dennyc

Still no answer to the yes/no questions then. Or at best selective of those you wish to address. In truth, no straight answers to anything that questions the conduct of those you seek to excuse. Just words that clarify nothing and fail to inform. Precursor? Go on then, what exactly? Share and allow people an understanding that will correct their perception and version of those events you insist are overstated.

‘What may have instigated some of these events’. Firstly, ‘ events’ suggest something positive. Like a Wedding or a Concert. What folk are highlighting are incidents that were far from positive. But play them down as you will. Par for the course. Secondly, Are you seriously suggesting that whatever led to these ‘events’ justified the outcomes? That is some stance. And still no Yes or No I notice. Events condemned or not? Comments justified or not? In your opinion.

Clearly it is only justice that any innocent parties were eventually exonerated and questions deserve to be asked about why they ended up being in that position. There are faults and actions to be exposed that put innocent parties through hell. Surely nobody is disagreeing with that. But the incident did take place. So what about those that did cause the damage. Any thoughts on them? Should the focus not be on them as well? And are you prepared to condemn any Motherwell fan that was involved and ask for them to be identified, if they have not been already.

Disappointing that you did not address any of the instances and comments I highlighted. Did they actually happen? If they did, do you support the justifications for playing them down? Yes or no, I’ll respect your view and call it quits but it would be good to know. Another poster to this forum warned me that some folk were not interested in debate, if an opposing view was expressed. Deflection and avoidance would result. Perhaps they were pretty accurate. So as you say, point proven.

Accepting that incidents have taken place is a start at least. Different versions or not the fact is that lines have been crossed and Police/Club are being forced to intervene. How many Police do you imagine will be at Aberdeen? I do get that innocent folk have been unfairly caught up and that is wrong. The sooner that stops the better. As for ‘not many’ denying events. Playing them down as high jinx, or youthful exuberance, or an exaggeration, or justified is tantamount to condoning them. A certain Society Board Member needs to think on that and achieve some perspective. And if you care to check back at previous discussions, I think you were one of a good few who forcefully said I was misinterpreting events when I highlighted the fact that a woman sat a few rows in front of me was abused when she complained about liquid being thrown at SOD when he attempted to take a throw in. Apologies if you were not that poster. But the gist was ‘That did not happen’. And in this thread we have one poster attempting to downplay matters when a fan and his wife were abused, by distinguishing between verbal threats of violence and actual physical violence. Really! I’m pretty sure whichever it was was pretty frightening. Or is one just high jinx and the other of concern? We also have another poster saying that football disorder is part of Society and we just have to accept it. It’s what folk do nowadays. And as we know that to be a fact, we can have no complaint if things kick off at matches we choose to attend. Any trouble I have witnessed has been at away matches, but that same poster confirmed he does not attend away matches that often. Perth was a huge step forward though so I’m hopeful that step forward continues. Look, I enjoy and respect what the Bois can bring to a game. Including the drum and the banners. Not so much the Ninja like face coverings we saw at the Clyde tie though. I certainly do not want to see them boycotting games or being banned. But I detest some of the behaviour (from a minority I am told) which I have personally witnessed inside and outside some grounds. I believe most fans think similarly and try to take a balanced view. But I don’t see much balance from those that appear to defend the Bois no matter what.

