dennyc

I accept that our fans can be impatient, but in my opinion they would a lot more patient with a youngster like Watt than they currently are with the dross which has featured at right back this season. As an example re youngsters, Thomas makes plenty of mistakes when he comes on and the fans don't get on his back. Law gets abuse the moment he steps on the park. Laing was just rank rotten and looked lost in an unfamiliar position. Most fans round me were disappointed Watt was not first choice at the beginning of the season and are keen for him to come in ASAP. Quite a few go along to the Under 20s and say he is a standout when selected. I honestly believe he is our best prospect (hate that word) and needs to be tested to progress. If not given his chance very soon, there is a danger he will go the way of McHugh and the like. More importantly, we must get the right back position sorted.

Only pre season I know, but Watt looked far and away the best right back we have. Able to control a ball, tackle, could beat an opponent One on one going forward and did not get ruffled. Compare that to Law and the nightmare that Laing dished up. Time to give him a chance or else what is the point. Maybe if he had not gone battling on a night out he would have been in already. Oh, nearly forgot, he can also shoot which is a novelty in this team

As a well intended suggestion - If you want to effect change, first get your own fans and Club on board, then other fans and other football clubs, then the media, then the Football authorities and then (dare I say it) the Police. Only then will the politicians listen when you approach them. It will be a long, frustrating journey but worth it in the end. You could start by asking fans to sign a petition at our home games. Like minded fans of other teams could do the same. I'm sure most would be happy to support a carefully worded statement. Gather enough names and present that to MFC to open discussions and secure their support. And so on and so on up the line. If you have already tried petitioning at Home games, then I must have missed it. The action you are taking at present only alienates those whose support you require to be successful. It also gives the Media a chance to distort your intentions and provides Politicians with validation for the Bill.

Had not seen any of the newspaper reports regarding the protest so just had a quick search online. Sadly, the impression given in the three examples I read is that the Celtic fans (supported by supporters of Motherwell) were demonstrating against a Bill trying to eradicate Bigotry from football. I know that is not an accurate description and doesn't tell the true picture, but many people reading the articles will get entirely the wrong impression of The Bois' intention. I did not see any mention of over enthusiastic stewarding/policing or criminalisation of people for very minor offences. Nor did I see any explanatory comments from a Bois' representative. You are not going to get a fair hearing from the Media following such a protest and in fact I fear your justifiable cause may have been damaged. As for everyone talking about it. On this Forum I would suggest most people are talking about your bed partners rather than the particular complaints you wanted to highlight. In fact, most posters are already aware of the way fans are treated and witness it week on week. Also, you may well have given the Authorities more ammunition to use against you. Genuine causes for complaint. But I fear the demonstration did more harm than good on several fronts. I also get the horrible feeling you guys have been "used".

Dee, Most fans of all teams...certainly those who attend games on a regular basis...would agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say. The heavy hands stuff is spot on and the actions of some stewards and some police at some clubs are excessive. So by all means highlight that fact. However, the Legislation itself was not brought in to stop you guys banging your drum or supporting your team through thick and thin. The legislation was brought into being to specifically address the vile behaviour of groups such as The Green Brigade. You are protesting against the same legislation but with a different end picture in mind. By all means join forces with right thinking fans of other clubs, but please do not associate The Bois name and that of Motherwell Football Club with such a poisonous group.

By all means protest against the legislation if you feel justified. But let's not pretend that The Green Brigade are driven by the same good intended motives as The Bois. The Green Brigade wish to be allowed to legally display their vile, sectarian banners and to openly celebrate murderers and terrorists. By standing beside them the Bois will be looked upon by many as supporting their cause. And in direct answer to your comment, It's not odd at all. it's just that most folk who know anything about football in Scotland know exactly what the Green Brigade are all about.

Accepting that it was not the intention, standing side by side with The Green Brigade gave the impression that the Bois support that groups right to display vile, offensive banners, chant repugnant songs and generally cause havoc at away grounds. Someone compared today to an own goal. Spot on. Not intended but still a self inflicted wound. The legislation was brought in because all is not as it should be and unfortunately lesser legislation has proved ineffective, particularly in the west of Scotland. Just maybe it's not the Law which is wrong, but the over zealousness of Police/Stewards to enforce it coupled with a determination of some fans from various clubs to challenge it. Without The Bois, Fir Park would often be a soulless, depressing place for our team to perform in. I fear that if the present trend continues then their absence is inevitable.

24.1.76 Scottish Cup Motherwell 3 Celtic 2. Come back from two down at half time with Willie P streaking away and battering in the winner right in front of us. No segregation so surrounded by Celtic fans. So fed up at Half Time that we downed our substantial carry out before the start of the second half. From what I can remember I really enjoyed that 45 minutes and being in their midst just made it all the sweeter. God knows how we got out alive. Think they had cuffed us at Fir Park a few weeks earlier so we had been written off. Reading other posts, I can remember most of the games and in truth any one of them would make my list. Privilaged.

