capt_oats

@gregthewellfan Tweet on Georgie Gent's numbers. Fwiw, Transfermarkt has his contract at Blackburn expiring in 2025. https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/georgie-gent/profil/spieler/732206

I had a quick look at our record at Livi earlier in answer to a point @Archie McSquackle made in the "Stadiums You've Never Seen Your Team Win" thread and over the last 10 games we've won 3 drawn 4 and Livi have won 3. Our last win there was 2021 when we came back from 1-0 down with Tony Watt and Grimmy scoring. It kind of feels like Almondvale is one of those grounds (like McDiarmid) where the fact that we never seem to actually play well there kind of colours people's opinion of things regardless of what the result actually is. Although, there's no doubt that 1-0 loss under Robinson with Bevis playing centre forward was enough to legitimately traumatise anyone. That said, I have the absolute fear here as out collection of shitebags couldn't keep weans out a close and seem to go to absolute bits when there are any sort of stakes involved.

Most of our recent games there have been draws but the last win was August 2021. Grimmy's only goal for us. Of our last 10 games at Livi we've won 3 (one of those was in the Covid season), drawn 4 and lost 3.

There they are...

In an ideal world, sure. If you'd asked me the same question a year ago as Burrows was packing his bags I'd probably have been making a similar argument in terms of what I'd hope the candidate would look like however I'm probably in a similar place to @Handsome_Devil in so much as I think the past 12 months has definitely changed my view on that. I suppose the way I'm looking at it now is, someone like Scot Gardiner or Gerry Britton have experience of running football clubs (badly) whereas Burrows when he was given the GM role hadn't. He'd essentially been shadowing Dempster but was engaged, understood the club along with its fanbase and had a "can do" attitude - did he get everything right? No but I don't think anyone would argue that his time in the role wasn't successful. I'm being slightly disingenuous there by putting up two legitimate idiots vs someone who did a good job for us but it's enough to illustrate a point in so much as I'm probably at a point now where I'm less concerned with previous experience of running a football club as a CEO being as essential vs basic competence and demonstrable experience of being in the room in the same way Burrows was with Dempster and Russell was with Flow. I don't think I'm being wide of the mark in saying that public perception of the club was the best its been in years during the period Burrows and Russell were heading things up. We've gone from that to literally having to publicly apologise to our manager for having failed to communicate a contract extension had been triggered 8 months ago and watch our chairman bumble his way into unintentionally creating an existential crisis for the club ownership ostensibly because he doesn't seem to understand that messaging in communications is actually important. The fact that he was sitting in front of the cameras having to field questions and explain that the club isn't in financial difficulty the day after his video launched is evidence of that. To that point, for the moment we're still a fan owned club (and hopefully continue to be) if we're highlighting desirable qualities then alongside actual competence in the role and the "can do" attitude I mentioned I think it's probably important that we get someone in who not only understands the club but also values the idea of fan ownership and the fanbase themselves. While I absolutely get that Russell is someone who isn't for everyonem as I said in a post last night I think it's probably fair comment to say that he's engaged and *gets* fan ownership along with modern fan culture in a way that the incumbent board just don't but it feels like someone *like* that who is perhaps more in sync with the refreshed WS board would be valuable. Again, I'm not saying these weren't traits we were looking for in a candidate anyway but with the way things have gone recently they've probably become more important considerations than they might have been a year ago (IMO).

I know there's been a lot written over the past few days but it's worth pointing out that it was mentioned at the AGM that neither of these bids will be 'transformational' "straight away" (per @StAndrew7's summary posted both here and on SO). Similarly, the vote isn't a vote against outside/external investment it's a vote asking if people would be willing to see the WS lose it's majority shareholding. I think most people would be open to external investment.

I mean, I'm not advocating him for the job (honestly) but he essentially worked alongside Burrows for 4.5 years. He's already done that part.

