TheLip69

In case anyone got the wrong idea, the underlined was not my opinion, but was the general consensus at the time. Of course when Liverpool were kings of England and Europe in the 80's and 90's no-one sought to reduce the Football League with clubs like Tottenham, Man Utd, Arsenal, Everton and Ipswich winning European trophies at the time they realised how strong in depth their league was and left well alone. The pity was, we didn't.

That is complete and utter pish, any player or coach involved in the game will tell you that an inswinging cross is easier for a defender, with his back to goal, to deal with. It's the crosses from the byline that come in between the defender and the goal that are hardest for them to deal with, and easier for an onrushing forward to attack. The potential for an embarrassing own goal is always there with that particular ball.

RIP Davie, a helluva nice man.

We had an 18 team League and it worked well until Jock Stein came along. Celtic's 9 in a row was the catalyst for change, only weak leagues in poor countries are dominated by teams in the way Celtic dominated in those years. Change was mooted and we modelled the Premier League or Top Ten on the German Bundesliga,( The Germans swiftly changed back when they realised the cost of relegation to it's biggest clubs) Scotland though plodded blindly on regardless of the cost to our clubs, from being European semi-finalists only a few years earlier, Kilmarnock (Fairs Cup 1967) and Dunfermline (Cup Winners Cup 1969) suddenly found themselves down amongst the also rans. From being big clubs with decent supports these clubs almost went under and a lot of their fans deserted them, kids weren't interested in going to see Killie or the Pars against Montrose and Brechin, not when their dads had been used to Rangers and Celtic and Hearts and Hibs. A lot of those kids began to look at one or other of the Old Firm, and I dont think those clubs have a hope in hell of getting them back. In the 19 years between the commencement of the league after the second world war and the first title of Celtic's 9 in a row, Hibs (3 times), Hearts (twice), Aberdeen, Kilmarnock, and Dundee had all won the Leagu title. That was a strong and healthy league, the fact that Celtic would dominate for the next 9 years did not weaken the League in any way shape or form. Indeed during Celtic's 9 in a row Rangers reached two European Finals, Dundee reached the semi-finals of the Fairs Cup, now Uefa Cup, Dunfermline a UEFA Cup Quarter Final in 1966 and a Cup Winners Cup semi-final in 1969, Hibs a Quarter Final in 1973, and Kilmarnock a semi-final in 1967. Within 5 years of the onset of The Premier League in 1975 all of those clubs, Rangers apart unfortunately, had suffered relegation from the Top division. The Premier League didn't make the football any better, it bloody decimated our clubs. Can we go back to an 18 team League, my heart says yes, but my head says no. We dont have big enough clubs to fill it. We've murdered them.

Have they handed in their report yet?

Quality player, Jimmy Wilson, that was actually a good side back in the late 60's, early '70's. With Keith MacRae in goals and were Whiteford and Wark as good a full back partnership as I remember? Forsyth and McCallum excellent in central defence. Jimmy Wilson, Bobby Campbell, and Tommy Donnelly behind big Jackie and Dixie. I think we lost the way a wee bit because we never quite managed to replace Dixie after he went to Celtic, Jumbo Muir and John Gopldthorpe, and Kirkie Lawson all got a try but we never really had another out and out striker like Dixie until Pettigrew came on the scene.

Definitely Dixie Deans, followed by Jackie McInally. I realised I was an auld basturt when Alan Mcinally retired and I used to watch his faither.

Surely that would mean we would be attacking for 90 minutes, and you don't want to see that?

Cheers for taking this on, it's a point I feel very strongly about. Firstly, there is always going to be a majority shareholder at Fir Park. No-one is going to be dumb enough to lay out money on the club without a controlling interest. Clubs like Motherwell need people like John Boyle to survive. That's a fact of life in Scottish Football. So as you say having one man on the board will mean very little. If the club were in a power struggle on the board with the Trust stuck in the middle, there will only be one loser in that scenario, the Trust. Which side do we pick? The one which offers the Trust more, or the one which has better plans for the club? Will our choice win? What if he doesn't? No matter which way we go, we wont come out of it smelling of Roses. It's better not to be involved and then make arrangements to sit down with the winner. If we chose the wong option he may not be as amenable to the Trust as he ought. Secondly, the Trust member on the board CANNOT just sit on his hands until the Trust is mentioned, that's not the way these things work. I really feel that the Trust should be working independent of the board but also in consultation with the board. Lobbying board members, giving presentations to the board where we feel the need to put our point across in a more professional manner. This is the type of things the Trust should be working towards. Access to the board is more important than a seat on the board, believe me. I realise a lot of the stuff I've written above is hypothetical but I'm playing Devil's advocate here.

My point about Shug's post is that while I do not share the belief that "some people are just in it for themslves" it is something I have heard from a few sources, often enough for me to think it is the generally held view. I think that's a communication problem more than anything else. I don't see how Martin Rose can possibly avoid a conflict of interest, and I would like to see this point addressed properly. It is also a fact that more than a few fans refuse to join the Trust purely because of his presence on the board. As for a seat on the board for the Trust, I am totally against that proposition. The way I look at it, the Trust should be a conduit for the fans to the board and the only way the Trust can do that is by remaining outside of the boardroom. Joining the board takes away the necessary neutrality for representing the fans. I feel if the Trust is to properly represent the fans, they should be lobbying the board, not joining it.

Personal MessageThe Dossier ipsmenu.register( "post-member-299", '', 'popmenubutton-new', 'popmenubutton-new-out' ); Troll!, Today, 01:08 AM Reserve Team Subbie Group: Members Posts: 33 Member No.: 299 Joined: 9-December 08 Well done! -------------------- "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"You want to explain this?

