dennyc

No need to get that vest out. What you say is reality. Regards Business involvement with Motherwell FC........ When L Dempster first unveiled the aspiration of Fan Ownership, there was a fair amount of discussion about Corporate Membership of the Well Society. At that time there was a realisation that our fan numbers would struggle to support a fan ownership model long term and so Corporate investment was essential. There has been a fair bit of publicity about Society numbers reaching 3500, but nowhere have I heard about any local business coming on board. The economic climate and CoVid haven't helped but does anyone know if we have any Corporate Members and how much income that generates each month? In a recent discussion, David highlighted Bodo Glimt as a similar sized Club to ourselves who could teach us a few things about structure and the use of analytics. Certainly food for thought and got me looking more closely at the set up in Norway. From what I gather (and David can keep me right here?), the Norwegian model is that all Clubs must be owned by their Membership. Fan ownership if you like. And an attempt to protect Clubs from being bankrupted by egotists with no knowledge of football. But having moved to that arrangement some years ago it quickly became evident that many clubs, including BG, were struggling due to lack of resources. Just like Motherwell. So a form of Business Partnership was allowed whereby Businesses could purchase/fund non football aspects of a Club. Bodo Glimt now have a number of Business partners, including a major Norwegian Bank, who contribute to the Club without having input to, or ownership of, football operations. The arrangement has been a huge success at BG and they have gone from strength to strength boosted by that essential finance and coupled with a Board willing to adopt modern practices. European success has just added to their growth which last season included TV income of over £7m. We can only dream. I agree with El Grew, if we continue as we are I think that ongoing decline in quality will only take us in one direction. Just compare our squad season on season. The occasional Turnbull like sale or KVV magic season may delay that decline, but it is a risky strategy. Other Clubs have suffered similarly regards finances, but without the burden of fan ownership they have been assisted by overseas investment or rescued by their sugar daddy.

Rice, McAlear and McKinstrey were youth players who brought in a total in excess of £1m between them in agreed fees and add ons in lieu of Development Fees. So to say they left us for nothing is just not correct. Campbell and Cadden were established first team players who gave Motherwell a good number of years, served us well and then left under freedom of contract. In the same way that we recruited out of contract players from other teams. Some of whom went on to earn us a pretty penny. Some you win, some you lose. Nowhere did I say that you ever suggested we had similar funds to spend as Brighton. What is weird is that you continue to ignore the fact that the level of each clubs finances means the probability of success in the transfer market for Brighton is greater than it is at Motherwell. Also Brighton can afford to get it wrong. You get what you can afford to pay for and sadly what we can afford is Bair, Shaw etc. So the risk of failure is increased. Brighton at least can buy players with a decent track record. How we have arrived at that financial situation is a whole different conversation. Our risk of failure in the transfer market will always be far greater than any club that can afford to pay millions. I agree that means we need to be smarter in our selections but yet again that lack of finances affects the quality of resource we can allocate to analytical research. So comparing us to Brighton ( or any established EPL Club) is nonsense. Much of what you suggest makes sense in a perfect world. But please tell me how Motherwell would fund the changes and expansion which might certainly be of benefit long term.

I think there are certainly areas where we could be smarter. That is the case no matter which Club you look at. And, yes, there are comparisons that can be made to Brighton but only in respect of their "weight" in the Division they are in. Purely on a financial basis, the level at which they can enter the recruitment market (players and staff) is way above the level at which we can. So although they cannot compete with the Chelsea's and Man City's of this world, they are still operating in a different world to us. And the level they operate at makes the possibility of recruitment success more likely and the impact of failure less ruinous. In short, in the market we operate in, the chance of failure is much more likely and the financial impact of any failure is greatly magnified. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel when we take a punt on Bair. Brighton are scraping the bottom of their barrel when they take a £5m punt on some unknown South American youngster. Regarding youngsters being allowed to leave, if giants such as Chelsea, Man City, Rangers, Celtic cannot retain star prospects due to riches/attractions on offer elsewhere, then it is a bit naive to expect Motherwell to be the exception. There comes a time when it would be madness for a youngster to sit tight. These players might be Motherwell fans, but first and foremost they are professionals with a career to manage. And would any of us refuse a tenfold wage increase (minimum)? I actually think we do pretty well regards income from youth development. I would prefer the kids to stay but that is just not realistic The Board were also very open. As a fan owned Club we must complete at least one decent player sale a season to compete at our current level. With top ups from youth sales as required. If either does not happen, then Budgets will be cut and as a result squad quality will reduce. Every one of the Managers who has left in recent years hit that exact barrier, with the most scary thing being that each time the timescale reduced. Not saying those Managers did not have faults, but the quality reduction did for them. Everything comes down to finance at the end of the day. Unlike Brighton, we cannot afford to make mistakes.