Aye. Not that anyone's asking but I voted for the first option as well on the basis that the brief indicated that the vote wasn't binding. If you're asking me *now* I wouldn't vote for an option that would see the WS lose its majority shareholding - which isn't to say that I'm not interested in hearing what they have to say - but as a starting point I don't see that this initiative or whatever you want to call it was cobbled together with that as a desired outcome. Similarly as I said earlier, voting for an option at this point in time (interim CEO, chairman heading out the door etc) that would see the current majority shareholder relinquish that regardless of any caveats seems a bit wrong headed. Then again, show me a pitch deck and I might change my mind but right now the idea of the WS losing its majority isn't for me. As I said earlier I think this is something that we should be approaching from a position where we have some sort of strategy and joined up thinking rather than being forced into urgency because the chairman chucked £17k at a video and decided to upload it to YouTube which is honestly where it feels like we are at the moment. @Handsome_Devil put it well earlier in saying there's a feeling of "beware old men in a hurry" here. As if it wasn't already clear, I have absolutely no faith in Jim McMahon and Co either.

See, specific to that Tweet I disagree with him that seeking external funding is waving a white flag. I think that most of us would agree that there's a ceiling to what the WS can sustain so to that point external funding should be something that the club is open to. I also completely understand why people's mileage may vary with him however having said that, I think he *gets* fan ownership and perhaps more to the point modern fan culture in a way that the incumbent board and interim CEO just...don't and I'd say that both McMahon and Weir's apparent dismissiveness of the department he headed up probably speaks to that. Tbh, looking at where we are at the moment then someone like that actually feels like a good starting point. Given the way that things have panned out over the past year and a bit I think it's become entirely clear (as if it wasn't before) who was at the heart of making the club/fan ownership dynamic work (spoiler: I'm talking about Alan Burrows in case it wasn't clear). It's not to say everything was peachy in the 6 months or so before he left but I don't think it's overstating things to say that once we lost that presence and skillset Burrows provided everything seems to have gone sideways. Dunno, it seems unlikely it's an option after either McMahon or Weir intimated that we weren't looking for a candidate with a previous Motherwell connection along with him currently being at West Ham but I'd say that I'd probably buy into Russell's approach to running Motherwell far more than whatever the f**k McMahon's been up to over the past year or so.

Cards on the table. I genuinely had no idea what the song was. Not a Steely Dan fan.

I mean, he's only signed a pre-contract. He could still back out at the end of the season.

I see @RandomGuy. has already answered. For a bit of additional context though. That's around 10% less than ours in the very spendy Alexander season when we reported 209 staff. See below.

Just chucking this in here as it tangentially relevant to some of the whole "competitiveness"/budget discussion but as @RandomGuy. mentions in their thread that's St Johnstone's accounts posted up on Companies House now. Having had a quick swatch at their accounts they're listing 161 staff compared to our 222.

This is 100% where I am. There's been a lot of discussion recently about poor judgement, to me launching that video (well meaning as it may have been) at a point at which we have no permanent CEO and a chairman who had indicated he's stepping down felt ill-judged and that's regardless of what I thought of the content or the messaging. To me, sorting that stuff out first then approaching the subject of investment from a position of relative stability and allowing for some joined up thinking would have made far more sense than just launching that video in the way we did. Instead, as you say, we find ourselves in a circumstance with an urgency attached that isn't helpful in the slightest.

Something that crossed my mind kind of relates to @Busta Nut's point about the hierarchy at the club. It's maybe one for @JayMFC or Dee so if you'll indulge me, I get it's also maybe not something that you'd want shared on a public forum given we've already seen The Sun run an "exclusive" that has basically just aggregated some of the detail from posts on here, Steelmen and FPC: Anyway, I understand that Dickie and Feely are both on the board of the club and also the WS. Are they part of the discussions/negotiations re: investment on behalf of the WS and it's then fed back to the broader board or is it just being led by McMahon with details being shared on a need to know basis (I thought it interesting that Weir kind of put himself at arms length on Wednesday - he cut the figure of a man scunnered that he was still interim CEO because the board hadn't sorted their shit out but that's a different conversation)? Either way, the way it was presented was that the WS were being "kept in the loop" for lack of a better phrase which to speak to Busta's point a few pages back seems a bit backward. I realise I'm someone whose posts on here have shown that the more I've heard from McMahon over the past while the less convinced I am but the reason I'm curious is that having McMahon leading this kind of throws up a potential scenario where it's unclear whether the WS (as current majority owners) and any potential investor are on the same page or capable of working together before it goes to a vote. Dunno, that doesn't seem to be a particularly healthy starting point should something get voted through the section of the fanbase/membership being discussed above.