Folk acknowledge and support the good things that the Bois bring to games. Long may it continue. Perth last week being a great example of the atmosphere and support they can provide. Drum included. And the community work they have driven through various initiatives over the years. I have not read one poster decrying those contributions. Quite the opposite. But what I do see are a few, no matter what is reported and no matter what people who witnessed incidents say, refusing to acknowledge that the Bois actions at times are over the top and on occasion a throw back to the intimidation and violence of years past. Any mention of the incident in Dundee (which did happen), the trashing of a pub in Kilmarnock (which did happen), the street battle in Kirkcaldy (which did happen) or the threatening of a female Well supporter at Dingwall (which did happen) are met with 'That did not happen' or ' Get the facts straight'. To be clear, I and the people with me witnessed three of those examples, and a mate witnessed the fourth. No-one can deny pyrotechnics are an issue as well. Or does that not happen either? It may well be a small minority who are causing the trouble (I genuinely believe it is) but sadly the whole group then comes under the spotlight. If some have wrongly come to the attention of the Police and the Club have been involved in that, then that is wrong and needs addressed. As a separate issue. The fact the Bois are supported by some who are in complete denial and/or have influence within the Well Society only makes matters less likely to change and provides encouragement to continue the nonsense.. And it's not an age thing either, so let's knock that lie on the head straight up.. Another tactic used to deflect from the fact that there are issues which need sorted. Back to what I understand was an incident free Perth. There was a huge Police presence around the stadium and a large number of Stewards inside. May always be the case at St Johnstone of course, but from memory it was a lot more than usual. Interesting to see what police numbers turn up at Aberdeen. Are Motherwell now High Risk?

I hope you are correct regards Clarke, I don't know anybody who thinks he should have been kept on after Germany. And that includes a good number of the Tartan Army who went over. They have a great time bar the football side of things though so not all bad. I reckon it will get pretty toxic if Poland hit the front. But we are talking the SFA here so unless he walks I expect him to remain in charge.. I'm heading to Tynecastle and delighted Wilson might now feature. A pretty tough team to debut against though. Hope he does himself justice, if selected.

Agree 100%. And his recent interview was an insult to any fan who spent their hard earned cash going to Germany to support Clarke's Old Boys' Club. "I've earned the right to try to get the team to another Tournament". Really? He should have been punted as soon as the final whistle blew at the end of the Hungary embarrassment. We were a laughing stock. An honourable man would have walked. Well done Wilson. Deserves his chance and shocking that he was not included in the original squad. Then again, will Gemmill even know who he is?

I think we all know that no matter the result, no matter the performance, a few on here have made up their mind regards Kettlewell, So rather than praise a victory all we get is silence, or at best grudging acceptance of a decent result qualified by some nit picking nonsense over one or two incidents in the game. Three wins in a row and barely a positive word. Reading the match thread after a game is hilarious at times. Same blinkered approach applies to how Halliday and SOD perform. Anything they contribute is ignored but one misplaced pass and the keyboard lights up. Criticise by all means when justified but how about some balance? SOD was excellent last week and it was noticeable today that our midfield disappeared when Halliday had to go off. I'm not his biggest fan but credit where credit is due. What was pleasing was that both of them got a great reception today when the came over to take throw-ins/corners in front of the Motherwell fans. Changed days. Both have worked hard to improve their fitness and contribution and I think that fans who are prepared to open their eyes have appreciated those efforts. Finally, some praise for the Bois. They were excellent throughout the game today. Did what they are good at and supported the team throughout. The drum even sounded in tune.....ish. And not a hint of trouble from what I witnessed. Even the stewards and the police looked fairly relaxed. A good day all round.

Forgot to add Quote before replying. Comments in response to the following "We are talking about two different things here. I don't think young high schooler are the ones causing bother. As far as the bad behaviour goes I don't really care. It's part and parcel of football in a working class area, it's like going to Spoons and complaining that people are drinking irresponsibly. We all know that going to Motherwell games is a very safe experience and no one was crying out for any of this prior to Caldwell being appointed. " I don't think it matters what age we are talking about. It's about behaviours, respect and common decency. If it is not the youngsters, then fair enough, I accept that. If it's an older set then that almost makes the goings on more questionable. But, yes, if the youngsters are being accused of things they are not guilty of then that is wrong. But from what I have witnessed at games there is a mix of ages involved. As for accepting that the behaviours I described are part of football and should just be written of as life, sorry but that's just nonsense and a cop out. Will you still be saying that when someone you know gets injured? Maybe tell that to the young boy that got hit in the face by a flare at Dunfermline. " Man up son. It's life. You chose to go to the game so live with it" And these things were an issue long time before Caldwell signed up. But it is a good excuse for you to have a go at him and maybe his handling of things could have been better. Maybe it's just that he is the one that is addressing matters whereas others have refused to act. Type in 'Pyrotechnics at Scottish football grounds in Scotland' in Google and read the top article which pops up. Dated May this year I think and covers attending football matches. That maybe gives a clue as to why Clubs are now being forced to intervene. Might explain a lot in fact. Pressure has certainly been applied.