I’m all for having safe standing areas for those fans that prefer that type of match day experience. I can see why it appeals and certainly worth Clubs seeking permission. Especially if it brings in the next generation of fans. That said, I read that Celtic are considering cutting back on their area. Not because fans don’t appreciate it, in fact most fans want it extended, but because of the goings on of the Green Brigade. Given an inch, taking a mile. So again the actions of a few impacting on the enjoyment of the majority. I think any Club can seek approval from Local Authority, Football Authorities and Police. Each application looked at on its own merits. If a standing area can be safely accommodated then why not if there is a demand?

Notice issued by the Scottish Govt in June 2022. Seems perfectly clear although whether it is practical and how the Clubs, Football Authorities and Police enforce the regulations is another matter. in public places Firework control zones Fireworks and pyrotechnics in public places Extra measures to prevent the misuse of fireworks and pyrotechnics in public places including sporting and live music events have come into force. This is to help protect public safety. Unless you have a ‘reasonable excuse’ or are exempt, it is against the law to have: any firework or pyrotechnic other than category 1 fireworks (for example party poppers, novelty crackers and sparklers) in any public place including the street and parks any firework (including category 1) or pyrotechnic, such as handheld flares, at sport and live music events in venues that can hold 1000 or more people It is already a criminal offence to take or try to take a pyrotechnic into football matches.

Do you condone last night's pyros or not? It is a fairly simple question. Yes or No? If you do then fair enough. I am perfectly aware they have become common practice at matches and so far little or no action has been taken. Do you accept that such unauthorised, uncontrolled displays are against the Law because they can be a health hazard/cause injury? As you suggest, there may be scope for more controlled displays as happens in other sports. But that is a separate discussion which may provide a balanced solution.. Eventually the authorities will take a stance, and it's likely some wee club like Motherwell will be sanctioned rather than the big boys. Even using the excuse that effective, preventative measures were not put in place by a Club. As I said, maybe that's why the Board issued a statement. Acting in the best interests of the Club as the are obliged to do. But you never addressed that possibility either? The Bois bring plenty of noise, support and colour to games. Do they really need to add displays such as last night? To be clear, I don't think they have a place on the terraces irrespective of whether they are organised by The Bois, Green Brigade, Union Bears or any individual.

So do you condone it? Even if ultimately it were to cost the club a fine or points deduction? Have you ever considered that the Club might have issued the statement to protect themselves if the authorities were to get involved,?

Everybody agrees the rule is nonsense in that if the ball had fallen to a team mate it would have been a valid goal. But if the ball had not hit Wilkinson's arm then the defender's touch would have cleared the ball. So, yes, Wilkinson as the goal scorer did gain an advantage which is clear from the BBC highlights. Whether he would have gained the same advantage if the ball had hit his chest or knee is irrelevant. And the part of the arm that touched the ball was not down by his side, natural or not. Wilkinson did not protest, even half heartedly. That's usually a clue. We lost out to the decision, just as we lost out against Ross County when they scored. But sadly both decisions were correct and VAR applied the laws as they stand.

McCrorie is a good goalkeeper and in my opinion better than either Kelly or Clarke. Unfortunately for him he is second choice behind Rangers best player. I'd have him at Motherwell in a heartbeat. Same applies to Shankland and why he is not in the Scotland squad is beyond me. He has been the only Hearts player to show any consistency this season, which is perhaps why he is club captain. Instead Clarke continues with Jacob Brown who has not featured in a League game for Luton this season and who averaged six goals in the Championship for Stoke over 5 seasons.

