David

The thing is though, if there wasn't evidence to convict, then how does the club know their behaviour was unacceptable? Or are we just giving the powers that be the power to ban anyone they like without scrutiny? This isn't "any other business", this is a fan-owned football club. Some people may not like it, but they do have to be held accountable to the fans on occasion. Especially when it comes to banning people. And for the record, anyone caught and convicted by a court of carrying out football-related violence or trouble should face the consequences of their actions. However, when there isn't enough evidence to convict, that changes the story. Innocent until proven guilty and so forth.

Well, it's got all of us discussing it across two internet forums and on social media, hasn't it? So they've managed to shine a light on an issue that otherwise wouldn't be discussed had they just showed up at the Hearts game as if nothing was wrong.

It's bad enough that someone can be treated as though they're already guilty when they've only been charged (accused) of a crime, but that they're still on the banned list when that accusation is thrown out? Absolutely ridiculous.

Sounds like the prosecution missed a trick by not giving you a call. They didn't have enough evidence to do anything, but you seem to know more than they do!

Sure, they all sit in the same section of the stadium, but that doesn't mean they’re all on the same page about everything. Just because they’re physically grouped together doesn’t turn them into a single-minded entity. People might be in the same space, but they’ve got their own opinions, interests, and ways of doing things. The same goes for this section of the stadium. While it might look like one big group from the outside, there’s a lot of diversity in how they think and behave. It’s not fair to lump them all together as a “hive mind” just because they sit in the same section. And that applies even more outside the stadium. When individuals and smaller groups are on their own, how can anyone attempt to control them as part of the group?

I think some people may not think it's worth doing, but I don't think that means it's seen as a problem. As I said in my post, my concerns are more to do with stretching the volunteer manpower we have already, most of whom are dealing with fairly pressing matters. If some of our US members, including anyone who ran for election and wasn't successful this time, alongside some other volunteers wish to look at a US workstream it's certainly doable.

No one said it was a problem? If those who wish to help promote the club in the US market are up for it, then great.

No he isn't. Far from it, in fact.

Oh, by all means! If there's a way for a workstream to include those US fans and those who think it's a good idea, then absolutely! If a few US-based fans want to help spread the word, then that’s great. That's true, but from the perspective of the club and the society, what value do those Facebook fans from Uganda or elsewhere actually provide? Are they purchasing matchday tickets? Dining and drinking in the Cooper bar before a match? Buying season tickets? While someone posting on Facebook might seem cool, it doesn't really contribute any tangible value to the club or society. I'm not sure how many Society members we have in Uganda just now? As I said, most fans based overseas who support Motherwell tend to have family ties to the area, if they're not actually from the area themselves and have left for various reasons. Wrexham has a lot to answer for, doesn’t it? The truth is, no one cared about Wrexham before they were taken over, and honestly, no one cares about Wrexham now. People are interested in the owners of the club. That’s the real draw. I’m fairly certain I saw somewhere that the new seasons of the documentary series included a clause in the contract requiring the owners to appear on screen for a minimum percentage of the time. The distributors know that the audience isn’t tuning in to see how Wrexham are performing, or because they’ve suddenly fallen in love with the club. They’re tuning in to see a reality series featuring two fairly well-known individuals who are willing to put themselves centre stage for entertainment. Hasn’t Tom Brady invested in a football club as well? And the guy from Creed? Why aren’t they taking off and making huge waves in the US? It’s likely because there’s no compelling documentary story for people to follow. The US interest isn’t in Wrexham. It’s in the “reality” show being filmed around it. That's a line that Barmack was also pushing, and there were numerous flaws and issues highlighted in that particular model. A great deal of information on Pie & Bovril was pointed out by people who know the entity and the business model far better than I do. Ask those individuals who are watching those podcasts and YouTube shows if they’d be willing to pay a tenner a month to each channel in order to continue watching. It’s not just about the cost of running it; it also concerns the amount of time that people involved need to invest. Having observed the various workstreams associated with the Society recently, it’s clear that their time is already stretched to the limit for many. We have a multitude of tasks that need addressing, from revising and improving the governance, sorting out the executive board, and understanding why the representation from the Society board essentially "went rogue" on the Barmack vote, among other things. As I mentioned, if we have US fans who want to get involved, donate their time, and create a US market workstream, then go for it; there’s certainly no harm in it. The same applies to those who believe the US market is ripe for the taking. @wellgirl, you were expressing concern about the female representation on the Society board. You don’t need to be a board member to get involved. If you think we’re missing an opportunity in the US market, then get involved with others who share the same view and make it happen. What I don’t agree with is people who think the Society should be pursuing this market or that market, but who expect others, whose availability is already stretched, to do the work. That's an issue that needs addressing. The turnout was ridiculous, and there has to be something done to find out why that was the case.