Quite honestly I don't think any official of Club or Society does anything without Les Hutchison's say so. No hard proof, just a nagging doubt. With the football club I can almost understand it being the case, but no way should it be the same with the Society. Somebody from the Society please prove I am wrong

John Boyle still has a Charge as it would seem he is still owed £350k. It also appears that in June of this year the Club and the Society between them could not cobble together £40k to meet payments due to Messrs Hutchison and Boyle in reduction of the Loans secured by Fir Park. The Standard Security was registered in January 2015 and there does not appear to have been any change since.

Andy, I get where you're coming from but this is the where doubt lingers regarding ongoing donations. Your assumption is a big one. When considering starting up my £10 payments, one of the concerns I raised a month ago was about this very aspect. I asked for clarification regarding... 1 What is the Current Balance of WS monies. 2. How much has been ingathered in total. 3 How much has been provided to MFC and how much has been repaid to date. To date I have received no answer which worries me as the figures should be readily to hand and should surely be open to Members. Formal Accounts are only available up to June 2014 and as such provide no clarity regarding the ongoing position. If funds have been provided to assist Cash Flow, then well and good. But is it still the intention that these loans are to be repaid ASAP? That question also remains unanswered and the change to the Society objectives confuses matters further. It must be remembered that the responsibility of the Society Board Members should first of all be to the fans and NOT the Football Club and/or Les Hutchison. The more that basic questions remain unanswered the more it seems that there is a blurring of the lines. To stimulate take up of Membership I just cannot understand why the Society Chairman will not publically address all the concerns raised by fans with the best interest of the Society and Football Club at heart. A month ago I was told plans were in hand for a meeting within two weeks to publically address whatever issues Members wished to raise. I was also advised that fans who could not attend could submit questions online and a full Q&A response would be posted on the Web Site. Again, nothing, which does little to inspire confidence that all is well and above board Without doubt, transparency is an issue. I can only reiterate, I too want to start providing funds on a monthly basis and for the Society to be a success. However, Unlike Andy P, I will not do so until such time as I am convinced that any monies collected are being utilised in the manner promised when the Society was established. Probably just a coincidence, but since I submitted my questions to the Society I have received no phone calls asking me to consider starting up a standing Order. Prior to my EMail, I received at least one phone call per week and several Emails.

Good words. However - 18 September - EMailed Society as a concerned Society Member asking for clarification on a few concerns (following discussions on SOL). 21 September - Prompt response from Craig Hughes. Chairman and Accountant on trips overseas but questions will be dealt with upon return. Also advised of plans to hold meeting within 2 weeks or so to discuss fans escalating concerns. 07 October - No further response so chased up. 12 October - Response from Craig Hughes apologising for delay and promising to push for answers to my concerns ASAP. So almost a month and no meaningful response. Ok, I understand the Football Club has had a busy time of late, but surely just one Society Board member could find the time to respond. The points I raised were fairly basic relating to membership, finance, objectives and ownership of Mr Hutchison's repayment. My request was also before it became apparent that John Boyle had perhaps not been repaid as many had believed and that the aims of the Society appeared to have been altered as Steelboy brought to our attention. Hope my concerns are misplaced and I do eventually receive some clarification. But meantime the doubts continue.

Whether or not you agree with David's rather extreme approach to effecting change, there is a great deal of truth in what he says regarding the way the Club and the Society are being run....directly or indirectly by Mr Hutchinson and in the performance of some players. Do I want attendances to dwindle even further? No. Do I want us to wither and die? No Do I want David's grievances addressed? Yes.

Initially when I heard about the transfer arrangement I thought it was out of order and would result in a conflict of interest. But really I think it all depends on the strategy of the football club and how determined they are to get the correct manager to carry that strategy forward. For instance, if we brought in a Manager who could attract players from lower league clubs for relatively small fees, develop them and sell them on after a few years for a substantial profit then I could live with him getting a small percentage of the profit generated. Maybe even be able to negotiate a lower basic salary on the basis of a "bonus" coming when his projects move on. Where I would have a problem, and where I think it went belly-up at United, is where the Chairman decides to sell at a critical time in the Club's season....such as just before a Cup Semi or Final. I'm pretty sure MacNamara would have wanted to keep the players until the end of the season but had to fall in line with his Chairman. I think it is much more unethical for a Club Chairman to benefit from player sales. Oh that we were in the position to be able to sell players the way United have over the past few years.