They tried something similar in the World Cup but more or less abandoned it in the knock out stages. Poor wee souls were knackered having to play an extra 20/25 minutes on average. At knock out stage the possibility of two halves of extra time could have resulted in even more game time. Then penalties. So common sense prevailed to a degree. And in England they have quietly cut back on added time compared to the start of the season. At least it feels that way. But something does need to be done. Maybe a mix of controls. How about an independent timekeeper recording time lost at a goal, VAR check, Red Card, Subs and injury stoppages where a trainer is needed. Take that time keeping away from the referee to ensure accuracy. Let the Referee continue to manage time wasting on the park, but with no leeway given whatsoever for delaying tactics at free kicks, throw ins and goal kicks. The independent timekeeper effectively decides add on time. Once it becomes the norm for ALL referees to issue yellow cards the time wasting will stop. Even Craig Gordan and Liam Kelly would soon get the message. Of course the referees would require to be monitored to ensure consistency which is another matter. But in reality nothing will be done.

Yeah, Celtic must be at the stage where UEFA will be considering partial or full ground closure as a more effective sanction. Certainly hit them harder financially than token fines that are probably covered by programme sales anyway. And we all know how Celtic like to look after the pennies. Also, it took the GB storming the gates at Celtic Park as per Fir Park to have any sort of home ban and threat of permanent exclusion introduced. I note the comment to the effect of ' The safety of all Celtic fans is paramount'. No mention of the safety of opposing fans, stewards or police. Banning them from away games was an easy step, with no financial impact on Celtic whatsoever. And even if season tickets are eventually cancelled as opposed to suspended, there are plenty of other fans ready to step in. So again, little or no financial impact on Celtic. So I agree, only the threat of ground closure, exclusion from tournaments or a points deduction will force Celtic to act responsibly. The GB have been causing havoc for years and in the past Celtic have been happy to pay up re damage on the understanding incidents stay low profile. Maybe they should also remind Brendan that it is not that clever to be seen to be defending those fans who are tarnishing the name of his employers.

Agree totally. Add to that the fact that it is costing Clubs a fortune, only to be left even more confused and angry than they were before VAR was introduced. Those costs are only going to increase. From a fan perspective, the uncertainty it brings is spoiling what is meant to be spontaneous celebration. Communication was a farce yesterday. I think the Premier League in England are into year 4 and the errors there are becoming worse and more frequent. So don't expect any improvement up here either. Referees all make errors. But it is actually worse when the VAR officials are the ones making errors, despite having resources and time not available to referees. And if referees and VAR officials agree, why is there a need for an appeals process. More cash down the drain. That alone suggests the powers that be expect their employees to get it horribly wrong.

The hand ball issue was fully highlighted after Scotland beat Israel at Hampden when Israel scored after the ball clearly hit an Israeli arm and then fell to a colleague who netted There was no intent to handle the ball and the handler did not score. So, crazy that the Law is, it was a perfectly valid goal. Given after a VAR check. If the handler had deliberately pushed the ball to his colleague using his hand then the goal would not have been awarded. Yesterday was the exact same. The ball only hit the arm after a ricochet and was not deliberate. The ball then fell to a team mate and eventually a different County player scored. Whether accidental or not, if the handler had scored then the goal would have been ruled out. Also under current rules, if the ball breaks off your body and strikes your arm then it should not regarded as a foul, unless you score directly. The whole thing is a shambles and needs simplified. In trying to do that IFAB only confused matters further. On Friday Spurs conceded a goal. given after VAR spent 5 minutes trying to establish whether the goal scorer had touched the ball with his arm, accidental or not did not come into it. VAR could not confirm one way or another whether the player had armed the ball and so went with the on field decision of a goal. Had VAR been convinced of a hand ball the goal would have been denied. VAR later confirmed that was the discussion. Where confusion arises is that a (very) few referees apply common sense depending upon the outcome and so award a foul. I guess they just go by whether a team gained an advantage rather than a specific individual. Understandably fans, me included, react to a hand ball, looking to the positioning of the arm because that is always spoken about,. Sadly, for me, VAR and the referee got the decision correct yesterday. What surprised me was that our Manager clearly did not know the current interpretation. He did appear to accept the explanation the referee gave him though. Now whether our wonderful referees and VAR officials will consistently apply that Law is by no means certain. Particularly if Celtic and Rodgers would be disadvantaged.

