dennyc

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.

Exactly this. I can accept we take a punt on somebody like Bair, given his fitness record and the minimal cost first up. It worked out better than anyone on here expected so credit SK and his team for that. By all means find another ' Bair project'. SK has earned that chance. But Halliday, Callachan and Nicholson are nothing like the Bair situation. They are a repeat of the Soure and Obika disasters, except even more costly. Koutroumbis may be similar but hopefully not. So in two seasons he has signed at least five players who had a horrible injury record and contributed almost nothing in their time with the club (so far in the case of the first three). Can anyone come up with any Kettlewell 'injury projects' that have actually worked out?

Looking at the three players causing most of the debate. Halliday - Age 33 in a couple of months. We are his tenth senior Club, including loans. A decent player in his day but who hardly featured for Hearts latterly due to injury and was unable to force his way back into the team, prior to joining us on loan. Previously left Rangers following a similar injury record. Failed to impress when he came to us in last years' January window. Apparently we were committed to signing him on a permanent basis as part of that Loan deal. Apart from a decent performance against Clyde he has failed to impress this season and looks even more cumbersome and slow than he did last season. Every tackle he receives seems to cause him injury. As a positive, takes a decent corner. Callachan - At age 30 has played for six clubs plus a couple of loan placements. Suffered a broken leg in January 2020 and more recently an ACL injury which ruled him out for all of last season. Featured briefly against Ross County, suffered a hamstring injury and is once again out for an 'extended period'. Nicholson - Age 29 and broke into the Hearts team at age 18. Averaged around 30 games a season until leaving under freedom of contract for the US. Fairly successful in the States prompting a move to England where he featured for two seasons before suffering a hip injury and subsequently returned to the States. Picked up a serious ankle injury and released by his Club. Joined us last season and, after a quiet start, earned himself a two year contract. Scored excellent goals against Livi. Featured in pre season matches but now injured and out for an 'extended period'. Looking at the history I can just about see a case for signing Nicholson, although a two year deal seems generous given recent injuries. I cannot come up with any sane argument as to why we signed Halliday or Callachan. Both were massive risks, eating up precious funds. And risks which have come back to bite us on the backside. Is anybody seriously surprised at how things have worked out so far? I think that inevitability is what frustrates me most. The knock on effect of signing these three players plus other injuries is that a 17 year old kid is expected to carry the midfield on his young back. No wonder he is struggling and looks knackered. And there is no prospect of things improving soon. How long until Miller will be unavailable through injury or exhaustion? It also looks like we will once again be carrying a bloated squad with a good number injured or not considered good enough to feature. The jury is still out on most of the other new recruits as well as the youth players who stepped up. Early days some will say, but we are up and running and the 'getting the business done early' has hardly reaped rewards. Kettlewell and the recruitment team could certainly not have foreseen injuries to Blaney, Slattery, McGinn and Paton each of whom had enjoyed lengthy spells injury free. But for those other three the buck stops entirely with Kettlewell and his team. I just hope Koutroumbis is not another one with a dubious injury history that will be added to their questionable recruitment policy. I have stood by Kettlewell throughout but the start to this season and the repetition of a speculative recruitment policy is proving me wrong. And that is setting aside performance on the pitch. Match day atmosphere could turn very toxic very soon. The signs are already there.

Did he came through our youth ranks? I thought he joined us from Dumbarton. Also, did he ever play a game for us having being sent out on loan within months of coming to Fir Park? Possibly under a cloud if rumours were true? He did rebuild his career at Livi right enough so fair play to him, and at age 30 he is at a good level compared to others. But I don't think he is a youth prospect that slipped through our net.

Cadden is a decent shout regards someone who went on to earn a decent living in football. Was certainly well thought of wherever he played. The fact we have to go back some ways to unearth a released youth player that went on to have a good full time career suggests that decisions made by our coaches in recent years were pretty spot on. Maybe unpopular with a few, but correct. Those players that have a greater chance of success will always attract richer Clubs but there again there are very few that excel after choosing to leave our Academy. I still think Bailey Rice has a chance. Sam Campbell did have, but sadly a terrible injury took its toll.

