Jump to content

Bois Boycott


Kmcalpin
 Share

Recommended Posts

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!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, we are not a club who can afford to lose a group of dedicated fans who, in general, represent the club well.

i am also an old buffer and i hope something can be sorted out soon and these bois can continue attending games ……so they can at some point in many years to come, be old buffers too, still watching the ‘Well and bringing their own weans. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

99% of them are great guys who I've interacted with many times especially at away games but there is a tiny element who overstep the mark at times. Maybe its this Ultras phenomenon where its about trophy hunting ie pinching drums/banners from opposing groups and leaving graffiti/ stickers all over away stadiums (which the club gets billed for the cleanup).

It's up to the more sensible ones to keep them in line and I think a wee get together with the WS guys and club officials to set out some guidelines on what's acceptable behaviour and what's not is called for. Just using a bit of commonsense on both sides really as we don't want this to escalate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does need sorted but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

We are fan owned and there's at least one member of the well society board who is very supportive of the well bois - so why has this been allowed to rumble on for so long. I personally thought the atmosphere was fine today - it does need sorted but it should have been long before now by the looks of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, santheman said:

99% of them are great guys who I've interacted with many times especially at away games but there is a tiny element who overstep the mark at times. Maybe its this Ultras phenomenon where its about trophy hunting ie pinching drums/banners from opposing groups and leaving graffiti/ stickers all over away stadiums (which the club gets billed for the cleanup).

It's up to the more sensible ones to keep them in line and I think a wee get together with the WS guys and nd what's not is called for. Just using a bit of commonsense on both sides really as we don't want this to escalate.

Surely people don't need to be told what's overstepping the mark and what isn't. I've been going to games regularly since I was 18. They aren't kids. They might be young but they aren't children 

Btw I'm not disagreeing with your post but surely all fans have to do is go in the stadium watch the game and leave. It there are genuine issues then the club the bois and the society need to sort it because this isn't doing Motherwell as a club any favours 

I'm also not trying to make light of the fact that they have genuine issues either. It just needs sorted or it makes our club look completely amateur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ‘Bois’ just went to the game, supported the team, sing their songs, chanted their chants and so on then there would be no issues whatsoever.
 

There would be no unwanted attention from the stewards.

No club imposed ‘stadium bans’.

No arrests.

No legal proceedings.

But that group seem to have no intention of simply supporting the team. They have previous for jumping on the park, setting off flares, pyro, arguing with and in some cases shouting blind abuse at police and stewards all while dressing themselves in black and covering three quarters of their faces with scarves or whatever. It is no wonder that their cards have been well and truly marked by the club and the police.

But just like their idols in the Green Brigade they love a grievance and a reason to protest about something so I can’t see them ever changing their ways. Some of them might grow up and grow out of it but there will always be younger bampots ready to step up and follow in their footsteps.

Groups like that are part of the problem, not the solution but I reckon they already know that anyway, despite what their “look at us” banners proclaim or their protests are supposedly based on.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on P& B where a similar discussion is ongoing.....

"Young fans will always be a bit "edgey" and want to push the boundaries of what is allowed. It's what makes it fun for them. 

Its also what allows for rules to be changed that are quite frankly ridiculous.

If we all sat there and did as we were told by the authorities without challenging anything, then women wouldnt have the vote and you could still beat your wife with a stick no bigger than your thumb (extreme examples, I know).

That said, there needs to be some acceptance and collective responsibility from Block E and The Bois, that when they get it wrong and push it too far, the club simply have to act.

The club is also subject to the rule of law and also SPFL / SFA regulations. If they continued to flout them, ignore them, push the boundaries, they will eventually be fined/punished.

Dialogue is the key.

That way we can all get on with supporting Motherwell however we want to do it in a safe and enjoyable manner."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

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?

I believe it all stems from the Partick Thistle game when there was some kind of altercation after the game down by the Steelworks and a number of them were lifted by the polis.

They also chased a Thistle fan who had their drum into the ticket office, scared the shit out of the office staff, grabbed the drum off the wee guy then tried to take it into Club100 and were told to bolt by the doorman.

I imagine it was something to do with one or both of those incidents

Youthful exuberance????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, santheman said:

I believe it all stems from the Partick Thistle game when there was some kind of altercation after the game down by the Steelworks and a number of them were lifted by the polis.

They also chased a Thistle fan who had their drum into the ticket office, scared the shit out of the office staff, grabbed the drum off the wee guy then tried to take it into Club100 and were told to bolt by the doorman.

I imagine it was something to do with one or both of those incidents

Youthful exuberance????

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek has just posted on pie and bov to say it's because when someone is charged with a football related offence they direct the club to ban them - some people have apparently been issued bans even though they haven't been charged and some fans even when the case has been thrown out due to lack of evidence are still banned from Fir Park - more than that but that's the jist of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

Derek has just posted on pie and bov to say it's because when someone is charged with a football related offence they direct the club to ban them - some people have apparently been issued bans even though they haven't been charged and some fans even when the case has been thrown out due to lack of evidence are still banned from Fir Park - more than that but that's the jist of it. 

