David

Yes, that's not something that can really be constrained by a specific timescale. There are numerous variables involved in the investment process.

Which email was that?

That could have been us. Kettlewell sacked for refusing to entertain the idea of signing a couple of Mexican players to help push the tequila brand that was mentioned. "Transformational" indeed.

From my limited knowledge, the Society board has been diligently working at putting the plan into action. It's going to take time, mainly because the Society board all have full-time jobs of their own.

But £260k isn't similar to £500k? It's roughly half.

We paid similar for Stama? Didn't he cost us like £260k?

How exactly is that done? If you say something, and I present an opposing view, is that me "shutting down" any criticism? Or merely offering a different perspective? This thread is full of people expressing negative opinions about the Block E lads. It also includes others putting forward counterpoints that support them. I don’t see either side being "shut down." It’s simply a discussion. But why? Just as people are permitted to express their observations from games and local pubs afterwards, others are allowed to counter those observations. Both viewpoints are permissible, and have been in this thread. Unless you prefer a forum where someone can state what they claim to have seen, felt, heard, or otherwise, and no one is allowed to challenge that? Having your view challenged does not diminish it. It simply means someone else disagrees with you. Once again, posters are free to dismiss anything they wish out of hand. That’s part of being in a community like this. The important thing is that while some may vocally dismiss your views or those of others, it doesn’t mean that everyone who reads the thread agrees with them or sees it as a slight on you. I really don’t think we should be considering stopping people from challenging what others say simply because it upsets the person who made the statement. If individuals are distressed by others disagreeing with them, this forum, or indeed the internet in general, might not be the right place for them. And this isn’t me telling you to leave the boards. You’re more than welcome to post here just like everyone else, but you need to understand that your views are neither more nor less valued than anyone else’s. And similarly, I’m not addressing this specifically to you, but the situation you’ve described, where you say people should be able to express their views without being criticised or told they’re talking nonsense, rather exemplifies someone who doesn’t like being challenged. And, if someone accuses a poster of being an idiot, they can surely ignore them as well? Does that mean others should also be able to post about and defend the Block E group without being shot down? We've discussed this in private, and it's rather ironic that you're upset about people posting defamatory material about you, yet you're happy to constantly claim that a certain poster saying "I think u should take a break from the forum as u seem to take everything personal" is them telling you that you should "get off these boards." It isn't. So please stop saying that. Should I lock it? 👀

I genuinely don't know what to tell you. I actually went to check today after your post to see what had happened in the thread, as I'm unsure who "my pal" is that I was supposedly upset about being given a hard time. As I mentioned, I reviewed the moderating I'd done back to around 2018, and couldn't find anything related. Even if it did occur, you're talking about an average of closing a thread once a year, with most closures being due to transfer window threads that had run their course and so on. You mentioned that I have a history of "closing threads," but only cited one instance over many years. The reality is that a lot of leeway is given to posters on this forum. Much of the conversation that is permitted here would be deemed trolling elsewhere, which would have led to bans long ago. I've received numerous private messages and complaints from various forum members regarding the tone, language, and subject matter on the forum, and I've had to explain that we're not particularly strict here. This leniency towards certain individuals has likely contributed to driving people away, and while I believe the rules we have are adequate, I don't fault anyone who leaves due to the excessive negativity present.

The most recent thread that was locked on this forum seems to have been over six months ago. It was a transfer thread that was closed because the transfer window had ended, and a new thread was created for the next window. Based on the records I have access to, over the past five years, I have locked five threads. Three of these were the aforementioned transfer threads. One was a thread about Tony Watt after he left, which had degenerated into discussions about Albion Rovers. The last was a thread about David Turnbull after he left, which had shifted to discussions in the former player thread. It seems that my so-called "tyranny" amounts to closing, on average, one thread per year over the past five years or so. Not bad for someone who has "form" for closing threads! If I did close a Robinson discussion thread, you can be fairly certain that there were reasons beyond me being offended by the content. If I were to close every thread where people were posting material that I found ridiculous or in poor taste, I would be closing threads on a weekly if not daily basis. The reality is that this forum is remarkably lenient when it comes to allowing certain individuals to air their negative nonsense, which has caused some posters to drift away over the years. There are posters on this forum who simply wouldn’t be allowed to post what they do elsewhere. But aye, continue to discuss the bois as you see fit. So long as you don't go over the score with what you say, you won't face the brunt of my tyrannical ways! 😂

Sounds incredibly vague to me. But then, I guess that may be the aim of it.

Really? Which threads? If anything, I receive more complaints from individuals on the forum about the moderating staff being too lenient, suggesting that we should be taking a firmer approach. I suppose it all comes down to perspective.

How so?

