David

Yeah, but you also claimed that numerous other players in our team were "the worst in the league," so you were always going to be correct at some point. A broken clock etc.

I'm pleased to hear that. Let’s stay focused on the topic and avoid revisiting posts that have already been addressed.

C- on that reply as well. What's actually going on in here? Jesus.

I've long been in Balmer's corner. I think he looks a proper class act and will be a mainstay in the team before long.

What kind of actions are you looking for?

Yeah, I think it was more a case of him not really settling in the area, which is fair enough. He's shown that there's a player there though, doing reasonably well in Australia again since leaving us.

Don't be bringing actual data and stats into it!

So, TV companies can basically dictate which games have to implement VAR in the cup, and which don't?

We're not in a position where we need to rush anyone back, thankfully. We've come this far, so I would prefer we eased the injured lads back in gradually and did our utmost to avoid any relapses or further issues. I would be quite content with our starting lineup from Friday, replacing O'Donnell with Kaleta.

And it's usually easy to tell who's who and weed out the posers, because the individuals who had to sit through that game have it written in the haunted look in their eyes...

Aye, who wants the day trippers, eh? Let's just take an allocation of about 4,500. That'll show 'em.

Yup, and that's what some people like to discuss mere hours ahead of a big cup game. Go figure. Maswa would start for me, and patience is running thin with Robinson. I know we don't have many options up top though, so that plays a part.

No one's stopping you?

As I mentioned, it’s as good an indicator as you’re likely to find. For every ten new factors you add, I could add another twenty. We could start considering the relative wealth per person in Motherwell compared to Aberdeen, or examine the different age groups present in each location, or assess transport links, employment rates, digital engagement, and so forth. There is no perfect method of measurement, but my overall point is that our fanbase levels are certainly no worse than those of any other team in the league when everything is taken into account. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as "poor" by any means. Clubs like St Mirren aren't leaving us behind.

It's a paper exercise based on actual numbers though, which is what attendances are also based on. So it certainly does equate to pretty solid reasoning. The central belt encompasses the likes of Edinburgh and Glasgow as well though, doesn't it? Should we be drawing our fanbase from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Falkirk and Paisley? That seems ludicrous to me. Again, our fanbase as a percentage of our local population is as good an indicator as you're going to get. And we do pretty well in that regard. Is there room for improvement? Always. Are we worse than other clubs in Scotland? Not really. The club as a whole needs to (and is) working on increasing our fanbase. Not just the Well Society. Once again, over the past few days, I've seen responsibility for increasing the fanbase and bringing in significant investment being placed on the table of a group of volunteers who have full-time jobs outside of football. The Society absolutely has a part to play, but so does the paid staff of the football club.

That's totally fine, you can have your opinion. I'm just throwing some actual numbers out there that suggest you're a wee bit wide of the mark. Carry on though.

In terms of the local population, Motherwell actually performs quite well regarding attendance. When you consider our fanbase as a percentage of the population, we achieve around 14%, which is better than the likes of Dundee United, St Mirren, Hibs, Hearts, and Aberdeen. From what I can see, only Kilmarnock and Ross County have better figures. I’ve excluded the Old Firm from this discussion as their attendances are obviously restricted. You could certainly argue that our catchment area should encompass regions further afield, but that reasoning would also apply to the other sides mentioned in this context. I’ve restricted all clubs to the city or town in which they are based. If I were to extend Motherwell's catchment to include surrounding towns, I would need to do the same for the others, which I don’t think would result in significantly different percentages.

It’s definitely something that is ongoing, that much is certain. However, there are many variables involved that will determine what is made public and when.

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? 👀