Seems fair enough. I could agree with what you propose and the logic behind it, along with the transparency, which should cut both ways. I do think there has to be a minimum age or else at what age does it become too great a risk....11. 10. 9? But what about the points you did not cover? Those other behaviours....I have witnessed all of them in recent years... and whether bans should cover all grounds, as long as the bans are based on evidence. Or is pyro the only misbehaviour you think merits a ban? And what about proof of age? Is that a compromise worth accepting to show willing? Might even make Stewards' jobs a bit more straightforward. If not, why not.... on both counts?

I don't. But the age limit whatever it is needs to be made uniform. That's the point. I suggested 14 because that's a middle ground that I think most parents and Clubs would be comfortable with. Maybe as a starting point to be reviewed. I really couldn't care less what age it is, make it 12 if you like. That way everyone knows exactly where they stand, every ground has the same rules, and security officers cannot make up rules to suit their own agenda. I thought that was actually what you wanted? But no matter where it is set someone will complain. I know 12 year olds I would have no concerns about but I also know 14 year olds I would not trust to cross the road. A number is only a number, but for clarity it needs to be set and uniform. But what age would you suggest? And do you accept that the Club have the right to ask for proof of age? Like happens at other venues, even the cinema you referred to. Or is that a step too far? More authority to challenge? I did agree with your point re Fire Safety by the way. If this is going to be resolved there needs to be compromise and willing on both sides. There appears to be no acceptance of that from some. Is the issue the rule? Or is the issue Bob Park? On a broader note, I asked you previously if you attended away matches. In response to your comment that you have not witnessed any questionable fan behaviour within Fir Park. You did not answer that one. So I'll give you another question. If a Motherwell fan of any age is found to have taken pyros into a ground, or set them off, or entered the playing area, or abused stewards, or thrown objects onto the pitch do you think they should be banned from all grounds in Scotland? Some folk suggest that if it does not happen within Fir Park it should not affect attending Fir Park. Where do you stand on that one? And how about away fans that do the same at Fir Park.....you can add seat damage to the list. Should they also be allowed to carry on elsewhere, regardless?

Liverpool appear to be 16 minimum as well. Strangely, and I know SPFL and SFA are different entities, The SFA have a ruling that U16s need to be accompanied if attending Internationals and the Scottish Cup Final at Hampden. But can Rangers apply SPFL/their own rules when hosting matches there.? And what rules apply for the League Cup Final which is SPFL run? Perhaps at Hampden SFA rules apply at all times. The whole thing is a minefield. The ruling needs standardised across Scotland, if not the UK. Surely the SPFL/SFA should just issue a uniform rule and take the matter out of Clubs' hands. In my opinion, 14 minimum age for unsupervised attendance makes sens but when did common sense ever come into it? Maybe some good can come out of this whole issue. And can the WS, via Motherwell, ask for it to be put on the Agenda for the next meetings of the Governing bodies? A uniform ruling might then stop individual club security officers interpreting guidance for their own purposes and establish a basis for discussion if matters are not operating smoothly. Meantime I'm off to Perth hoping for a decent atmosphere, plenty of team support and no goings on that break St Johnstone ' house rules'.