4. Don't anticipate the ball breaking in your direction 5. When a player out wide is about to cut the ball back, make sure you are nowhere to be seen 6. Never make a front post run 7. Don't expect to be the first subbed off, no matter how little you contribute.

Agree totally. Bowie at U21 Level looking like the real deal so maybe some striker hope for the future there. But he likely needs a bit more time to develop and learn his trade, although he seems to be a quick learner. His winner v Malta was a smart finish. Came through the SFA programme in Fife, then Raith Rovers before heading South. Maybe the system does work from time to time. Don't know if it ever happens, but I wonder if any of the outstanding prospects at U21 level get to train with the full squad if there is no game at their own level. Bowie, Doak and Johnson spring to mind. Might help with their eventual transition to the main squad. But, yes. There certainly are positives looking forward.

So quite a few more than some would have us believe. I actually agree with you re Grandparents. But until the qualification rules are altered, then Clarke is within his rights to explore that route. I forgot about Porteous. Other FIFA/UEFA agreed ways to qualify which many folk will find hard to accept is through a minimum residency period and/or spending a required number of years in our School system. I believe Islam Feruz (Celtic/Chelsea), a Somalian refugee featured at several age group levels, and, but for a home nations agreement, Tavernier of Rangers also qualifies. Not saying I agree with either, but in years to come I think there will be players coming through those routes. Just to clarify...Kieran Tierney was born in the Isle of Man and Max Johnson was born in Middlesbrough. To Scottish parents. So Scottish in my eyes, but not everybody sees it that way it seems.

Some truth in that and I share your concern regarding the apparent low numbers of emerging Scottish youth in Scotland/England's top Leagues. But your picture dismisses those youngsters that were born outside of Scotland but qualified for Scotland through having at least one Scottish parent. So the "grannie" comment is a bit misleading. If you look to those who qualify via parents, then Tierney, McTominay, Gunn, Brown, Dykes and, closer to home, Max Johnston should be regarded as having successfully come through youth systems. Both here and elsewhere. Or do you think having Scottish parents is not enough to be regarded as "Scottish" youth? Hickey, Hendry, Patterson, Gilmour and Ferguson are products of the Scottish youth system and comparatively recent additions to the squad.. You can add McGregor, Robertson, Armstrong, Christie, McLean, Souttar, Kelly and Clark if you care to go back further. All in the current squad. And the McCrorie brothers who may yet break through to the Senior Scottish side. Might not be France or England quality but more than good enough for a place in our squad in their prime. And looking at the U21s, the two players who posters on here thought excelled in the last few days were Ben Doak and Kieran Bowie. Both born in Scotland and progressing well through English youth set ups. So, again, the Grannie reference does not apply. There are likely more from that U21 team but I cannot be bothered checking. We can always do with more talent coming through, preferably Scottish born and bred, but there has been a good few in recent years and I don't believe the situation is anywhere near as dire as you suggest. And if Clarke delves deeper to find those who qualify via grandparents, then good luck to him. He would be negligent to ignore any legitimate source open to him. Off the top of my head, only Cooper and Adams are grand parent additions currently. Hardly the majority. The problem might be getting the Manager to ease out senior players to allow scope for youngsters to be introduced.

If Kelly wanted test the market as a free agent, which would be sensible, he could agree to extend his existing contract to mid July including an agreement that he gets a cut of any Euro bonus we receive. That way he gets the best of both worlds and Motherwell would also benefit if he is selected. Did we not have such an arrangement with Gallagher covering the last Euros? But that might not be required even if Kelly is OOC. Not sure if the same applies under UEFA criteria and so for the Euros, but for World Cup squad players a payment is made by FIFA to the club(s) who held a player's registration for the two years prior to his country being eliminated from the finals tournament. If that criteria applies this summer, then we are well placed. And we would also be due a cut if Max Johnson made the squad.

McAllister - Too nice a guy Muscat - Thug but a decent record as a Manager Davies - Would argue with his shadow and always falls out with Board and players. There is a reason he has been unemployed for so long. Would cause havoc. So clearly Davies is the man.

Agree 100%. With the ability in our midfield hopefully Bair can win enough ball to provide them with some decent chances. Sadly, on that pitch, Livi have shown that getting the ball forward quickly and long is pretty effective. Not pretty, but effective. Don't think I have ever seen a decent game of football break out on that surface.