Not sure I would want him back but this version of why Watt left is closer to what I heard. Might not fit the preferred line though. My understanding. Following discussions with Burrows terms had been agreed but paperwork not completed. Watt intended staying and was happy to do so. Hence his little show when he stood up on the terracing wall. Then Alexander decided he did not want him around, not for footballing reasons but to do with his influence amongst the players. And Watt was not the only one to challenge Alexander in front of the squad. Burrows backed Alexander and Watt was on his way. A classic clash of personalities. Perhaps explains (but does not excuse) his OTT reaction at Tannadice. Totally different from Gallagher. He was just a rat who feigned injury to avoid an automatic extension kicking in. Player quote 'Don't think you will see Dec again until he gets his contract sorted'.

So we either keep some extra 17 to 20 year olds knowing they are not yet ready for the first team and possibly never will be, or we take a punt on players that could be first team ready? Perhaps as we cannot do both we need to pick players who might just contribute right away. I agree re the quality of those recent recruits you mention, but who is to say it would have been those players we sidestepped to accommodate additional youngsters . Perhaps instead we would have passed on Furlong, Biereth, Bair, Vale and Gent. And over the years, those two or three you want to take a risk on soon become nine or twelve on the books. I assume you would be giving them all three year contracts as a minimum just in case we strike gold? I accept there has to be a balance and I would love to see more youngsters retained/ breaking through. But in truth do the Ross's, Ferrie, Wilson and Wells not meet your youngster requirement currently. And how many of them do you honestly believe are first team ready or will go on to have a top career? Are they to sit on the bench for weeks on end when what they actually need is game time, especially as we are paying their wages. We invested a fair amount in Maguire over the years. For what return? But you would risk repeating that two or three times each season. Harsh though it is, the Club have to make a judgement based on what the have witnessed up to age 17. Miller is light years ahead of them and was he was retained and is being given his chance to shine. To come back to the original question, please provide the names of those youngsters we have released who went on to prove Motherwell wrong in their assessment.

And unfortunately finances dictate that clubs such as ourselves cannot currently afford to stick with youngsters beyond 17/18 purely in the hope they are late developers. Steelboy cites Keith Lasley but that was years ago and at a time when reserve teams existed for development purposes. For youngsters to be retained nowadays Clubs are looking for a greater likliehood of success than in the past. One we did stick with in more recent times was Barry McGuire. How did that work out? Pretty sure if I was to check back I would find that the folk that are now questioning the release of youngsters were outraged when McGuire was repeatedly kept on. More recently, Matty Connelly is another one that we have taken a gamble on. There too, only a few weeks ago questions were asked about his continued retention Like you, I cannot think of any youngster we have released (as opposed to having had poached) in recent times that has gone on to make a name for himself. The success of those we have opted to retain......Turnbull, Campbell, Miller, Johnston (even Hastie and Scott in their Motherwell careers) suggests the Club have more or less got the balance correct. Anybody looking for us to produce and retain four or five top players season upon season is just not being realistic. Also to be factored in is that there is a limit to the number of players we can employ.

Good point. I also imagine the Manager prefers all teams in the ladder to play a similar style to the first team to help kids transition across if and when the time comes. So it makes sense that our youth coaches would be involved in first team match days as well as assisting in integrated coaching sessions. Compare that to the distancing of the first team and coaches from the youth set up that Alexander established. And which was identified as a major cause of friction within the Club in the review that followed his departure. At least under Kettlewell the youth players can see a route to the first team squad, even if that step up is a huge ask.

I'm not a coach and only played the game to a basic amateur level but I believe some folk are losing sight of how big an ask it is for our youth players to make the huge step up to becoming a member of the of the first team squad. Not everyone is a Lennon Miller or Max Johnston........ and if we are honest it took even those two time to find their feet and have an impact. The skill can often be there but there is a lot more to being a pro footballer than just basic ability. Mentally and physically. I also don't know anything about Foster's ability as a coach but I am not convinced it would make that much difference whoever we had in that position. How a coach interacts with the kids is a factor though and the Club have a safeguarding responsibility which I have to believe means they would intervene if needs be. Said as an outsider with no insight whatsoever to the internal workings of the Club. Regards the kids that we let go, my reading is that Kettlewell and his coaches are not saying those released are not talented players but rather that the direct step up to the first team squad is too big a challenge for all but the very elite. The absence of a reserve team in which they can continue to develop in preparation for senior football is the issue rather than talent, willing or coaching ability. Finances and a lack of meaningful, supported strategy from the Football Authorities have left most top flight Clubs with little alternative other than to be ruthless and extremely selective. I agree the Analyst/Loan Manager position that has been mentioned represents an astute forward thinking innovation. Anything that assists our youth players to bridge that gap to the senior squad is to be welcomed. So, on a positive note, I see it as encouraging that Kettlewell and his team are trying to find a way to improve matters. But, hey, some will just criticise them instead as it fits their wider agenda. Add to that the sad fact that there is absolutely nothing Motherwell can do to stop top quality kids being poached by Clubs who are not operating under the same constraints as we are. And every team in Scotland is in the same position. No exceptions. In truth we have not done that poorly in comparison to others. The situation has been done to death on here but no matter the reality of the situation a few will always accuse the Club of being negligent or lacking foresight.

