Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[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 unaccompanied 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??.

[DerekWatson]

15 minutes ago, ClaretAmberb said:

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. 

It's not standard. If you are issued with a football banning order through the court system you are banned from every stadium in the UK and you may have to hand your passport in to the local police station if your team or national team are playing overseas. 

See here: https://www.mygov.scot/football-banning-orders

Edited August 29 by DerekWatson

[camer0n_mcd]

Quote

“What we are trying to do is ward against this period between now and January where you feel you come up short of options. That is what we are trying to do. We don’t need to move anybody out and when you look at the squad, I am not really in a position to send anybody out. What we might see is one or two young players, what I call our development group, heading out. There’s one or two bits of positivity in that sense.”

Away from the talk of banning orders and the u14 stuff. Ketts confirming in his interview that we are still looking to bring guys in but it'll only be short term.

[ClaretAmberb]

5 minutes ago, DerekWatson said:

It's not standard. If you are issued with a football banning order through the court system you are banned from every stadium in the UK and you may have to hand your passport in to the local police station if your team or national team are playing overseas. 

See here: https://www.mygov.scot/football-banning-orders

I didn't mention football banning orders, sorry for the confusion. I thought you were referring to a situation where someone was banned from their home ground because they've been charged and could still go to away games. 

I don't know much about FBOs. Thanks for the link. 

[Vietnam91]

There's all sorts of big brother, mentor schemes out there you'd think could work here but then due to where our society is those adults will no doubt need disclosured and go on a first aid, safe lifting course and H&S familiarisation. I mean it's mad I'm even putting that out there for someone in 3rd year at school to attend Fir Park solo.

Issue now is we've set it at 14, so to change it to 12 like other clubs and then a 13 year old gets affected in future, the club will get it tight.

The cinema thing is a false equivalence however and to continue using that does not advance the issue. Nobody is segregated in a cinema, there has been no violence, standoffs and posturing associated. Never seen a police horse standing in the foyer unless the Vue runs out of nachos.

The authorities and by extension the club no doubt fear how being in a group makes those in it more gallus and more likely to overstep the line. If you doubt that, look at the behaviour of the OF every time they swing into town. I saw it when flying with stag do's and I saw how a wise captain dealt with it which I used going forward.

The issue here is it seems from a distance there is a disproportionate amount of time, money and resources being eaten up on us because of our smaller support its maybe an easy win and nobody has any appetite to go after the real issue? I also get why some of the Bois/E feel they have targets on their back and there's not much they can do to shake it. I don't think there would be many in disagreement that if 100 Motherwell fans tried to force open a fire exit at Parkhead, 10 meat wagons would show up and they'd jump in mob handed.

The ideal solution for me would be to adopt what the Tartan Army did from the 1980's and try to stand out from our near neighbours and essentially show them up. While there's still an element of cheeky mischievousness, kissing Swedish cops through a fence, flashing boabies while knee deep in a public fountain, etc. Plastic patio furniture doesn't go cartwheeling through the air in continental town squares and for that reason at a national level we don't have any of the same issues associated with us.

Impressionable kids and young adults don't tend to appreciate being told what to do by those older, its a phase we all go through growing up bucking authority so I get why they may simply continue as they are with a zero f**ks given attitude. They should know that a representative from each club inspects the away stand before the match and subsequently signs off on any damage caused. Some don't draw the link between paying their £100-375 quid for a season ticket may be a drop in the ocean of the cost to the club being sent a bill for vastly more.

Edited August 29 by Vietnam91

[Well Fan]

I remember the days when many an under 14 was hospitalised at Fir Park. 

Youngsters biting into The Famous Chappie Pie and grease slathered around the terrace steps, causing its a knockout carnage. 

Didn't help, with their Noddy Holder platforms, top hats and flared brushed denim high waisters. 

For The love of God. 

Think again Motherwell. Give these kids some acknowledgement of the common sense they possess. 

