eliphas
-
Posts
984 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by eliphas
-
-
Regardless of views on either side of the wall one thing 'the video' did that was good was shake things up enough to get some interested parties circling, which in turn seems to kicking the WS in to gear about producing a proper, hopefully deliverable, strategy as the majority stakeholder in the club.
If this all is a catalyst to somehow create a WS strategy to increase that yearly take to a better level than it is today and catalyst to change at the club then all good.
1 -
There's a lot of made up examples of things getting chucked about here from various people to try and persuade people from different positions. Some pretty big stretches.
For me right now it's as simple as the WS question states (are you up for considering the majority WS shareholding position being up for grabs or not).
Everything else is pure conjecture and not particularly helpful at this juncture.
2 -
56 minutes ago, KirkySuperSub said:
Personally, I voted for the first option, purely as the detail of what we're actually being asked to vote on is at present unknown.
Absolutely vote for what you want and why - genuinely not pushing a case here.
But that's not really what we were asked to vote for though.
Your vote placed has said you would not in anyway consider any proposal that reduces the majority shareholding. Full stop. Red line.
Whereas it sounds like you would with some more detail around an actual buyer bid consider it. Which is the other option
1 -
2 hours ago, JayMFC said:
Although that said, one thing that maybe could have been clearer in hindsight going by some of the comments is that idea of the consultation being non-binding
On record saying I think that was a great email. Very very informative and straight forward I thought.
But, aye, I think it could even be worthwhile to put out a short follow up quickly, as in today on email and socis, explaining what you've explained here about it being non binding etc.
If some people have missed the point and voted in a different way, even the minority, I'm not sure how that squares up vs votes already posted and all that to be fair.
1 -
In all seriousness though, if we take Grant Russell to the side for the moment as my head kind of got lost in him as an individual last night probably and I genuinely don't have anything against the man.
My main point to I think it was @Handsome Devil's post is really just if I was picking a CEO I don't really want someone in with brand and marketing basically as their main experience and selling point. Even I'd that's football brand and marketing.
I'd rather it was someone who has maybe ran a football club before, someone with solid proven financial and negotiation skills defintley but don't need to be a finance guy, someone who can foster some great relationships with other CEOs, views marketing and brand etc as important for definite, someone who has been in and about the football side of it too a little bit too probably given the size of our club and the fact they won't be able to appoint an exec team below then.
So, a very simple hire....easy.
0 -
8 hours ago, capt_oats said:
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 that's fine, he can do it again if he wants in under my leadership if I'm picking the CEO. Haha.
0 -
20 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:
What would you prefer, another finance guy like Weir? CEOs develop through their specialty, and pick up cross-cutting skills along the way. You trust they recognise their limitations and appoint good folk to run the departments they can't while respecting their importance (very much unlike Weir). We need to stop being shy, stop being timid, get folk onboard the 'story' again and sell ourselves. We're crying out for the sort of sales and marketing w****r you'd hate to go for a pint with.
To be fair it's a good point. I don't need to go for a pint with them or like them which is clouding me somewhat this evening.
If I can pick freely, maybe a more balanced mix of pure finance focus and pure marketing focus. Someone who has more experience on the actual running of a club properly day to day rather than someone with marketing and brand ideas as their primary focus or experience. Good strategic thinker across multiple areas including experience on the football side of it too. Sound financial manager and good negotiator. Connections if possible in football.
Hire Grant and stick him in an office to report to the CEO. He was on STV about 5 or 6 years ago. Everyone starts somewhere but I'd prefer someone with more experience applicable to a CEO gig to be guiding us this time around.
1 -
33 minutes ago, capt_oats said:
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.
1 hour ago, Handsome_Devil said:I think it's hard to be critical of him not going into too many specifics in twitter... he's clearly put a lot of thought into his pitch.
Tbh I was horrified at the thought of him being CEO but as circumstances (or available info, perhaps more accurately) change, I've changed with them and I've concluded that someone like him is exactly what we need.
Not for me. Don't particularly want a brand, marketing and content guy or gal running the club. We need to be shooting higher than that for the CEO job.
0 -
4 minutes ago, fat_tony said:
I read the question as whether you'd be willing to consider any proposal that would see the society losing its controlling stake, or absolutely will not even listen to any proposal unless the society retains control.
I don't think it's jumping in to the unknown to suggest that it would be worth at least hearing any proposals before chucking them out.
I'd rather the society keeps its controlling stake but it's not inconceivable to me that there might be a scenario where it's worth losing the controlling stake for the right proposal. It's certainly worth having all the options to weigh, IMO.
That's how I read it too.
I voted for the second option. That I would consider it. Which I would be sure I'd want to hear what people have to say. Defintley in no way is that me saying I'd vote for any old option presented.
As @Busta Nut says, I hope we can stay fan owned too, but for me I'd like to be presented with all possible options and red lining not giving up majority ownership isn't for me tbh. I totally understand why people would though if it's really a passionate subject for them for multiple reasons.