Another factor to consider is that, while most people on this forum refer to the end section as a monolithic group, I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case. Whenever I’ve ventured up to that section to soak in some of the atmosphere, there is indeed a core group of lads at the very front, but the faces I’ve seen in the middle to the back of the section, and around that area, vary considerably. They also vary in age. I’ve seen very young lads who appear to be around 15, as well as older guys doing their best to lead the proceedings. My belief is that, while there’s an element of organisation concerning the drums, chants, and displays we see within the stadium, I don’t think we can hold the collective responsible for what happens outside of that. Once everyone leaves the stadium, I’d say that everyone is responsible for their own actions. For example, the section is known to sell scarves, t-shirts, and so on to help fund the banners and displays. What’s to stop me and three of my mates from buying some of the merchandise, showing up to the game, loitering at the back of the section, and then heading out after the game wearing the merchandise, all hyped up on adrenaline from a good performance, and deciding we want to cause trouble in a pub or have a go at some opposition fans? Would the guys who lead the chants and hold the drums be held responsible for that? The above theoretical situation could easily occur without me or my mates having ever really met the group as a whole. It’s for this reason that I believe the individuals involved in trouble in surrounding pubs and so on need to be held accountable as individuals. If they break the law and are charged and found guilty, then no one can complain if and when stadium bans are issued. Comparisons with the Green Brigade are, I believe, off the mark. As mentioned above, I’ve stood at the back of that East sStand section and in the section next to it and have heard very little in terms of political chanting. I’ve never seen a Palestinian flag, and apart from some jabs at the police, I don’t really see or hear much to be concerned about. My viewpoint is that I would hold the group as a whole responsible for planned in-stadium chants and banners, absolutely. That’s something they collectively work on and deliver as a whole. Incidents outside the stadium? Not for me. And I’m not saying those incidents didn’t happen. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see them. I’m just saying that those incidents should see the individuals responsible held accountable. Surely no one can expect the end section organising group to be held responsible? Regarding the recent boycott situation, I’ll reiterate my point that I believe any fan charged with a football-related offence should be suspended by the club, and then banned if they are found guilty by the courts. If charges are dropped, then the ban should be lifted. That’s based on the club’s actions being taken on the basis of the criminal charges. If the club has banned someone for an in-stadium situation that perhaps doesn’t require police action, then fair enough. That’s a different matter. Another question that's slightly separate I have is what qualifies as a “football-related” incident? Is there a specific set of parameters that define this somewhere? If I get into a fight with someone outside a pub on a Tuesday afternoon, it seems that I’m dealt with differently by the law compared to if I do the same outside a football ground on a Saturday evening, correct? When is the cut-off point? Two hours after a game finishes? At what point does the individual causing issues shift from being a “football fan” to just being a guy?

I said at the time that I felt the dressing room dynamic, with Kelly being captain and so on likely played a part. It's a big decision to drop your captain and someone so influential. It's all worked out now though.

I'll tell you what, I absolutely love being proven wrong. Last year it was Bair, and this season? I'm actually not missing Kelly and think Ox has been far better than I could ever have hoped. Him being our number one gave me the fear initially, but he's looking solid thus far.

Can you please point out where anyone on here has actually said that?

Again, absolutely no one is saying that the younger element of our fanbase is perfect. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that none of our fanbase is perfect, full stop. What is embarrassing is the way the young lads are looked down upon and basically sneered at by an element of our fanbase. I have no time for that. "you can do all the food drives and bucket collections you want but people aren't daft"? What kind of patter is that? I'd wager that the lads who run those initiatives have done a lot more for the local community than many who choose to sneer at them. I've actually got more time for the guys with their "annoying" drum and their over the top enthusiasm than I have the older types who like to spend 90 minutes red in the face while they hurl obscenities at guys who are often teenagers or in their early twenties.

Thanks for proving my point 😂

Man, the sheer bitterness from some of our fans towards a segment of the younger support is actually embarrassing. "You can do all the food drive an bucket collection you want but people aren't daft" Fucking hell.

How so? Their contracts ran until the end of the season. I assume their new "rolling contracts" will run from the start of this season until the end of the same season, with added security that it can be extended to next season if all parties agree? I don't see how we're bolted down to anything?

Yes, but you can't dismiss all the excitement and tradition associated with supporting a football club. You're essentially saying, "If our football club weren't actually a football club..." but it is. And it's fan-owned to boot. There aren't any fan-owned cinemas, gyms, or restaurants with such a devoted following of individuals who are there week in and week out, scrutinising the ins and outs behind the scenes. If Motherwell were just another business, we’d likely be sitting here now looking forward to the era of Barmack. In a traditional business, decisions are made by the executive board, while "customers" don’t tend to care all that much. We can’t ask the fans to be vocal and express their views, making those in charge uncomfortable when it suits—such as with a dubious bid—and then complain when those same fans voice their opinions on other issues.

Indeed they are. But if the majority ownership group wants those bans explained to them, and the rationale behind them backed up with facts, that's surely understandable? The people discussing this, many of whom are Society members, aren't just punters who drink in a pub or customers of a business.

I agree. I don't think another forward is really required.

I personally know of a few lads who used to go to games together and had season tickets. They've had to cancel this season. Could that mean season tickets that might eventually become adult season tickets, with all the associated spending in places like the Cooper Bar, on merchandise, Society membership, and so on over the next 10, 15, or 20 years? Potentially. If we're prepared to let that go to enforce this rule, then so be it. That's the club's choice. One thing I would point out is that while the CEO is approving these policies, it's not solely his decision. There are other departments, individuals, and opinions involved.

What "house rules" have the individuals who have been banned broken then? If someone is responsible for smashing up seats, fighting in the East Stand, or something along those lines, then fine, issue a ban. I don’t think that has happened, though? The issue I have with your analogy, and others have done the same, is that you're using examples where abuse was hurled at someone in the stadium, or some sort of "house rule" was broken in the stadium. This isn't the case. If you left a Motherwell game and then got accused of getting into a tussle with some wank who supported the opposing team in a pub two miles from the ground, would you accept a ban? A crime that is hardly worthy of a slap on the wrist if you do it on a Saturday night in the town, but deems having you treated like a gun-toting gangster if you happen to have just left a football game? You’re right, though; a ban should not be based on a criminal conviction. But if that’s the case, why does the club issue such bans based on the police charges? That was precisely why these bans were put in place. It only makes sense that if the club issues a ban based on police charges, it should then lift the ban and issue an apology when the charges are dismissed. "Mistakes happen, no issue there." Well actually, there is an issue there. A pretty fucking big one. There's absolutely no way that should be glossed over. Some poor lad wrongly accused, put through the stress of what that entails and when it's proven he wasn't even in the country it's just a case of "mistakes happen, no issue there?" Not for me.