And The Young Boys in Section E... Keep up the colours, the banners, the noise and the support. You are the life blood and energy for the team. 

(just be careful with over exuberance at times ) 

 

[ropy]

15 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

There's all sorts of big brother, mentor schemes out there you'd think could work here but then due to where our society is those adults will no doubt need disclosured and go on a first aid, safe lifting course and H&S familiarisation. I mean it's mad I'm even putting that out there for someone in 3rd year at school to attend Fir Park solo.

 

Are there 13 year olds in 3rd year?  I was in first year when I turned 13.  14 year olds are good to attend but I agree that if there has to be ‘cut off’  a year younger sounds more reasonable.

The more I think of it there does need to be some limit, it would be ridiculous for a 4 year old to turn up on his own, so where is it reasonable to set the limit, 7, 11 or 13? I am fairly sure I attended on my own or with friends while at primary school, it’s been a long haul.

 

[capt_oats]

2 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

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.

It's not really the conversation you're having (or anyone else on the thread by the looks of things given it all seems to be about policy just now) but the Bailey Rice/Lennon Miller of it all came up as part of the conversation @craigkillie was having with Euan Taylor on the SFA report on player pathway that went up yesterday on The Terrace Patreon (free to view on YouTube anaw).

Full disclosure, I've not read the report but some of the themes covered on the pod sound familiar and it's interesting to hear it articulated there's a realisation that clubs are having to get young players in and around first teams earlier as it's becoming increasingly the case that if they're not in the first team picture by 18 then they're pretty much done for especially in the context that it doesn't seem that long ago that dropping an 18 year old into the first team picture was viewed as a risk.

In terms of that framing it's worth considering the Turnbull situation where he had been doing bits for the Dev team from 16 but ultimately Robinson was reluctant to chuck him into the starting XI because he wasn't satisfied that he met his demands in terms of "the free stuff". I've said it before but I'd be surprised if Lennon Miller would have been chucked in as he has been were Robinson still here (and that's not a knock on Robinson fwiw) and it's been interesting to see that's one of St Mirren's Academy players f**king off to Wolves now.

We obviously saw it with the likes of McAlear (Norwich) and McKinstry (Leeds) along with many others.

There's been a lot of discourse around Bailey Rice and *choices made* but It's a curious "what if" in terms of the actual imperative of playing 16 year olds in the first team. While you'd imagine he'd have seen more first team minutes than he has at Ibrox, hypothetically, "what if" Rice had stuck around at Fir Park along with Miller would we have had both in the first team (to the same extent that we've effectively set about building a team around Miller).

Clearly if you're in the fortunate position of having a handful of elite (for our level) players come through you'd hope that you'd find a way to integrate them but as I say if we're now looking at 16 year olds getting chucked in as opposed to say the 17/18 age range as it was when the likes of Turnbull and Campbell were eventually given their shot then it's a bold manager who makes that call.

I can't remember if it was Craigan or Mo Ross who was talking about the cycles as far as the Development team went and the gist was that it was felt like you were doing well if you managed to transition one or two into first team players from each development group.

But anyway, aye, that pod is an interesting listen...

Edited August 29 by capt_oats

[Vietnam91]

4 minutes ago, ropy said:

Are there 13 year olds in 3rd year?  I was in first year when I turned 13.  14 year olds are good to attend but I agree that if there has to be ‘cut off’  a year younger sounds more reasonable.

The more I think of it there does need to be some limit, it would be ridiculous for a 4 year old to turn up on his own, so where is it reasonable to set the limit, 7, 11 or 13? I am fairly sure I attended on my own or with friends while at primary school, it’s been a long haul.

 

I was 11 in first year and I know because "je m'appelle Stephen, j'ai onze ans" is burned into my brain.

[ClaretAmberb]

11 minutes ago, ropy said:

Are there 13 year olds in 3rd year?  I was in first year when I turned 13.  14 year olds are good to attend but I agree that if there has to be ‘cut off’  a year younger sounds more reasonable.