3 -
10 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:
He never gives up tbf to him.
I mean. We all can say plan and leadership Grant.
Edit: Don't have twitter so only seeing that here and noticed it's a thread. Genuinely not bought into 99% of what he says as any real needle mover.(the season ticket stuff with CRM is saying is a good shout ). Ultimately coming down to a final tweet which is essentially a rebrand. I know he's a marketing guy but come on.
1 -
Good email from the WS
0 -
51 minutes ago, capt_oats said:
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.
Similar staff numbers to what I posted about Killie. They didn't seem to include youth/academy for some reason. Maybe same as St.J?
0 -
1 minute ago, MurrayWell said:
I think this is it in a nutshell regarding the 50+1 model here. I said earlier in this thread it's obviously the dream scenario but realistically is it ever going to be an option for an SPFL club? I reckon the reason it works in Germany (aside from the obvious crowds, TV deal and all round class product) is more down to the fact that all clubs are run that way so investors can't really just pick another option and take full control there. If you want to invest in football there those are the rules.
I've been a member of the Well Society for a number of years and I really back the concept and idea behind it. The figures show it is working for us, but I do feel there has been a bit of stagnation, I found the recent election turnout figures a bit concerning. Personally though, the recent noises from the Well Society have me feeling the most optimistic about it I have in a while. Sounds like a number of ideas are being considered around how the WS can grow the club without us losing our identity, will be interested to see how this develops. If we have a nice investor who just fancies chucking money in for a bit of fun then ideal, I'd be amazed if anyone does that though.
I'm a jaded/lapsed WS member as I mentioned yesterday and to be honest I think there's as much chance of us growing the club via WS as there is an investor popping up and giving us some cash. I can see us keeping the club afloat and finding our level down the ladder but growing it I'm unconvinced. Very happy to be convinced though and agree recent soundings from @JayMFCand others do raise my optimism levels a bit from where they have been.
0 -
1 minute ago, Busta Nut said:
I was basically wondering why McMahon and Weir think they can essentially sell the WS shares. (I know it has to go to a vote etc, but seems weird that it's jumped to this without consultation. )
I'm not sure they are, are they?
We asked for investment, we've got a handful of people interested. We've had some chat. Now we've got two 'serious' bids and both have indicated they'd be looking to adjust share set up. Unless you red line it from the off and say, no thanks boys, we just want your money, then you need to see what they want and then present that to the WS for discussion and ultimately a vote. That's what I took from the summaries the last couple of days.
Also, I'd be pretty annoyed if they had done the opposite and assumed they can't sell the WS shares. As a member I'm happy for that to be explored.
0 -
@capt_oats or others who were three. I saw a note about as far as we know no pressure contracts signed. Was there any chat on us resigning anyone from the squad yet? Contracts out there being killed over etc? I'm assuming not given we are still technically in relegation territory but just wondered.
0 -
All this talk of The Sidemen, who I didnt know about as a group before this week then heard them mentioned on a podcast and then here, has reminded me of The Walkmen. Who I hadnt thought about since about 2003. Whit a band.
0 -
1 hour ago, JayMFC said:
In my personal opinion, I believe that this work can and should be done whilst continuing to keep our options open to potential investors, providing they are credible and fit with our values.
Brilliant post Jay - but this is the bit I was delighted to read.
Everything you've posted on behalf of Derek reads really well but keeping up pace on both fronts (WS strategy build as well seeking/speaking to investors) until we have credible WS solution that can fund the club ongoing and properly, is hugely important to me (As one of the original WS members who has now lapsed)
1 -
1 hour ago, Busta Nut said:
I don't care how much money the Sidemen have. They are a bunch of knobs who insult women, among other things, online for whatever millions of followers they have.
Maybe that makes me sound old anaw but get them so far to f**k. Even in this hypothetical.I think the point has maybe been lost somewhere.
No one on here would welcome folks like that in I'm pretty sure it's fine to say. I'm sure it would not even get passed a first round of consideration.
However, some folk on here and elsewhere just immediately turn their nose up at online/social media made investors. Not you I should add but a few have straight away.
We should consider everything.
Anyway, I've made my mind up it's the Reddit guy and Serena. So let's go.
0 -
12 minutes ago, JamesP_81 said:
At least that should keep us up.
Good stuff.
0 -
11 minutes ago, Al B said:
The oldest of the Sidemen has just turned 31.
The 7 of them have a combined net worth of close to 100 million and have annual passive income in the 10's of millions.
They have close business ties with Logan Paul and Mr Beast, add them into the mix and you're talking money that most "serious" businessmen (and Taylor Swift
) could only dream of.
I mean it's not any of them obviously and never will be, but to write-off game-changing, business-changing social media entrapraneurs as adult children playing on the internet, makes you sound about 90 years old.
100%. I think in general, for me, I'm completely comfortable with us speaking to everyone and anyone. However 'silly' it may seem.