There’s not really any debate about Bair though, is there? Everybody agrees with just about everything you have posted. From his previous record, to the fact his signing made no sense, to the fact he would not be anywhere near first choice had anyone else been available or showed any ability to score goals. You have more than justified your criticism and backed it up. If you care to scroll back you will see that, when he signed, I agreed with your concerns. I still do, although I acknowledge what he does add to the team in the absence of a better option. But having expressed your views my point is that you appear unable to let it go until such time as the situation resolves itself one way or another. And that is Steelboy like. So, no, my observation was not “a lazy attempt at shutting down debate”. It was a way of saying that there is no debate and repeating those concerns time and time again is pointless. Again, nobody really disagrees with you. So you are debating with yourself. But ok, as far as Bair is concerned, unless the situation changes I’ll keep on scrolling.

I thought Steelboy was the one on this site that became obsessed with certain players. Bair appears to be your SOD or Spittal. Not quite Burrows, but getting there. Most of the time you are debating with yourself as everybody...including me....agrees with what you say. Perfectly valid comments and questioning of a risky signing policy. If I am wrong, point me towards anybody who has stated that Bair as a striker is up to the standard we require. Or even that we should have signed him in the first place......project or not. Being realistic, going on about Bair's lack of goals or his signing is going to change absolutely nothing right now. Taking into account our injury issues, the below par performance of our other strikers on admittedly limited game time, the fact our best young prospect is far from first team ready and finally the formation our Manager seems to prefer. The same formation he adopted last season. So not one introduced solely to counter this season's challenges. Every single Motherwell fan would gladly swap Bair for a regular goal scorer or welcome a structure that could facilitate a proven goal scorer being played alongside him. If either Shaw or Wilkinson is that striker then I trust Kettlewell to alter things. But nothing I have seen so far suggests that either of those players is the solution. Shaw's attempts against St Mirren and Rangers were poor and cost us points. What would you be saying if Bair had missed those chances? Wilkinson looks to have some decent ability but has no pace and dithers on the ball looking to get a shot away. He himself has said he is not a target man, despite his height. I sincerely hope my assessment of both players is wrong as all I really want is my team to win games. No matter who scores. Biereth might have been the player to replace Bair but Charles Dunne robbed us of that option for now. One thing was perfectly clear on Saturday, we were a better unit with Bair on the park than we were with Shaw and Wilkinson contributing the sum total of zero when they came on. At a time in the game when others were finding it tough to keep going I expected a bit more effort and support from both.

Don't think anybody disagrees with that. Lack of a cutting edge aside, were you encouraged by our general play over both games? And our ability to compete with teams whose budget and player quality is far ahead of what we possess. And the performance of our midfield and the often slated central defence, Rangers booed off the field despite defeating us and the obvious relief from Celtic players and fans yesterday suggests we are not the walkover we have often been. Obviously the results are extremely frustrating and questions over our forward recruitment are valid, but it looks to me like we are making solid progress in many areas.

So who would you play instead of Bair at the moment? Both Shaw and Wilkinson were pathetic when they came on and, as a result of them being unable to hold the ball or link up play, our defence and midfield were given less respite than with Bair on the pitch. As for their efforts to close down opponents? Non existent. With those two on the pitch, we had eight outfield players running their arses off while that pair strolled around without a care in the world. Bair is not a goal scorer and signing him seemed nonsensical to me. As stated endlessly on here. we are crying out for any sort of goal scorer to benefit from our general play. But on yesterdays evidence Bair contributed far more than those other two were willing to do. It's not just about ability. And if anyone is not encouraged by our performances against both Rangers and Celtic, then that is because they are determined not to be and are unwilling to acknowledge progress. Of course points are important. Nobody thinks any differently. But compared to the hidings we have suffered from both of them over recent years, yesterday and last week were a huge step forward.

I think this is what most fans would prefer. Sadly they are soon to move even further away from your proposal and go further down the route that ensures the "big" teams are guaranteed even more lucrative ties. And multiple chances to continue playing at some level if they blow it early doors. On the pretext of diminishing the threat that a European Super League proposal will raise it's head again.