When people say that we should tap into the US market, how do they propose we do that? And also, unless there's a family connection to the club, why would anyone from the US really be interested in Motherwell? Sure, there are soccer fans in North America, but they all have their own local clubs, and like the rest of the world, outside of that they have plenty of ways to access the English Premier League etc. It would be like a US team along the lines of Syracuse FC, FC MIlwaukee, or the Minnesota Blizzard looking to tap into the British market. Why would anyone here give a toss about those clubs?

If it's proving popular enough I don't see why not? Be interesting to see how it goes over time.

There's nothing better than someone starting a bit of a stramash only to respond with "end of story" when they get some push back.

This might be what has made him appealing. Much like regular double-digit goalscorers, clubs of our size and budget will struggle to sign an established "number 10", as creative players with that kind of ability generally don't have Motherwell high on their list of destinations. However, what we can do is bring in someone who has previously flirted with that kind of role and whom the coaching staff believe can be converted to playing there in the future, while also playing as a forward if needed.

It's not about who posts on social media, but what they post. If their posts on social media consist of exposing the extreme flaws in the executive boards logic behind supporting the Barmack offer, for example, then I certainly would take that into account when voting. The thing for me is that the board of the Well Society aren't tasked with executing business ideas. They're essentially guardians of the club. It's the job of the well-paid CEO and the team employed by the club to execute on business ideas. I want to elect a board that I can trust will not be daft enough to fall for the kind of nonsense that the former chairman and a few of his friends did. I want people who will safeguard fan ownership and ensure that any prospective investor looking for any kind of control is scrutinised in a manner that Barmack clearly wasn't. If someone can offer social media, marketing, accounting, or any other skill, they can be involved without being part of the board.