If we write people off without even speaking to them at least once then we are absolutely not doing what we should be doing as a club.
Picking some to speak to further as a type of round 2, and then doing due diligence on the ones we want to use, then going 'exclusive' for further conversations is just good business. Letting it be known that there isn't only one show in town is also good business.
Should add, also absolutely 100% keen to see the WS strategy.
My preference would be WS coming up with a strategy that sees us compete in the top flight and not need outside investment. But I'm struggling to see how that is possible with our fan base more and more. Personally, I don't particularly want to see us slip down and become a Morton, Thistle, Falkirk etc like someone said a few pages ago. I fear that will happen
3 -
40 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:
If anyone is inclined, Amy Irons interviewed Reynolds middle man and he outlines why Scottish teams were not attractive when they were looking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gngn4s 17m20s on
The rub is you have to listen to Levein drone
I like Amy Irons. I'll give it a go.
0 -
7 hours ago, capt_oats said:
Lifting this from the Club AGM thread on SO:
I've been doing a bit of googling on the couple of bidders being discussed. Some sleuthing with a few big jumps because I was quiet at work today....
The Ozzie bid. The CEO mentioned would definitely would be saying the right things if they pitched up here. Here is an excerpt from his press release when announced at Brisbane...remove Queensland for Lanarkshire and that is what we preach:
We believe in developing and nurturing young & local talent, so that they can grow as people and as footballers.”
“Our focus will be to reconnect the club with the football community throughout Queensland and establish a clear elite pathway from club and school football to the professional game,” Patafta said.
Patafta, an ex-professional footballer played at Portuguese giants Benfica, Melbourne Victory, Newcastle Jets, the Australian U17 and U20’s national teams and was among four promising youngsters invited to train with the Socceroos leading up to the World Cup in Germany.
“Our vision is to not only engage but to support local clubs by working together to grow participation, supporting more boys and girls to play the game.”
Brisbane owners are The Bakrie Group. Indonesian based but own Brisbane through a company called PT. Pelita Jaya Cronus. Which looks like it's an investment arm for Bakrie essentially. They've got links across the world.
A golf team in LA was mentioned. This one definitely raised an eyebrow. As a golfer myself, you don't really hear about 'golf teams'. But, there was one recently just launched in LA, for a thing Tiger Woods is launching. Los Angeles Golf Club founded by Alexis Ohanian (founder of Reddit) and his wife Serena Williams. They were also founding investors in an LA womens fitba team.
The streaming magnate bid. Couldn't really dig up anything but was thinking...does Jim McMahon think Reddit is a streaming compay and actually that bid is the LA golf clubs one.
Anyway - entertained myself for a half an hour.
0 -
1 hour ago, Handsome_Devil said:
Off the top of my head that's SOD, McGinn, Mahon and now the actual manager who have had an extra year somehow which nobody saw coming. There's no way this was an accident or coincidence. And given most of these, had they been clauses, would have been considered fair I have no problem with any of them.
But...how many people actually knew we had a manager for next season? The fucking Society board didn't. How could JM and DW possibly think this was justifiable behaviour?! And that's not just a question of comms to the public but reporting back to the actual owners of the business how you've dealt with arguably the most key member staff in the club.
As for the glib comment about it coming to attention on 'social media', it has been the main discussion of every Motherwell spot online, every pub chat and at every game for months...how the hell can you tell an AGM with a straight face you're surprised there's confusion?!
I'm very forgiving of mistakes in the club but this one, and all it symbolises, is very close to making their positions immediately untenable.
Jesus Christ, that's the blood pressure away again having calmed earlier...I imagine it was only utter shock that stopped those there asking wtaf they were playing at. f**k sake, I'm off for a lie down!
I'm the same here.
For it to happen 4 times is not a coincidence. I don't think there is anything going here, tbh, that is cloak and dagger persay. But I do think information wasn't passed on for whatever reason at the time about the deals and then it's.... not thought about again because it's not the way McMahon and Weir work.
McMahon and Weir, and the rest of the board, very much strike me from the old school way of communication in business (i.e. they don't need to know that so we won't tell them, keep it simple and there is less to pick apart type of comms)
Now, I'm on record a number of times on here basically saying we don't need a grand Head of Comms position, or a big comms strategy, for a club our size, and I do stand behind that. But that was probably coming from a place that the few folk in charge or involved in the comms weren't missing simple stuff like this....
1 -
1 hour ago, thisGRAEME said:
Well as (presumably) as much of a gag as this is, it does speak to again; things like 'succession planning' and 'talent identification'.
So y'know, stuff that businesses do!
It was an incredibly funny gag. Correct.
I'd like all that stuff you mention.
1
Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted · Edited by eliphas
Is this all conjecture? Or are you party to some inside info on the bid?
If it's the former then, for talking sake, let's say the Aussie mob agree that they don't take a cut from players sales that are already in the academy and they take 5% from any sale not including development fees. They don't take any cut if the club is running at a loss.