s the most pressing issue at the club at the moment and don’t feel too strongly either way on it.

 

I’ll end this by saying that in all organisations there will be times when directors, shareholders, members etc. disagree on things and that’s healthy. I’d be more concerned if everyone involved had the same opinion.
Since Brian came in the level of engagement and communication between the 2 boards has improvement ten fold and long may that continue. We’re moving at pace to get the Exec Board back to the numbers it should have with those coming on board possessing the skills we all believe are required to drive the club forward.  

Throughout the season decisions will be made that people disagree with and others think are great, but for me the most important aspect is how you communicate that. We need to consult with season ticket holders and society members before making decisions that are not going to be popular or that will have an impact on their match day experience; changing the layout of the John Hunter stand and changing the age of entry for kids are the perfect example for me of where consultation could have made the process a lot smoother.

[camer0n_mcd]

 

Amber Johnstone and Gavin McCafferty from the WS board were on the podcast that the Motherwell Times started a few weeks ago.

[Handsome_Devil]

12 hours ago, Sortmeout said:

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (and hoping David Watson also doesn’t want to run off for any offer) it’s really hard to turn down the money if you are the player. Hard to turn down a huge pay rise when you could be a tackle away from a bad injury. Or, very unlikely with Miller as he looks class and better every time I see him, the player falls out of form.

I know it’s not that simple a decision to make just to base on purely on money but again I think once it’s put in front of you it must be hard to turn it down.

What was his dad’s career path? Was it Bristol City or a similar team he ended up signing for after initially breaking through at Falkirk and being really touted for great things? I’m old enough to remember when Lee Miller was coming through and from memory there was more hype and higher expectations for him initially than I think there has been for Lennon, although the whole “hype” landscape has changed dramatically with social media in that 18 to 20 years since Lee broke through.

Not unreasonable by any means but he already turned down presumably bigger contracts to stay with us when Rice went to Rangers and he'd no need to renew from 2025 to 2026 so early either. 

I honestly can't remember enough about Lee to compare their hype fairly but within the game (or Motherwell at least), Lennon and Rice were both considered absolutely blue chips who were very likely to make it big.

This consideration is ofc worth f**k all, just ask Jamie Semple.

While it was annoying to lose Rice when we did, and it's obviously not fair to call it a true A/B test, two players the same age in similar positions with similar potential choosing the opposite paths in terms of playing senior for a smaller club or youths for a bigger club will provide an absolutely fascinating comparison for years to come.

It can all change quickly as you say (about the time it takes an emailed contract with a seven-figure wage on it to arrive I'd guess!) but so far all the indication is Miller is genuine about his path and wanting to play.

[David1979]

7 hours ago, rowsdower said:

If the club is following the same information sharing agreement with the police as other clubs, and are required to ban folk that they're told to, what can they do? As shite as that whole idea is, it seems to be a police problem, not Motherwell one.  Not sure where we can be creative there. 

One option could be for clubs to join forces and explore providing an alternative approach to the police. I’d like to think that if the majority of top-flight clubs expressed their desire for a change in the system (for instance, by temporarily suspending a fan when charges are brought and only issuing a ban if they are convicted of an actual football-related offence), such a change would be implemented.

There’s no reason why Motherwell shouldn’t lead the way in this regard, given that we are a fan-owned club. We should seize the opportunity and start engaging with other clubs to gauge their views. If the consensus is to maintain the current system, at least Motherwell can say, “We made the effort, but there isn’t the appetite for the necessary changes, so we must continue as we are.”

1 hour ago, DerekWatson said:

i understand Brian’s reasoning for the under 14s rule and I think he’s trying to do the right thing to protect the club and bring us in line with the way he operated down South. That said, I don’t think it’s necessary and I think consultation before implementing may have helped the situation.

Once again, consultation is crucial here, not only within the club itself but across the broader Scottish game. What are the age restrictions in place throughout our sport? If every club is adhering to the same guidelines, then that's acceptable. However, if this is not the case and we’ve opted to impose stricter measures, then this will attract scrutiny. It’s as simple as that.

[ClaretAmberb]

2 hours ago, ropy said:

Is there a DOB on their free bus passes?

Yes if they have a young Scot card with free bus travel loaded onto it 

[Neil86]

10 hours ago, Archie McSquackle said:

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. 

Seen someone on twitter (Rangers fan) said they are challenging u16's.

See fwiw, as sh*te as it is, I kind of get it. Surely if something happened to an unaccompanied child in the stadium, The club could get taken to the cleaners? Regardless of what happened, the Club would be painted in a bad light, maybe through no fault of their own.

Surely there is a work around, tickets made available to football clubs, youth clubs, schools etc

EDIT - Just seen @santheman post about rangers, I suspect what I seen was just a case of wrong steward wrong day, I did think 16 seemed excessive to be accompanied by an adult.