The threshold for securing a criminal prosecution and the threshold for a Club issuing a banning order will always be different. And that is only common sense and takes into account various factors..... age of the offender, nature of the offence, repeated offending, public interest, cost etc etc. Evidence can exist that justifies exclusion even if it does not lead to a subsequent prosecution. I could quite easily hurl abuse at McMahon and his pals, and believe me of late I have been very tempted. No doubt I would be ejected and banned. Quite rightly so. But I certainly would not be prosecuted. Not so much at Fir Park, but anybody who attends away matches regularly sees behaviour from Motherwell fans that is unacceptable. Many fans are afraid to comment or intervene for fear of reprisal. What was the phrase used in previous debate on this subject " Snitches get Stitches". Not just pyro stuff but also abuse of stewards and sometimes fellow fans. You can add objects being thrown on to the pitch, the occasional visit to the pitch area and confrontations with opposition fans before or after games. in previous discussions I detailed incidents I have witnessed first hand, only to be shouted down and told those incidents just did not happen. "Nothing to see here". I expect the same response to this post, from the same folk. The Thistle drum incident, which again some say did not happen despite numerous eye witnesses, suggests that matters are escalating despite repeated requests from the Club. Anybody who insists such incidents do not happen is either blind, has an axe to grind or just likes to challenge authority. Maybe all three. There may well be issues regards Bob Park and other Club officials that need addressed. Hopefully they will be. Discussions certainly need to take place quickly. And many people clearly disagree with attempts that have been taken to address anti social behaviour...in football grounds and beyond. But to use either to justify the actions of what we are told is a minority of the Bois is purely an attempt at deflection. And sorry, but to accuse Park and Read of using the latest incidents as a means of gaining revenge after losing the Barmack vote is just farcical. And to try to justify/play down the situation the office staff found themselves in is disgusting. Bottom line is that if behaviour does not improve, arrests and bans will continue. Regrettably some less guilty parties may also suffer. I hope not. We all demanded justice when Celtic and Hibs fans trashed the away end. Not to that extent yet, but is it not hypocritical to excuse our own fans' anti social behaviour? Like everyone on here I enjoy the atmosphere and colour the Bois bring to our games and openly support their charity initiatives and highlighting of teenage suicide concerns. But sadly unless things change it will not be the good they do which will continue to be the focus. Last word on this from me as both sides are clearly entrenched and agreement is not going to happen. How sad is it that, the day after such a fantastic victory and performance, most of the talk is about a group of supporters who have so much to offer if only they were prepared to limit their actions to supporting the club and the community. Then again I can think of one or two or four who just cannot bring themselves to acknowledge how good a performance two players in particular put in. Sad really. On both fronts.

Have you been to any away games?

Oh you're not alone. I think we are all guilty of that from time to time. Makes life interesting.

Different area I think. Beer Garden is round at the side of the away end. Past the official entrance, turn left and follow the yellow brick round as it twists its way round and round.

I too was disappointed at the poor turnout % but I wonder if the 'eligible to vote' figure is a misleading starting point. Making the voting turnout look worse than than it actually was. Quoting 3 or 4k Membership is good PR when building up the WS but has the opposite effect when it comes to voting turnout. I wonder what the turnout % would be if gauged against active Membership? As has been said before there are many reasons for the difference between active and inactive Membership...... out of date contact details, folk who joined on a one off basis such as former players and original sign ups like myself, folk passing away, personal circumstances. Not everyone has become inactive through lack of interest although that will have played a part and needs addressed. A figure for those re-engaging or joining for the first time might be a better indicator? It is something that requires investigating though. I am sure that everyone who took part in discussions would have made the effort to vote. I know for a fact that my little band fired in their nominations.

I'll ask the obvious question then. Given that you seem to have been selective in the photos you chose to post, could you clarify whether you and your pals would have reacted similarly had he posted photos only representing the other side of the divide? And why did you not show those other ones? The answer to those questions might tell us more about you and your mates than it does about Derek.