The more I think of it there does need to be some limit, it would be ridiculous for a 4 year old to turn up on his own, so where is it reasonable to set the limit, 7, 11 or 13? I am fairly sure I attended on my own or with friends while at primary school, it’s been a long haul.

 

I was as well. Some kids go to high school at 11 though so they would be 13 going into third year. I agree that there needs to be some kind of age limit on unaccompanied kids. 

[ropy]

6 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

I was 11 in first year and I know because "je m'appelle Stephen, j'ai onze ans" is burned into my brain.

I did Latin, where I learned the translation of hors d’oeuvres 

[Vietnam91]

9 minutes ago, ropy said:

I did Latin, where I learned the translation of hors d’oeuvres 

If you've got a birthday after mid March but before mid June you'd be 13 at the tail end of first year. Unless you're a delinquent or touched.

Which one is it?

[ropy]

1 minute ago, Vietnam91 said:

If you've got a birthday after mid March but before mid June you'd be 13 at the tail end of first year. Unless you're a delinquent or touched.

Which one is it?

My 13th birthday was February but everything else applies 

[Swello]

14 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

It's not really the conversation you're having (or anyone else on the thread by the looks of things given it all seems to be about policy just now) but the Bailey Rice/Lennon Miller of it all came up as part of the conversation @craigkillie was having with Euan Taylor on the SFA report on player pathway that went up yesterday on The Terrace Patreon (free to view on YouTube anaw).

Full disclosure, I've not read the report but some of the themes covered on the pod sound familiar and it's interesting to hear it articulated there's a realisation that clubs are having to get young players in and around first teams earlier as it's becoming increasingly the case that if they're not in the first team picture by 18 then they're pretty much done for especially in the context that it doesn't seem that long ago that dropping an 18 year old into the first team picture was viewed as a risk.

In terms of that framing it's worth considering the Turnbull situation where he had been doing bits for the Dev team from 16 but ultimately Robinson was reluctant to chuck him into the starting XI because he wasn't satisfied that he met his demands in terms of "the free stuff". I've said it before but I'd be surprised if Lennon Miller would have been chucked in as he has been were Robinson still here (and that's not a knock on Robinson fwiw) and it's been interesting to see that's one of St Mirren's Academy players f**king off to Wolves now.

We obviously saw it with the likes of McAlear (Norwich) and McKinstry (Leeds) along with many others.

There's been a lot of discourse around Bailey Rice and *choices made* but It's a curious "what if" but in terms of the actual imperative of playing 16 year olds in the first team but again while you'd imagine he'd have seen more first team minutes than he has at Ibrox, hypothetically, "what if" Rice had stuck around at Fir Park along with Miller would we have had both in the first team (to the same extent that we've effectively set about building a team around Miller).

Clearly if you're in the fortunate position of having a handful of elite (for our level) players come through you'd hope that you'd find a way to integrate them but as I say if we're now looking at 16 year olds getting chucked in as opposed to say the 17/18 age range as it was when the likes of Turnbull and Campbell were eventually given their shot then it's a bold manager who makes that call.

I can't remember if it was Craigan or Mo Ross who was talking about the cycles as far as the Development team went and the gist was that it was felt like you were doing well if you managed to transition one or two into first team players from each development group.

But anyway, aye, that pod is an interesting listen...

I think putting players in younger is potentially less risky than it was due to the level of physical development work that's done now. In the past, if you dropped a 16-18 year old in, they tended to look like skinny wee boys and were eaten alive by older pro's - and it doesn't feel like that any more.

I'm sure that being physically strong or having a more athletic build is one of the key things that gets boys through the academy meat grinder to the point that they would even be considered for being on the fringes of the first team. For someone to be a Ryan Gauld type of build now - they would need to on another planet technically to avoid being unceremoniously dumped at a young age.

 

 

[Handsome_Devil]

18 minutes ago, Swello said:

I think putting players in younger is potentially less risky than it was due to the level of physical development work that's done now. In the past, if you dropped a 16-18 year old in, they tended to look like skinny wee boys and were eaten alive by older pro's - and it doesn't feel like that any more.