Fair comment and hopefully guidelines that do not have any grey areas. As long as lessons are learned. Clearly any Society Rep on the Exec Board must have some autonomy but there has to be aspects that need referral to the Society Board/Members.. My understanding is that Dickie and Feely were originally placed on the Exec Board purely as representatives of the Society. (Stand to be corrected if not the case). Might have been seen as 'needs must' at the time given the requirement for experience and a link to enable communication between two areas. Were there any other realistic options at the time? From memory, No, but there has been plenty of time since then to make changes had the willing and the abilities been present. In any event the Society reps must surely not be chosen by the Football Club? Conflict of interest and all that. Given that Dickie is no longer on the Society Board I would think his right to be on the Club Board must have gone and he should be replaced by a Society Nominee. But there will be protocols and timings to be followed? Maybe to drive such a change in future, those amendments you mention need to be exact. That said, Dickie may have inherited his father's 10,000 shares so maybe that affords him Board rights outwith the Society connection? Over time I am of the opinion both Feely and Dickie tended to side with the Club Chairman irrespective of the impact on the Society. The transfer of funds and the Wild Sheep proposal being prime examples. Hopefully everything can be properly addressed following the Society AGM. As you mentioned earlier, nobody should be hounded out. But anyone trusted to represent the Society must represent Society values and be able to resist the demands of the Club Chairman when appropriate.

Of course WS Board Members are entitled to a range of views. Essential for healthy debate and I hope different viewpoints continue to be openly expressed. But can I ask you? Should those WS Board Members who represent Society members on the Exec Board seek the views of the WS Board and ultimately the fans before voting on something as important as handing control of the Club to an external investor, reducing shareholder % and writing of debts? And if they do seek guidance should they go against the majority wishes of the WS Board? My view is they should have abstained from that vote citing the need to refer to the WS Board. The Club Exec would have still carried the day 3-0 but at least the Society would not have been seen to be supporting the deal, as it must have appeared to Barmack. Dickie and Feely either did not seek the views of their own Board or chose to ignore those views. That is the issue here. Not whether they hold different opinions.

I trust it is up to the Society Board to select who they choose to represent the WS on the Club Board. Following the upcoming elections. For practical reasons that might not have been 100% the case on day one. Given how things transpired of late I don't see how Tom Feely can remain in that position though. Trust is a huge thing. As for Dickie, why on earth is he still on the Exec Board having resigned from the WS Board? I am guessing he is still in position although hopefully someone can confirm otherwise. I had hoped he would do the decent thing and resign from both. The worry I have is that not enough of the revised WS Board will feel qualified enough, or be able to afford the time, to cover both positions. Perhaps that is one reason the WS were seeking specific skill sets from those putting their names forward?

I think it's telling that you turn the game into how many we could have conceded rather than enjoying the victory and looking at how many goals we could have scored. I do agree both areas need improving. As long as lessons are learned I can live with early season frustrations as players build up to full fitness and sharpness. So to be positive rather than negative, I have seldom seen us create as many clear cut chances as we did yesterday. The one goal we did concede was down to a brain fart by Ebiye and following a clear foul on Casey which the referee ignored. (Casey booked for showing the referee the stud marks on his leg). But for two great saves denying Miller and a string of poor finishes from a host of players we could easily have scored eight or more goals. But I suspect if we had won 8-3 some folk would prefer to look at the 3 rather than the 8.