Fortunately the season does not start in January. So credit to him and all the players for amassing enough points over the full season to secure top six. So not a fluke. Sufficient hard earned points amassed to finish above six others. I would settle for that outcome any season. His time was up for the reasons I highlighted. But if you want to pick and choose partial seasons, why not opt for August to December which would suggest he was one of the top Managers in the League. Of course he wasn't, but it is easy to ignore the positives when you are intent on being negative. For clarity, I detested the football under Alexander even when winning and the enjoyment of securing points in that first half season was obliterated by what we were subjected to disguised as football. I would have happily seen him moved on before season end. He did what was asked of him though which I guess is why he was not binned pre Sligo.

I suffered like most watching us under Alexander. But last I checked you earned your place based on total points won. So to say he fluked top six is just making things up for effect. He got there through his approach, which proved successful until other Managers sussed him out. He earned top six and to say otherwise insults him and our players. Did you celebrate when we achieved top half? I wanted Alexander gone, but based on what I was watching on the pitch and based on his refusal to change things up when needed. His time was up. Football had become a chore and matches were attended through loyalty rather than anticipation. But he did achieve results for a while. I agree re Robinson though.

Fair enough. No worries.

I understand Callachan had not played for 18 months due to serious injury. And here we are, he is injured yet again. The first time he takes to the field in earnest. Are we surprised he is injured again? Is it just bad luck? Halliday was injured for much of his later time at Hearts and at Rangers. He did little to provide encouragement in his loan spell with us and looked far from fit. Well off the pace. He needed game time we were told. After a full pre season and regular game time how do you think he is performing and does he look fit to you? Is he just unlucky? Nicholson at least provided some hope during his loan/trial period despite injuries which had sidelined him for a lengthy spell. So I can understand his signing. More bad luck though? My point is about minimising risk when signing players and thus giving a greater chance of success. Giving that bad luck less of a chance. Following Spittal's departure and knowing that Slattery would be absent for several months I think it was reckless to bring in three midfielders each with serious injury concerns and with little or no game time amongst them. Risk was not minimised. And so we are now relying on a 17 year old to save the day. And will likely have to use a good deal of the Bair money to shore things up. Maybe SK has just been unlucky as you suggest (Paton injury being an example). But he has previous with regard to injury punts not working out. I hoped he was learning from previous experiences but the signs so far are hardly encouraging. Setting the midfield aside, there are other new recruits with injury concerns. More bad luck? Genuine question. Can you name me any player with a poor injury record immediately prior to joining us that Kettlewell has turned into a success? I am seriously struggling to come up with one. But several failures spring to mind. Basically, I think SK and Motherwell need to have a close look at the signing strategy. Perhaps the desire to get deals done early doors has been more of a driver than it should have been. And resulted in too many risks being taken.

As you say, every player we sign is a gamble. But how many of those you correctly list as successes were signed by Kettlewell? It is his record I am questioning. That is the present and, of those with a poor injury record, I am struggling to find a success. Quite the opposite. As for Halliday, he has the experience you mention but how would you rate his loan spell with us? Was it good enough to justify the cost of a permanent contract? Based on actual contribution with us and not history at other clubs. By your reckoning, perhaps we should be considering an offer to Ryan Jack. Nicholson showed some promise but was also anonymous at times. Aberdeen away as an example. But I could understand taking a gamble on him alone, but not all three. For me that was reckless. So we agree re Nicholson and Callachan I think. But not regards our Manager and his signing record/policy. Let's see how all three work out.

No doubt Spittal is a factor. A huge one. Slattery also but less so as his absence should have been planned for. But SK opted to play the injury lottery....times three. Halliday. Callachan and Nicholson. Nobody can deny that, surely? Four times if you take into account he knew Slattery was possibly out for several months after season start.With at least one of the three doing nothing in a lengthy loan period to justify a permanent contract. I think it was a farcical strategy. Take a punt on one maybe, but all three? And I'm still struggling to come up with an injury gamble SK has taken that worked out. His track record on that front is hopeless. I hope the CEO has had a word in his ear, but I doubt it.