Just popping my head in to say Graeme McGarry’s post-AGM ‘Claret and Amber Alert’ mail shot via The Herald is excellent.

Maybe it was just the bits I could hear (honestly lads, get a fucking PA...even a small one) but it felt like the general conversation from board members leaned very heavily towards the US option. I don't know if that was a steer towards preference or if that one is just more advanced. I think it was Weir who said something along the lines of the guy having made his money in streaming and it was a platform that we all use. Assuming we're not on Daniel Ek's radar but tbqh it could be anyone from someone who's actually credible to someone who's an absolute shitehawk as @AnderooMFC suggests. There was also a comment that it "isn't Ryan Reynolds". I mean, until it's clarified who the bid is from and we get some sort of prospectus/pitch deck it's kind of difficult to rule anything in/out.

Aye, I was away to say that IIRC Kettlewell said that he didn't feel it was his place to discuss the specifics of the contract in terms of who it favoured but Weir chimed in to say something along the lines of they were/are "comfortable" with the deal. Take from that what you want. In fairness Kettlewell also put his hands up to the (good) question of <paraphrasing>"if we (correctly) didn't pursue Moult because of his injury record, how did we justify extending Obika whose injury record is equally as bad"</paraphrasing> and said that the Obika deal was on him and explained the logic and thinking behind it which was in line with what I think most of our understanding of his reasoning was ie: he did well playing in a specific role, St Mirren offered Mandron a better deal than we were willing to so we stuck with Obika and his burst hamstrings.

A point that has kind of got lost in all of this (especially the hand-wringing about plugging shortfalls etc) is that through the fan-ownership model the club has actually been profitable. Posted it before but these are our Profit/Losses since 16/17: 16/17: (£104,000) 17/18: £1,720,000 18/19: (£436,000) 19/20: £346,590 20/21: £3,575,615 21/22: (£1,082,000) 22/23: (£1,605,000) Net profit: £2,415,205 Yes, that profit is largely generated by a quirk in which we reached two cup finals and sold 1 (ONE) generational talent but there's a certain mentality from folk who are talking like us posting £1.6m losses has been a regular occurrence or that that's an amount the amount that needs to be bridged when it's simply not the case. Sure, that's the loss in the last financial year but that's easily explainable...we were cash rich with £4.2m in the bank so spent a chunk of it on capital investment projects. Presumably if we hadn't had £4.2m sat in the bank we wouldn't have been spending £1.2m on a pitch. We spent that money because we had it (and the work needed done). @thisGRAEME's post above really speaks to where it seems things have gone wrong post-Burrows and I'd ask the question as to how much the current board have actively sought investment or progressed any sort of strategy to grow the club? We absolutely need fresh investment but as I said it at the time when McMahon's video went live that was not the work of serious people. Having read @JayMFC's posts both here and on SO along with hearing both Sean and Derek last night it feels like there's a willingness to treat the WS with a degree of seriousness rather than have it stymied by a bowling club mentality.

Absolutely gone at that btw. Possibly the first contract extension that's announced by way of an apology.

Don't apologise. You wrote it up and there's far more detail than an idiot like me would post so I appreciate being able to crib your post. Welcome btw.

FWIW: there's been additional reporting on that SO post.

Lifting this from the Club AGM thread on SO:

I could be wrong but beyond Weir effectively saying he’s out of there in 5 weeks they didn’t actually mention it until someone asked. They’ve apparently interviewed and the WS have had input or spoken to folk but the whole “investment” thing has meant they find themselves between two stools in that anyone putting money in might have their own ideas.

100% this. Mention it here and absolutely no one bats an eyelid...