Kmcalpin

Its actually worse than that FC. They are part of the establishment.

I do for one. I don't like being beaten by the OF but I can thole it given their vastly superior resources. However I don't like losing a barrowload of goals unnecessarily to them. At the end of the season goal difference can make a difference to league placings, financial rewards and Euro qualification. If our real opponents (the Killies, Hibs, Dunfermlines etc) are able to limit their losses then that gives them an advantage over us. A start would be to instill some fighting spirit and confidence for these games.

According to a representative of the Celtic Supporter's Trust giving evidence to a Scottish Parliamentary Committee a few days ago its not a sectarian term and is simply another word for a Rangers supporter.

Whilst a defeat was predictable the scoreline and manner of it were very disapointing. The line up looked very defensive with 3 holding midfield players. No doubt Michael Higdon was therefore left very isolated. These tactics have not worked before and they sure as hell didn't work today. Hopefully Shaun Hutchinson's injury isn't serious but, if it is, then we will need to source an emergency centre back. Tim Clancy may be an adequate full back but he's no centre back.

I don't wish big John any ill luck and he was entitled to move on to better himself. That said I agree with Fatcalf. Anyone who knows anything about Scottish Football knows about the situation at Hearts. John and his agent would have been well aware of the that. He knew the risks when he signed on the dotted line at Tynecastyle. If you fly with the crows you get shot down with the crows.

For some, benefits are critical or may just sway their decision to join or not. As a matter of interest the issue of benefits/incentives was not mentioned by the top table on Monday evening and none of the 30 or so questioners mentioned them. For those interested in them, they may need to be fine tuned. How about some kind of ticket purchase/reservation mechanism for those who live away from Lanarkshire for example? Given the size of our support we cannot afford to limit the scheme to ST holders only. In any event, as some PATG fans will tell you, never miss a home game. The issue of retaining members is a very important one and was not raised on Monday. It will have to be addressed though.

Thats it FC. Folk can currently become shareholders in MFC and I suspect that will continue. The Society will become a shareholder (the largest one by far) and will simply take over JB's 75% holding. It was mentioned on Monday evening thats its unlikely that the Society would ever own 100% of the shares as the remaining 25% are held by smaller shareholders who may not want to sell or may not even know they have shares in MFC. However its quite possible that the Society's 75% shareholding will increase gradually. The Trust for example owns 3%-4% of the shares.

Some good posts today on the subject. I have no problem with folk who can't contribute or buy into the scheme - to many £300, even in staggered installments, is a lot of dosh. I have no problem either with folk who are simply paying customers who are seeking value for money. Each to their own as Fatcalf rightly said. However if they don't buy in they will have no right to criticise those who do or to criticise the club if things don't go well on or off the field. It was made quite plain on Monday evening by the Directors that this isn't a "Whats in it for me scheme", despite the incentives on offer. Its a scheme for those who want to help the club by putting their money where their mouth is. A fair proportion of those who attend matches are diehard fans and it is at them that this scheme is aimed. As Fatcalf said albeit in different words, its our club and the ball is in our court. However each to their own and no-one should be castigated simply for not contributing.

Basically my understanding too Iain. The Society would basically build up its shareholding in phases from 45% to 75%. As such it would be an ordinary shareholder. There would still be a number of smaller individual shareholders (the 2nd highest holds 4.5%). As such once the 50% barrier had been reached the Society would be the majority shareholder and once 75% had been attained yet more legal rights would accrue. If at any point a white knight rode in then there would be a vote of shareholders to decide how to react. If the society held more than 50% of the club 's shares then what it said would carry the day. Don't forget too that the Trust holds about 3.5% of the shares. In short the Society would take over John Boyle's role in the club but of course this would mean that MFC would be run by its members/fans and not by one individual. I'm sure there's more to it than that but thats a quick summary.

This was specifically raised in a question near the end last night. Leeann Dempster replied that the club was looking at this. However if you've any view then send them in to FP. wellsociety@motherwellfc.co.uk Its important to get the views of ex pats or indeed those who live a fair bit away from FP.

Thats it exactly Jim and the £300 payment can be paid in installments. As someone said a chance to put our money where our mouth is. There were a lot of questions from the floor but I didn't detect any negative vibes from the numerous questioners. They saw it as being an opportunity to give the club something. In contrast for those who ask "Whats in it for me?", there's a range of benefits on offer, although no doubt they'll be examined with a fine tooth comb. Any monies raised will be used as an "insurance policy" for bad seasons. It will enable us to sell players on our terms and not have to let them go cheaply as we have done in the past. So far its been a long drawn out legal process and the exact timing of official launch will be determined by the FSA. To anyone who couldn't make it last night I'd say go along to one of the other meetings and hear for yourself first hand. The club is open to comments about the scheme and is willing to listen to adjustments / suggestions. Oh, and a nice touch by Andrew Wilson who specifically commented on the efforts of fans to improve the atmosphere this season.

I've never been quite sure if the term "H*n" is sectarian or not but by their actions yesterday the Police would seem to confirm that it is. That wasn't their stance at the Cup Final mind you. One of my abiding memories of the Cup Final was thousands yes, thousands ofr Celtic fans in the South Stand singing lustily "Go home ya H**ns. Now if that isn't sectarian what is? One law for us and one for the real bigots.