 

Edited August 29 by Neil86

[Gallus Numpty]

15 minutes ago, ClaretAmberb said:

Yes if they have a young Scot card with free bus travel loaded onto it 

Or the EasyID app from the Post Office, if they don't want to carry a card around like an old person.

[ClaretAmberb]

26 minutes ago, David1979 said:

One option could be for clubs to join forces and explore providing an alternative approach to the police. I’d like to think that if the majority of top-flight clubs expressed their desire for a change in the system (for instance, by temporarily suspending a fan when charges are brought and only issuing a ban if they are convicted of an actual football-related offence), such a change would be implemented.

There’s no reason why Motherwell shouldn’t lead the way in this regard, given that we are a fan-owned club. We should seize the opportunity and start engaging with other clubs to gauge their views. If the consensus is to maintain the current system, at least Motherwell can say, “We made the effort, but there isn’t the appetite for the necessary changes, so we must continue as we are.”

Once again, consultation is crucial here, not only within the club itself but across the broader Scottish game. What are the age restrictions in place throughout our sport? If every club is adhering to the same guidelines, then that's acceptable. However, if this is not the case and we’ve opted to impose stricter measures, then this will attract scrutiny. It’s as simple as that.

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. 

[ClaretAmberb]

6 minutes ago, Neil86 said:

Seen someone on twitter (Rangers fan) said they are challenging u16's.

See fwiw, as sh*te as it is, I kind of get it. Surely if something happened to an unaccompanied child in the stadium, The club could get taken to the cleaners? Regardless of what happened, the Club would be painted in a bad light, maybe through no fault of their own.

Surely there is a work around, tickets made available to football clubs, youth clubs, schools etc

EDIT - Just seen @santheman post about rangers, I suspect what I seen was just a case of wrong steward wrong day, I did think 16 seemed excessive to be accompanied by an adult.

 

I saw that as well - a couple of fans on a forum who were 15 who said they were denied entry. 

[ClaretAmberb]

1 hour ago, DerekWatson said:

I can’t speak for everyone on the board, it’s important to note that since the recent election concluded last week we’ve only met with the full board once since, but I’ll give my personal opinion.

i understand Brian’s reasoning for the under 14s rule and I think he’s trying to do the right thing to protect the club and bring us in line with the way he operated down South. That said, I don’t think it’s necessary and I think consultation before implementing may have helped the situation. Like others have highlighted, these youngsters are the future of the football club. When I was in first year we got cheap season tickets through the school and I went on my own with my pals. I lived a 10 minute walk from the stadium so my family knew the area well and trusted I’d be safe. 20 years down the line I’m still friends with the people I met from that experience and we still all go together, some now bring their kids. It’s created bonds that will last a lifetime. I believe that if we create barriers for participation we risk losing that. I’m not of the opinion that a one size fits all approach is the best way forward in football; it’s obviously more of a risk for kids to be travelling across cities to go to a game at Ibrox, Hampden, Celtic Park etc. when there’s 50,000 people in attendance than it would be to walk 5 minutes from your house in an area that you frequent every day and walk into Fir Park with just 5,000 people, and in our case when you probably know or at least recognise a lot of those people.

I’ve made my point on the boycott on here previously, I don’t think the club, the SPFL or the Police should be implementing bans for people who have had charges dropped or who have not been found guilty unless they have substantial evidence to hand. I think it sums the whole thing that the bans only apply to home games; if said individuals pose such a risk why is that the case? I do feel the club are in a difficult position with the potential sanctions and the SPFL need to revisit this. I hope the club and those involved can come to some agreement before the cup game. It’s not beneficial for anybody. 
 

I think Brian explained the top tier decision and I get it. I actually think fans make a better noise up there because the sound bounces off the roof and then moves out, but I also think it’s a better advert for the game if we’ve got fans behind the goals in the lower tier rather than empty seats. I don’t think it’s the most pressing issue at the club at the moment and don’t feel too strongly either way on it.

 

I’ll end this by saying that in all organisations there will be times when directors, shareholders, members etc. disagree on things and that’s healthy. I’d be more concerned if everyone involved had the same opinion.
Since Brian came in the level of engagement and communication between the 2 boards has improvement ten fold and long may that continue. We’re moving at pace to get the Exec Board back to the numbers it should have with those coming on board possessing the skills we all believe are required to drive the club forward.  

Throughout the season decisions will be made that people disagree with and others think are great, but for me the most important aspect is how you communicate that. We need to consult with season ticket holders and society members before making decisions that are not going to be popular or that will have an impact on their match day experience; changing the layout of the John Hunter stand and changing the age of entry for kids are the perfect example for me of where consultation could have made the process a lot smoother.

You're right about barriers to participation but not every supporter lives a five minute walk away from the football. Other clubs have age limits in place as I'm sure you know - the issue is obviously that some people feel Motherwell have set the age limit too high. 

With regard to supporters being banned - surely this is a police Scotland issue more than anything else? Bans only apply to home games all over the UK as far as I'm aware - as ridiculous as this is it seems to be pretty standard.