Kmcalpin

I can understand the logic behind this age restriction. Despite how it's dressed up, its all about protecting the organisation legally in our increasingly litigatious world. That being the case, just say so. It's quite ludicrous though that there's no consistent standard being applied throughout Scotland. Why not?

Pretty much my view. Surely 2 short term loans would meet our needs.

Vale is a decent striker and I'd happily have him back...............so long as he's played as an out and out striker as part of a front 2. Too often last season he was used as a number 10 behind the main striker. Thats not his game.

It would be better still if he moved to the Vailey. That would make us happy.

A tough game and Saints won't be out to entertain. I wonder if they'll make some signings before the game. Presumably the SFA has requested that Sidibeh isn't selected?

That indicates that its an issue that requires open debate and discussion. A range of different views have been raised so far. Just a pity that it's overshadowing yesterday's game but it is what it is.

I've no idea how these things work, but you'd think bans should also apply to errant away fans in the interests of consistency.

Would those figures include away fans? If not, why not?

Despite coming on as a 2nd half sub he committed several yellow card offences and was fortunate not to be sent off.

Fair point which needs to be investigated. Maybe someone in the Society already knows or could establish. If other clubs aren't doing the same, then that points to a local issue.

In this specific type of situation its totally unacceptable. It would appear that the root cause of the problem is the protocol between the SPFL and the Police. That needs to be revisited. Football fans should not be singled out and special rules applied to them. Quite apart from that, it woud appear that the rules are not being followed consistently by Police Scotland. I agree with Derek that bans should not be handed out until someone is actually found guilty. Compare this to the BBC / Huw Edwards situation. What about the principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty? As far as the club is concerned, it may be caught between a rock and a hard place. Damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. However it would appear that it isn't completely blame free. Before any banning order is enforced it should not be actioned unless the individual concerned has received confirmation. That would then put the emphasis on Police Scotland to get their house in order. If charges are dropped or someone is eventually found not guilty then the club should compensate the innocent party by providing free entry to games or a complimentary season ticket or whatever. In short, A complicated situation. All parties need to be involved and examine themselves. * The Bois to stay within the law, even if only just. * The club to treat innocent parties fairly * Police Scotland to ensure its data sharing protocol is consistent and fairly applied. * The SPFL to renegotiate the protocol with Police Scotland to ensure fairness for fans and clubs. As a start, the Society needs to get involved with the club and Block E, if it isn't already. Perhaps also write to the SPFL, as this issue is not peculiar to ourselves. No reason either why local MSPs should not be brought onside. This needs sorted out and a start would be to get round a table at Fir Park. Whilst I'm on my high horse, Police could have pulled up a mature Hearts fan for goading Well fans pre match, whilst standing a few feet away oblivious.

Just read a post on P & B by "ThisGraeme" who stated "I'd say the three in court last Monday who had the case binned due to having zero evidence against them, who were subsequently told they were still banned". Maybe that triggered the boycott? Does anyone know what thats about?

Great result and performance today. Well done to SK, SF and the players. It was a real team performance., Apart from a 15 minute spell when Hearts scored and we retreated timidly into our shell we pretty much dominated the game. In truth we could have scored 3 more on merit. Our defence has certainly stiffened up due in no small part to the Ox and Liam Gordon. I thought that Gordon, O'Donnell, Wilson, Halliday, Maswanhise and Watt were slightly above the others. Wilson is looking good. The single striker up front still isn't working properly though, with Robinson being outnumbered and left isolated. Oddly Halliday really seemed fired up; no doubt stemming from some baggage from his time in the capital. Maswanhise really looked the part and once fully fit should be a real asset. I thought Tony Watt too added some nous and experience. He can certainly hold the ball up and distract defenders. His run the length of a half taking 3 defenders with him and occupying them in the corner in the latter stages was something to behold. Let bygones be bygones - welcome back Tony. Now starting to feel more optimistic and it'll be interesting when our injured players return to active duty. Intriguing also if we sign anohter body or two before the deadline. A great day to be a Well fan.

