Pepper

It was going quite well until Billy Dodds continued to peddle he myth that Kettlewell resigned because of abuse aimed at his family. Derek Ferguson also seems to think it must have been abuse from well fans located in the main stand, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Neither statement challenged. At least the message that whatever it was must have been from a minority of fans (as absolutely no one knows what the abuse actually entailed) is finally being addressed.

I agree with the sentiment of your posts, even if not all of the points you make, Apologies if I have played the man and not the ball in an earlier reply. There is definitely a discussion to be had regarding what is considered to be an acceptable level of abuse in football, not only abuse directed at managers and players from fans, but from managers and players towards officials, and that extends across all levels of the game. In all honesty, I'm a bit bewildered by the whole sorry episode.

None of this is new though. You'd be forgiven for thinking we were the first fans in history to give their manager stick. Just so we are clear, and it goes without saying, any fan who was personally abusing Kettlewell is an arsehole. Ii don't get the double standards comment, these are not the same things.

The general consensus seems to be that he received the same or lesser levels of abuse than others have in the past. I don't think there is any merit in that debate anyway as there are obviously things we will never know. Thee has got to be more to this for to merit the sort of reaction we are seeing, almost entirely across he board. I suspect we may never find out.

I could have put my mortgage on you giving me your resume... Yes I think that post was absolutely fine. The vast majority of the support are quite right to be offended, as they have done absolutely nothing wrong. The way the broader support is being portrayed, regardless of what abuse was actually directed at Kettlewell, is disgraceful. The club statement, society statement, sky interviews and the latest twitter video from the club are a PR disaster. I have no problem with anyone offering Kettkewell support and questioning a victims lived experience is just not tolerated these days, but there must have been a better way to do it that this. How to alienate your fans in 3 easy steps.

I assume you are new to both football and the internet?

Tony?

Comically bad stuff.

Halliday's hand ball was, going by the current rules, a stone waller.

I don't seem to recall accusing you of being a tyrant. But it's convenient you don't have access to the records for the thread I'm on about. It stuck out to me as I enquired about why it was closed on another thread and was told he had left so we were not to discuss him, despite there being a former players thread where similar former employees are dicussed at length and he'd only just left. It was obvious why it was really locked and I wasn't the only one to comment. So it seems it's not only the Bois who have trouble admitting when they are wrong.

The Robinson thread is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Your pal was getting it tight so you decided that was that, discussion over, which was baffling given it was practicality the only thing posters wanted to discuss at the time and the forum was otherwise dead. Around the time of the P & B mass exodus if I remember correctly. Back on topic - to be clear - I think it would be an absolute travesty if the Bois group were to be lost to the Club, wider fans, and the community. Far from sneering, I have lot of respect for what they have achieved, but, sometimes blunt criticism is deserved and is actually very necessary. They seem to have lost all sense of self policing that was evident in the past and have crossed the line on one too many occasions. The first thing is admitting when that happens. The lack of self awareness, and the "we are the victim" narrative gives me the boak. As much as us "outsiders" might be criticised for not being in the know, there are clearly some who are so close that they can't, or simply will not, see the wood for the trees. Support the team and don't act like wee dicks, it's not that difficult.

You have form for closing threads on topics that you no longer deemed fit for discussion even when there was an appetite on the forum to continue the conversation. Why? Because the viewpoints bejng expressed didn't match your own. I can see this going the same way.

David and The Riddler talking nonsense again. At least we're still allowed to debate this topic, that's a change for you David when the debate isn't going the way you would like. I've given the Bois as a group plenty of praise in the past and acknowledged all of the good things they do. In fact I've yet to see one person who has offered criticism that hasn't. However, the narrative that the group is trying to push that they are some sort of hard done by innocents is simply not true.

I thought football fans didn't want to be treated differently to everyone else? Is that not the main reason The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act was repealed? I love the idea that they are now claiming they weren't boycotting the Hearts game only their usual section. Hilarious. Noone is going to take anything they say seriously until they at least acknowledge the have as a group made mistakes and behaved poorly. You can do all the food drive an bucket collection you want but people aren't daft, more than enough have seen first hand their behaviour to judge them accordingly. Well Bhois - they did that one to themselves!

Get it up the doubters

I understand, and agree, with all of what you say. It almost makes me think the end game was always to get rid of the society, one way or another.

I have the fear a large section of the society membership have never really believed in fan ownership and have at best viewed it as a stop gap until something, anything, better came along. Given three members of the society board voted for this, coud their views be more representative of the wider membership than we want to admit? I've had this concern from the minute the society voted to hear the proposal. Now we have the potential of this whole thing turning in to a unmitigated disaster no matter what way the vote goes - it should never have got this far.

It's literally mentioned in his statement!

"We have always seen the WS money as an insurance policy against a major downturn in our finances" There's half the problem right there. A broadcaster recently approached us about a docuseries on the club that could open considerable commercial opportunities. So this revolutionary form of investment is exactly as we suspected - trying to do a Wrexham. GET THIS IN THE SEA.

I agree with an awful lot of what you say. I think the Society has maybe been complacent, to put it politely. However, I'm mindful that they have been operating during extremely challenging times of late and I'm not about to start criticising those who have volunteered their time and unquestionably give their all to the cause. That doesn't mean, however, those with some fresh ideas could't provide some much needed impetuous and from what I'm reading signs are very encouraging. Regarding the discussion I don't see much wrong with what has been posted in this thread and there are more than two sides to this story. I do agree however it looks like it is set to become a polarising issue and that's no good for anyone.

That's not what I actually said though. I'm not even disputing the fact that it is going to be challenging for the Society to raise investment.

The point I'm making is that the Society, at the very least, should have been given the chance to raise that investment whatever form it may take, without being undermined by those running the Club.

Yeah, which makes the decision to effectively pit the Society's proposal against an outside investor's proposal even more bizarre.

If those in charge of the Club are so in favour of retaining fan ownership why did they effectively cut the Society out by seeking direct outside investment that would likely require the Society to relinquish majority control? The suggestion that any investor is not going to want full control is laughable. Why have the Society vote othereise? Speculation or not do people really need to have it spelt out to see what's in the pipeline? IMO the Chief Exec and Chairman should have shown the Society as majority shareholder more respect and at least challenged those involved to attract additional investment and up funds. The freshening up of the Society board gives me a lot of confidence that they are more than capable of achieving something very positive. The timing of the whole thing is awful and has almost set the Society up to fail. I think it is lost on a awful lot of people just how significant majority fan ownership is and how it was a once in lifetime of the Club occurrence. Giving that up for anything short of a truly spectacular level of investment is crazy.

Deserved