Firstly, I am aware that the statement about members of teh trust "being in it for themsleves" was only by one man, but I am equally aware that there are others who feel this way, but I was responding to Dosser Joe's post which contained the following line.....3. Resentment from sections of the support bacuse "we are in it for ourselves"? I would say that encompasses the word many, wouldn't you? Secondly, I have made my feelings about the Trust clear on several occasions. I agree with the need for a Trust but I do not agree with some of it's aims and objections. Particularly the aim for the Trust to get a seat on the board, that is the major point which stops me from joining. I am also not best pleased at their being a board member on the board of the Trust, that would be my stance regardless of who the board member was, the fact that it is Martin Rose just makes it worse. I am prepared to debate those points but no-one from the Trust has taken me up on it. Thirdly, I have asked this before, but stop sending me private messages stick to the boards, I dont have anything to hide.

Well done Angela Wilson, many congratulations. Keep up the good work.

Rather than going on the defensive over what you see as someone's misconceptions about the role of Trust members, maybe you should take his points on board more fully. First of all, ask yourself why he, and many others, believe you are "all in it for yourselves" Then you could ask yourself why you are taking " a volley full of pish" on message boards. Ask yourself if the Trust is getting it's message over in the correct manner, then ask yourself if that message concurs with what the fans want. It's time the Trust looked at itself and it's message.

If it's a conflict of interest for 'Flow, why isn't it for Martin Rose. The fact is that he is not the Trust's man on the board, but the boards man on the Trust. There is a huge difference between the two, and many people see this as the board having influence within the Trust rather than the other way about. To be honest I am in complete disagreement with the Trusts intentions of getting someone onto the board, I believe the Trust should be lobbying board members not joining them. The minute a Trust member joins the board he distances himself from the fans, he becomes one of them rather than one of us. That's the way many people will see it, it's human nature.

I'm not mud-slingin, you are. Your open night failed to encourage anyone along last night because you do not have the TRUST of the fans. In my opinion the major fault is that you are not seen to working on behalf of the fans, but for the Trust. I see your efforts to encourage membership merely to strengthen the position of the Trust, not to help the fans. I'm not saying that's how things are, but that's the impression that's given. From what I read and hear of the Trust it's every effort seems to be aimed at gaining shares and representation on the board. Is that what the fans want, or is that what the Trust wants? Personally, I disagree with it, the minute a fans representative joins the board he just becomes another board member. I'd prefer it if the Trust became a strong lobbying group on behalf of the fans. I'd much rather we were outside the tent pissing in, than inside the tent pissing out. Rightly or wrongly the co-opting of Martin Rose onto the Trust board has angered a lot of fans and that is a point that needs to be addressed. The Trust needs to address the reasons why the support is showing little or no interest in it, rather than burying it's head in the sand and blaming the fans.

Just what we've come to expect from you Frazzle. The Trust organises an open night and get a poor turnout, so right away Frazzle turns both barrels on the fans who didn't turn up. Personally I was gutted that business kept me in Manchester last night as I had every intention of putting in an appearance. Unfortunately I won't get up until Friday so bang goes my ticket for the Mega bar as well. I have said this before but it bears repeating. The Trust needs to take a long hard look at itself and ask itself why the fans are so apathetic. You have to ask yourself what you are doing wrong, and it's patently obvious that something is not right, and try to sort it. Firing broadsides at the fans because YOUR Open day was not as well attended as you wanted is certainly not the way to go about it, but typical of the Trust from what I've read on these boards anyway. the only one of teh Trust who posts on here who speaks any sense is Andy Ross and even he talks of "rebuilding the relationship with the support" which pre-supposes there was one in the first place. Where i will disagree with Andy though is where he says "criticizing for criticizings sake serves no purpose" That is only true if you ignore the criticism, if you take it on board and address it then it can be extremely useful.

Friendly is it? I think you'll find the big game in Manchester this week involves a Danish side.

Unfortunately business keeps me in Manchester tonight, but if anyone calls for a mass cull of the current board and an injection of fresh blood with new ideas for the benefit of the fans rather than the Trust, they can have my proxy.

That's right City were in pole position for the Fair Play Award and in the 15th minute of their final game Richard Dunne got sent off. City had no idea how this would affect their chances of getting into Europe so they never made another tackle in the whole game and lost 8-1. Thankfully the result of that game made no difference to the ups and downs in the Premiership, but can you imagine the outcry from the relegated teams if it had.

The name has to reflect the group, simple. Marion Morrison wouldn't have gained the same credibility as tough guy cowboy that John Wayne did, that's why he changed it! A suave sophisticated ladykiller called Maurice Micklewhite would have been laughed out of the cinema, that's why he became Michael Caine, as for Tam Connery!! Eastside babycrew is a shit name, does that accurately reflect the group?

Where will we fit the band in? I think that's horrendous, the current Scotland Rugby top, wjhich I believe is by Canterbury is bloody awful, there's more gray in it than there is blue. The material and cut may make for good quality tops but the designs are god awful, what the fuck is that wavy line on the breast all about, and the big hoop that makes it look as if it's grinning at you. Sorry, but I am certainly not impressed, in fact I'm totally horrified at the idea of Canterbury's designers working with our colours.

To me it conjures up a picture of Dot Cotton pushing a pram round Albert Square. True it is just a name, but the name needs to reflect the group, it needs a bit of dig to it. It doesn't even reference the club. The fact is the name is laughable and, by extension, so are they. I would suggest that if people are going to snigger whenever they hear the name, then it's definitely not having the right effect.

He's also the guy who signed John Hendry the worst player ever to pull on a Motherwell shirt.

There's a first time for everything apparently.