A great afternoon to be a Well fan. I was sorry therefore that the Bois weren't there. They were a huge loss in terms of atmosphere. I know they overstep the mark at times and do things they shouldn't. I get that. However, they may have some grounds for complaint I don't know. I'm sure there's more to this than most of us old buffers know. I just hope therefore that they get together with the club and sort matters out. That may require compromise on both sides. Has the Society a role to play in mediation? Get it sorted folks!

Doubly pleased that we won for him and you Grizzly.

No reason not to try David. We have a few fans in North America and 2 candidates there who have something to offer. If they're up for it let's get them on board. At worst, what harm would it do?

We're in agreement then that political views wouldn't enter into our voting intention, providing they didn't influence Society business and weren't illegal.

Whilst I agree with a fair bit of your post, I don't agree that politics and football should mix. Can I ask if you'd vote for a "right wing" candidate who posted their legal, as opposed to illegal, views online, if they didn't let them affect their Society work/views and would do a good job or has done a good job for the Society? Personally, I couldn't give a toss what someone's politics are, providing they're legal and they don't let them affect any Society/club work. In such a case, like Derek, its what they have done for the Society or would do for the Society that would determine my vote. Toy drives and food banks? For some it might be political but for others, like me, its never entered my head. No ulterior motives. It just seems like a good thing to do; no more no less.

This is where I am too. Personally I couldn't care less what political views someone holds, providing it doesn't directly impact on any aspects of the club. The problem most commonly arises when someone holds far left or right views, which aren't necessarily wrong per se. For that reason, the club and Society should have some boundaries in place. This ensures consistency and everyone knows where they stand. All that said, posts which promote sectarianism, racism, terrorism, misogyny and misandry etc should not be acceptable - common sense really. If Derek has posted images showing both sides as part of a tour (I don't use Instagram so I hadn't seen them) then that's fine by me.

I suppose the acid test would be if a player posted such sentiments. How would our support react? Would it adopt a philosophical approach and shrug its shoulders or would there be an outcry? An interesting comparison might be Cammy MacPherson at St Johnstone.

Congratulations to those elected/re-elected. 4 strong candidates. I sympathise with those who missed out as there were some very strong candidates there. Hopefully their expertise can be put to good use maybe by co-opting them onto the Board. It's an onerous task even for a full complement of 9.

Agreed, but at least we don't pen them in like sardines in tins as other clubs do to our fans. A pet hate of mine.

A tad unfair. 13 of their players who were fielded yesterday played in their Euro ties. Not quite reserves. Even if they weren't at full strength, were we? By my count we had 7 players, who might reasonably be expected to feature, out injured. The selections were what they were. Derek McInnes could reasonably say that his team was beaten by a half strength Motherwell team.

Not quite. A previous manager of his said that he "can play" as a number 10, which isn't quite the same thing. That suggests that its a secondary role. From the little I've seen of him, he's not especially creative, although he's an attacking player.

Pretty much agree with that. Killie fielding a B team or not we were one or two players short ourselves. Lyons should have seen a straight red but the feeling around us was that as Findlay had been asked to leave the field, the ref didn't want to red card a 2nd Killie player. It looked a stick on red card all day. O'hara should have been booked for time wasting. I don't get why referees allow this kind of thing to rumble on unpunished. Overall, the ref was conned far too easily. I didn't really get why McInnes ordered his charges to time waste at all. You'd have thought they'd want to avoid a punishing additional 30 minutes at all costs given their important visit to Scandinavia on Thursday. Killie fans deserve a lot of credit for staying to the bitter end. However, both teams contrived, in different ways, to make it a nail biting and exciting last 15 minutes. I did have some sympathy for their catcalls and booing about our time wasting late on, but it was limited, given their side taking it to theatrical and protracted levels earlier in the proceedings. Sauce for the goose and all that. I've just watched Moses' finish. A lovely cross well finished it has to be said.