In the era when we brought through McFadden, Hammell, Clarkson etc, the skinny bodies and baggy shirts gave them all a 'borrowed dad's suit for their first interview' look.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

I got a real bee in my bonnet about the admission age thing and ended up sending Brian Caldwell a lengthy e-mail on it, I'm not sure if he will reply, but I got it off my chest.

I don't personally agree with us all of a sudden turning away kids who previously would have got in, but I can see the reasoning and logic behind his explanations.

The bit which I can't fathom though, is that our chief executive is explaining this in a press release, after we've had FIVE competitive games since the rule was implemented.

I heard of one scenario where a kid went into renew and was aggressively told that he couldn't in the ticket office. For families on tight budgets, it's not just as simple as "alright, I'll go with him then if I have to" when £50 on football then becomes north of £400 on football. That child should never have had to learn this in the ticket office. There should have been letters, e-mails and phone calls. It should have been in a press release in April, not the end of August. It should have been plastered on our season ticket comms. Perhaps, in some cases, a family could have budgeted for the extra spend with advance notice. 

Was there no way that parents of existing season ticket holders could sign a disclaimer? Was there no community trust initiatives which could have been setup to try and keep these kids engaged with Motherwell?

To sum up:

The rule itself - I don't agree with, but can bring myself to understand why.

The way the rule has been implemented - Unprofessional, careless, incompetent and insensitive.

The way the rule was communicated - Utterly pathetic.

[camer0n_mcd]

A 13 year old Motherwell fan could travel 80+ miles to Dundee and go to Tannadice on their own to watch Motherwell but couldn't walk to Fir Park on their own to support their local team. That seems pretty crazy to me. 

[YassinMoutaouakil]

So we're trying to integrate young players earlier and happen to have a load of 14 olds hanging about outside Fir Park? Get them in the first team. 

[Stevie Kirk]

10 minutes ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I got a real bee in my bonnet about the admission age thing and ended up sending Brian Caldwell a lengthy e-mail on it, I'm not sure if he will reply, but I got it off my chest.

I don't personally agree with us all of a sudden turning away kids who previously would have got in, but I can see the reasoning and logic behind his explanations.

The bit which I can't fathom though, is that our chief executive is explaining this in a press release, after we've had FIVE competitive games since the rule was implemented.

I heard of one scenario where a kid went into renew and was aggressively told that he couldn't in the ticket office. For families on tight budgets, it's not just as simple as "alright, I'll go with him then if I have to" when £50 on football then becomes north of £400 on football. That child should never have had to learn this in the ticket office. There should have been letters, e-mails and phone calls. It should have been in a press release in April, not the end of August. It should have been plastered on our season ticket comms. Perhaps, in some cases, a family could have budgeted for the extra spend with advance notice. 

Was there no way that parents of existing season ticket holders could sign a disclaimer? Was there no community trust initiatives which could have been setup to try and keep these kids engaged with Motherwell?

To sum up:

The rule itself - I don't agree with, but can bring myself to understand why.

The way the rule has been implemented - Unprofessional, careless, incompetent and insensitive.

The way the rule was communicated - Utterly pathetic.

Fantastic post - nail on head 

[thisGRAEME]

3 hours 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.

I had, and I may well be miles off here, assumed that the data sharing between police/clubs was part of some sort of club licensing thing. Could be wrong, but just an assumption that it was a 'must' to get it.

2 hours ago, Neil86 said:

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

Brian answered this at the "meet the manager/ceo" event fwiw. While free tickets for kids had ceased, to a degree (I again, assume in part due to this), they're working on getting that replaced with youth groups/youth teams/whoever so you're giving tickets to kids and their guardians to come along, which I think is pretty reasonable?

On the U14 thing? Honestly I've no idea. If you have to draw a line somewhere, I don't envy someone picking what that is.