I'm with Fatcalf on this one. Its always the easy targets that are selected whilst the real perpetrators are immune to action. In defence of the Police however, had they taken widespread action today its more than likely that their Chief Constable, Church leaders and leading politicians would suffered apoplexy. Those responsible for making such arrests would be hauled over the coals. As has been said before the evils of widespread religious sectarianism are simply too controverisal to tackle in Scotland in 2011.

Hammell and Hately were ok going forward but defensively were all over the place. Quite a few in the POD Stand were shouting for SM to organise them better - perhaps more a reflection of our dodgy tactics than individual performances. Our centre backs struggled to cope and Crags typified a poor day by constantly back peddling and backing off Naismith to such an extent that he chanced his luck by letting fly at goal and skimming the crossbar - totally avoidable in my view.

A very poor performance and an abject lesson on how not to play Rangers. Stuart McCall got his tactics wrong and Michale Higdon should not have been playing up on his own today. Very few passmarks in my book with the exception of Michael Higdon who worked hos socks off with absolutely no support. Jamie Murphy was playing all over the place and the scouts watching him will know that he can be used far more effectively than we're using him. Chris Humphrey didn't play well but in fairness he received rotten service from Lasley, Jennings and Hately. Once again they failed to play the quick ball. On one occasion KL dallied and dithered and eventually passed to him with 4 blue jerseys surrounding him. What was Chris meant to do? The defence (in particular the full backs) was awful with big Hutch being the least culpable. Rangers won because they worked harder to close us down, because they put more effort and aggression in and because they showed self belief. Where oh where were our senior players today? They let the younger lads down by giving them no direction at all. Still we are sitting second and have had a good start. We won' t play as badly again for some time I hope.

Thank you... a bit of common sense at last. I've been saying this since he first signed with us. My greatest fear today was that we would play in a 4-5-1 formation with Higdon as the lone striker. We have only one recognised first team striker on the books and thats Michael Higdon. He was left far too exposed with the midfield not linking up for knock downs and Jamie Murphy was nightmare to play with - all over the ship (in fairness probably playing to instructions). He gave Higdon no support whatosever. I ask you what striker can play well under those circumstances? Time to get off Michael Higdon's back. We need to give him a strike partner to play alongside and a back up to slot in as and when required. Unil then he won't be effective. Of our 5 league goals this season how many have been scored by strikers? Two (40%). Its not rocket science. Jamie Murphy is a winger end of.. so play him there.

I'm no lawyer and so won't attempt to asess the Bill in detail, but it strikes me that some of these offences are already covered under other existing legislation. Given the media headline coverage I thought that the Bill was dealing purely with religious sectarianism in its broadest sense ie it wasn't being restricted to football matches. I don't see why it can't be made to do so. Sectarianism at football is only part of a wider problem in Scotland and culprits are not 90 minute bigots. The Scottish Government on this occasion has decided to side step that very controversial and potentially vote losing issue. Football may be the most obvious manifestation of religious bigotry but its only the tip of the iceberg. If the SG had been serious about tackling it then the Bill would have applied to to society in general. That, in my eyes is its biggest failing and amounts to a fundamental and fatal weakness. One other point about about offensive communications (presumbaly the internet) - my understanding on reading the Bill is that someone could still spout offensive religious bile on the net but as long as it was simply offensive and NOT likely to cause fear or alarm then it would be ok. Quite apart from all this it will be very interesting to see just how the Police apply it.

So lets get this right...despite the media coverage and deep rooted problems of bigotry in our society, the Bill is not intended to eradicate sectarianism but rather improve behaviour at football matches? Am I missing something here? Imagine if you will 2 yobs sitting half cut and opposite each other in a railway carriage, both making offensive sectarian remarks to fellow passengers. One has a football scarf on and one doesn't. The former is going to a match and the latter has no interest in football. Under this intended piece of legislation the football "fan" would be committing an offence whilst his fellow yob wouldn't be???

Couldn't have put it better myself Andy.

I'm glad we've now got some real debate going on this very importnat issue. No doubt the price of membership is important to most folk but hopefully the discussion will mature and move on at some stage to the bigger picture of the future direction for MFC. Still this has to be debated first.

That is indeed the problem Alan. Too many folk on here speculate without knowing the facts. I suppose I've done it myself though. Theres a lot more to a football club than is reported in the media or in this case on the Boards.

Fine in theory, I'm all for more fan involvement but we have to be very careful. I'd prefer to appoint a Board and Chief Executive and let them get on with the business of running the club. If you ask our support about catering or stewarding or ticket costs you might end up with 3,000 different views all of which would be correct. Some would threaten to stop attending FP because the cost of Mars bars in kiosks was being increased by 4p a shot instead of 2p a shot. Thats the reality of it. Also most fans don't know the full facts behind stewarding, catering or whatever and would not be in a position to make an informed decision. Fan involvement is fine up to a point but we should be careful what we wish for. I hope too that any new scheme takes into account current shareholders' investments. Most will already have invested hundreds and perhaps thousands of pounds? Will we be given our money back and asked to pay £300 (or whatever) as a new member? Will the holding be automatically transferred and if so what benefit will shareholders receive as opposed to ordinary £300 investors? All legitimate questions and I know the club is researching all these details. All that said, it would be great if the ordinary fans did have more of a say in MFC.

I'm keen to help out but must apologise as I just don't understand what you're suggesting i.e. the above. Is anyone else confused.com?

Rangers away or Dunfermline away. Personally I'd love to avoid the Pars on day one. A real banana skin.

Agreed. I'm very surprised there's been so little debate about it on the Boards. This is the future of our club we're talking about here.