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Park and Suzanne Read were both publicly in favour of the Barmack scam and ended up with egg on their face when we told him to GTF. They are probably looking at this as an opportunity to reassert themselves here. 

Bob Park should be moved out asap and Read should be told to concentrate on her actual job. At least Caldwell tried to pretend he was in favour of fan ownership, the other two were totally out of order and would have been disciplined for their social media posts about the takeover in any serious company. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, steelboy said:

I've just read Derek's post on P&B and it's outrageous the club are banning fans on the say so of the police with no due process at all. 

The Society needs to get that and the age limit sorted. 

Bob Park still thinks he is employed by Police Scotland and acts like it.

He needs reminded that he is employed by Motherwell FC and should be accountable for his actions 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David said:

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!

Considering I was talking to the doorman in Club 100 and witnessed the whole thing along with about another 100 people then yeah maybe they should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, wellwell91 said:

Bob Park still thinks he is employed by Police Scotland and acts like it.

He needs reminded that he is employed by Motherwell FC and should be accountable for his actions 

Aye it's not hard to see what's going on here. Instead of going through courts which require some transparency  and where individuals have the right to defend themselves they are using 'licensing' as a parralel system to enforce whatever rules suit people like Bob Park.

If the club are questioned about it they will just dribble on about 'best practice' and vague threats of 'sanctions' (they seem to have replaced the big bad auditors under the bed as a catch all threat). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Aye it's not hard to see what's going on here. Instead of going through courts which require some transparency  and where individuals have the right to defend themselves they are using 'licensing' as a parrelel system to enforce whatever rules suit people like Bob Park.

If the club are questioned about it they will just dribble on about 'best practice' and vague threats of 'sanctions' (they seem to have replaced the big bad auditors under the bed as a catch all threat). 

You’ve hit the nut on the head. 
Do other clubs our size St Mirren, St Johnstone, Killie, Ross County have similar problems with banning fans in this way ????

Bob Park has far to much power within our club and it is time his power is curtailed and he is made to account for his actions 

If all this is being sanctioned by the board then our club has a serious problem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

I've just read Derek's post on P&B and it's outrageous the club are banning fans on the say so of the police with no due process at all. 

The Society needs to get that and the age limit sorted. 

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. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

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.  

 

If the club are happy to go along with these unfair rules then the first problem is the club. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, steelboy said:

If the club are happy to go along with these unfair rules then the first problem is the club. 

 

This is where the whole 'Well Society / Executive Board thing isnt working for me. And not just on this issue.

The Society are the clubs majority shareholders.

That being the case it should he having significant input into how the club is run (thats not to say it needs to be involved in the day to day running. Paud employess do that).

Lets face it, if a club isnt run for the benefit of its majority owner / members / fans, then what is it for?

We should never again have a situation where the Executive Board of the club can tell the Society what to do.

If there are legal impedements to that, then they need addressing.

Im hoping the new Society Board are well aware of these issues and plans are afoot to change them.

Maybe then when issues like this arise we have a democratic way of influencing decision making for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no idea how anyone can think that depriving the team of your support, whilst giving those at the root of your grievance a significantly easier day at the office, is a particularly effective protest.

Then again, I've no idea why anyone can think stealing a drum from someone makes them a football fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

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. 

 

Are all other clubs banning fans in this manner.

Not so sure that they are.  
 

The crux of the problem at Fir Park IMO is the relationship between Bob Park ( ex Police Scotland ) and the match day commander at Fir Park !!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wellwell91 said:

 

The crux of the problem at Fir Park IMO is the relationship between Bob Park ( ex Police Scotland ) and the match day commander at Fir Park !!!!!

 

Is there not a quasi protection racket where all clubs are expected to employ at least one retired polis with the correct funny hand shake?

The Old Firm both employ ex police in security roles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is some blame on both sides with this. Block E drop the wee hard man image and the balaclavas they would undoubtedly get the backing of the majority of the support but they also need to behave and not let a few spoil it for the rest. 
 

On one particular employee of the clubs stance it appears from the outside looking in he wants to make a name for himself on a power trip he never managed to achieve in his previous employment . I ask a few questions as a supporter and a society member 

1. where were the banning orders and prosecutions after the various pitch invasions against Celtic 

2. as safety officer why does he think it’s ok for stairwells and emergency exits to be blocked every time the Glasgow two come to town with nothing done during the matches to resolve the issue 

3. why did he allow the John hunter stand to be used for a full season whilst there were no suitable emergency gates or safe access from the front of the stand 

4. why was their an error on the finish at the front of the stand after the pitch was done and whose error was this and at what cost ?

5. was their really a concern over the safety certificate from the local council which was used as the reason for the debacle over removing seats and putting new barriers in to obscure vision and again at what cost 

6. Has the black tarpaulin\netting at the back of the stand been checked by the local authority as part of the safety certificate or was that ok to exclude because it was his idea 

 

I keep hearing about the society wanting to bring everyone together , build the support and the ask the usual suspects to dig deeper maybe before they do that we need to get our house in order from the top down

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...