The artificial surface had nothing to do with our defeat. In fact, the players looked more comfortable on it than they have in any of our games on it in recent years. That might be down to the improved surface installed in the close season. Our defeat was down to not closing down one cross, a defender being unable to defend the cross, a forward being unable to put away chances and a referee refusing to give a last minute penalty. Compared to previous games against Accies, we were more competitive, refused to be bullied and were actually a bit unlucky to lose. The two players who usually make us look like amateurs....Crawford and Imrie....had their moments but were nothing like as effective as last season.

For info from an EMail I received today after sending in a few questions. I have passed your questions on to chairman Brian McCafferty. Brian is travelling at the moment however will send on a response as soon as possible. Our board member Tom Feely who deals with the accounts will also be able to provide you with full accurate figures as soon as he returns from holiday in Canada. We are also arranging a Q&A over the next couple of weeks. We are looking at having one event where members send in their questions for the board which will be recorded and put on our website and another live event. I will keep you posted on the details.

Everyone seems to just accept that the Well Society are the ones who have the responsibility for paying the debt. Surely it is the Football club who are first in line for the repayment. The Society are only a back-up but it appears that they and most fans have accepted that the Club will not be in a position to pay all or part of the amount due. The best scenario is surely that the Society only need to pay £1 for the shares, with MFC clearing their own debt. I understood that all the background revamp was about returning the Football Club to profitability on a yearly basis, ideally assisted by transfer fees. I don't know, but I think it would be a definite possibility that Mr Hutchison would show some patience time wise if the Club was returning profits and on the way to surviving in it's own right. I guess there are two separate aspects - 1. The return to profitability of MFC on an annual basis and 2. The growth of the Well Society (which Les sees as an indication of fan commitment). Repayment can be from either source but 1. is the best option. In fact, if the Club is not trading profitably before the Well Society takes over, then how long will it survive after that given that there would not be a sizeable back up fund. That is why I feel an indication that the Club is on track with the projections which must have been made at the very start would assist the Society in recruiting Members. Just imagine, Debt repaid, Trading Profitably and substantial funds in The WS coffers as a fall back.

And if the WS keeps having to bale out the Football Club to help meet salaries and the day to day costs of running the organisation how will it ever amass £1m to repay Mr Hutchison. I have a genuine fear that any monies ingathered will be well gone before they can be used to repay the debt. Never mind the fact that it's the Football Club's debt and not the Society's. Despite seeking clarification on this Forum, (and directly to the Society as a member) the question as to whether any loans to MFC are on a short term basis to be repaid from SPFL, Transfer Income etc. has not been answered. The fact that WS Subscriptions were to be protected and would therefore build up into a sizeable sum over a period of time was a major factor in encouraging me to join up. Simple question. How much has been collected in total from day one and how much is currently sitting in the WS Bank Account? Sorry for posting these comments under this topic and not the WS section but my comments are in answer to the question posed by Waldo

On the artificial surface, Accies will do what they always do...get the ball up the park as fast as they can. Play the game in our half and put our defenders/midfielders under all sorts of pressure. It's worked all too well in the past and I'm sick of watching our defensive players fannying about, having balls bounce of their shins and generally looking lost without grass under their feet. So Kennedy in for Laing as Kennedy tends to clear his lines rather than trying to be Franz Beckenbauer, Watt for Law because Watt can actually control a bouncing ball, Grimshaw and Chalmers as part of a midfield four to add some composure and determination, Ainsworth but no Johnson as we cannot afford to be Gung Ho and McDonald either up front supporting Moult or on the bench because he is not a creative midfielder and never will be. Wishful thinking I know. Ripley Watt Kennedy McManus Hammell Ainsworth Lasley Grimshaw Chalmers McDonald or Robinson Moult

Unless someone is going out..permanently or on loan....to free up wages, I just don't get this. Even then it's excessive. Surely any spare cash we do have should be spent on trying to strengthen areas that are costing us points. Both full back positions for example as Law and sadly Hammell are liabilities. Especially as it looks like Watt is not to be given his chance despite looking far and away the best right back we have. I wonder if Dan is about to be released by mutual agreement as they say?

Good point, well made. And I'm sure the poster who raised the subject readily accepts that others may have different views on the subject of political/social banners at football matches. May I suggest it was more the referring to refugees as "Shite" that caused the offence and subsequent OTT response.

Paul Wilson born Bangalore, India although one cap (too many) for Scotland. Dual nationality maybe? Tried John Capaldi for Italy but unless Newarthill has moved that won't work.

Good suggestion and a reasonable approach. I would think it's a certainty that Society Board members are aware of the comments in this forum, either through logging on or by word of mouth. To me, if they choose not to respond to the points raised, that will speak volumes. All that every Motherwell fan wants is the Club to prosper and eventually become self sufficient, hopefully with the support of a strong Well Society. Positive answers to the points raised may lessen the concerns that people have and assist the Society develop as required. Surely for that reason alone there must be some sort of official response.

yes

59 going on 40. Agree. Keep up the great work Bois. Do your thing.