Posted this on P&B, and figured I may as well post it here as well... I thought I'd share a few reflections on my decision-making process for the Well Society board before I finalise my selections. The first thing I've noticed is that many people are basing their decisions on what individual candidates contribute in terms of work experience, career history, and so forth. For me, that isn't a primary concern. As we've already observed, we can engage those individuals and their skillsets through the workstreams and various other projects. We don't need someone on the board just to make use of their skills or experience. If we're honest, if it were about experience and contributions, then individuals like Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely should be an automatic choice every single time. Both are immensely experienced with skillsets beneficial to the board. No, for me there is one criterion that outweighs all others. When there's a tough decision to be made, such as the Barmack situation, where the executive board might be leaning in a direction that doesn't quite align with fan views or interests, can those on the Society board be trusted to stand firm and vote appropriately? Or will they be influenced by a brief visit to the "big" board's offices for a cup of tea and a biscuit? I don't want someone on the board because they can enhance marketing, financial stewardship, or anything similar. I want someone on the board because they truly understand fan ownership. I'm observing many candidates who are undoubtedly qualified in their day jobs and career experiences, and I've seen many of them actively engaging on the forums and social media over the past few weeks. However, when we were all debating with Erik at 11pm on a Friday night, tirelessly posting counterpoints, researching different business models, meticulously reviewing each line and the phrasing of various plans and heads of terms, and working on documents to chart a new course for the Well Society in the face of allegations of lacking experience or credibility compared to the Netflix chap, many of these individuals were notably absent. Of course, that could be due to circumstance. Were they too busy? Had family issues? All of which is perfectly understandable. But, maybe it's because they simply did not think Erik's proposal was all that problematic? Everyone will make their choices based on their own criteria. But for me, it doesn't really boil down to what a candidate has achieved in their career, what experience they have, or what they "bring to the table" in that respect. We have multiple workstreams for that. I'm more interested in what they contributed during perhaps the most critical non-footballing issue we've faced as a club in recent times. And what their actions would be should a situation like that arise again. There is already one individual who was very vocal about how he felt during that time, and for that reason he will never get my vote. I'm sure he may well be a perfectly nice guy, but on this particular issue I don't feel I can ever trust him, no matter what other life skills he may provide. If he's really behind the idea of fan ownership then he can sign up for a workstream. He doesn't need a board vote. Give me someone who has spent their entire working life on a building site and doesn't even own a shirt and tie, but who will do everything in their power to protect the club from the likes of Erik Barmack over someone like a Douglas Dickie. Those who were part of that process know who they are, and those particular individuals will have my vote this time around. They stood up and were counted when they could have very easily just sat back and did nothing. There's one individual in particular who did more than most, and that particular candidate will be the first name I add to my vote later today.

it does offer a cracking view of the game, to be fair.

If he was carrying any kind of injury and the medical staff green lit his participation then serious questions need to be asked of the medical team. I really doubt that was the case though. We need to remember that football is a physical sport. Injuries can happen, and they can happen for any reason.

We can't allow that to get in the way of yet another chance to moan like f*ck about the manager though.

All I'll say is thank God certain posters on this forum aren't actually in positions where they have any say at the club. We'd be bankrupt within a few years, paying the salary of around 4 managers per season, and paying a squad of senior players that would make Chelsea's squad look streamlined.

We're currently sitting with a first team squad of around 26 players. Yes, some of them are injured, but those injured players still need to be paid and their medical costs taken care of. They will all return at various points over the coming weeks and months, so we can't just keep spending money on new players. How big do we want our squad and wage bill to be? Even if the management decide they want to make some more signings, it'll be a hard sell on any new player when we ask them to come in and provide cover for an injured player, then they likely get papped out the team when said injured player returns. At most, I anticipate a few six-month loans before the transfer window closes, and even then, the calibre of these players might not be sufficient to satisfy the online critics.

Don't be shy, anything you have to ask her you can ask her out in the open 👀

I actually think if anyone is wishing to assign blame, then the medical team is just as viable a candidate as the manager, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

That's fair enough, I just don't see what there is to disagree about? Unless you think the medical team aren't providing detailed fitness reports and recommendations on who should play? Or do you think they are and Kettlewell is just ignoring them? Or do you think the medical team is getting it totally wrong and advising the manager to play players who aren't fit? Again, I'm not posting my opinion here, so it's not a case of me being right. It's just how it usually works with clubs these days when it comes to the fitness of players.

I'm not offering an opinion on the matter. I am neither a qualified medical expert nor a manager privy to the players' fitness and capability data from the medical team. My point is that we, as supporters, can certainly hold opinions, but they are based on a fraction of the information required to make a sound judgement. Kettlewell would have selected the player based on details provided by the medical team. I seriously doubt he was informed the player was at risk of injury and decided to play him regardless. There will always be unforeseeable elements when it comes to fitness and the human body. However, the manager will have been thoroughly briefed beforehand about which players are deemed fit enough to play, and he is likely acting on that information. That is the role of the medical team. Fans (myself included) might well assign blame based on their personal views, and that's absolutely fine. Yet, they are very likely incorrect as they lack all the necessary facts and details. That's simply the way it is.

Ah, well, that completely overrides any professional opinions the manager would have gotten from the medical team. "Proof is in the pudding." 😂