JayMFC
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by JayMFC
-
-
1 hour ago, Minty Mac said:
What I’d be interested to know is after the WS have poured over it and balloted its members will ther be an indication as to how the WS board view it .
EG.‘we the WS board have scrutinised the deal and would /would not recommend to accept/reject this deal . Then include the reasons why
This would be similar to how most trade unions work with recommendations to reject or acceptUltimately it’s down to the members to vote how they see fit but from my perspective this would form part of my vote decision
Yeah, I think this is along the lines of my own thinking. I'm a trade union rep in my workplace, so I'm well versed already in terms of balloting members and including recommendations etc.
On a personal level, I don't think it's logical to have a ballot that doesn't include some sort of comms from the Well Society Board around a particular view or views. Now, as I said in my post earlier, members don't need to care a jot what those views are - but, perhaps unseen, Society Board members put a load of time and effort into the Society, the fan-ownership model, and the club more widely, and so some Society members (at least) may agree that there'll be a level of knowledge, understanding and experience that's built up there, and that the subsequent views from the Board might be worth considering (as you suggest).
What that looks like though still has to be ironed out. Everything is still very much hypothetical, including even the negotiation getting to a vote, and it's impossible to know just now whether any final offer would be unanimously supported/opposed by the Well Society Board, whether a majority would support/oppose, or what - and why. So once we reach that point, it'll be a case of establishing some sort of position and then working out how that's best communicated to members. But generally, I do think it would be very odd for the Society's position on any offer not to make up some of the comms in any ballot.
2 -
6 minutes ago, Gianfranco said:
These events have turned Jay into the keyboard version of Ketts.
If you think that my ability to go on and on and on is only a recent thing, I am more than happy for you to continue believing that.
3 -
13 hours ago, thisGRAEME said:
See fwiw, @JayMFC is intending to post but for some reason P&B is doing weird shit on his browser
Fired up another laptop and it appears fine on here - but I thought I better hurry on and post before I'm silenced on this too...
Nah, all joking aside - I've been lurking and reading the thread this week, lots of good points, and I know I've been tagged a few times. Don't want to go back and multi-quote everything, but I do want to respond to a couple of points.
Firstly, I believe @capt_oats had a few questions about the Well Society's role in the investment video - I'm going to just take the easy option here and just not answer those. It's something that the Society would respond to officially if someone sent in those questions directly by e-mail.
In terms of the current negotiations themselves, I'd just reiterate what it's in the Society statement - that the Well Society Board is not a part of those negotiations. I know there's a lot of comments and questions around why that is, and whether that's right or not, but again, I'm going to opt out from responding to that. Essentially, that's what the situation is - the Chairman & Executive Board have been discussing options with potential investors, and one of those has reached a point that all parties currently involved are happy to proceed to a next stage.
That said, it's not the case that the Society is kept entirely in the dark. I think it was confirmed at the club AGM that the Society had met with both interested parties at the time. We have also received some updates on progress and some key aspects of discussions, which I would imagine have allowed each of us as individuals to at least start to form some initial thoughts on whether the deal would be good/bad/indifferent for the club and whether members would be likely to think the deal was good/bad/indifferent for the club, but there's no collective position and we haven't had any discussions around reaching one. Basically, it wouldn't be right to do that until we were in receipt of any finalised agreement that the Chairman & Executive Board had reached with an investor and we were able to fully understand what that could mean for the club and for the Well Society.
If we reach that point, Well Society members would be balloted and, in order to make a fully informed decision, would be provided with as much detail as possible. I think it's worth flagging that any potential investor will have been told from the off that their offer would need to be cleared by Well Society members, so it will not come as any surprise that extensive details of any offer should need to be released to members. If any potential investor had a problem with that, I'd suggest they'd have been better looking into a club that wasn't fan-owned - so I don't foresee a problem in making sure members are informed when it comes to a vote.
I think @StAndrew7 has raised a question about whether Society members are club shareholders or not. The answer is no - the Well Society is the shareholder and Well Society members are exactly that, members. So it's up to the Well Society as the majority shareholder how it would vote in any shareholder vote - and it is the democratic and moral position that the Well Society's vote would be guided by its members.
Just on that too - firstly, there's no guarantees we reach a point where there's a shareholding vote or Well Society member ballot, we all know how negotiations work and things might just not reach that point. However, there's also a discussion to be had by the Well Society Board itself around how it conveys its views on any potential offer. There's obviously no automatic assumption that anybody will care what the Society Board itself thinks is positive or negative but the discussion still needs to be had around the communications that accompany any ballot, whether that's remaining neutral, providing a recommendation one way or another, providing arguments for or against, or whatever.
The last thing I'd just highlight is that, while the negotiations carry on between the Chairman & Executive Board and the potential investor, the Well Society is just cracking on with the work it needs to do as majority shareholder. No-one would expect the Society just to sit on its thumbs assuming transformational investment is on the way, instead we continue to approach things with October's refreshed Board, and the fresh approach and enthusiasm that has resulted, by ploughing on with a lot of work to ensure that fan-ownership is even stronger in the future, regardless of what happens here.
Contrary to what some people seem to enjoy suggesting on Twitter, fan-ownership demonstrably works, the previous years have shown us that quite conclusively. However, it absolutely can - and needs - to be better. The workstreams that the Society has formed have already hit the ground round with some fantastic work underway in comms, governance, events, fundraising and membership. As the comms workstream lead, I'm buzzing about the standard of contributor we've got on board (at the risk of complimenting a P&B stalwart too much
) and we've already done some fantastic work around identifying what needs to improve - a comms strategy will be finalised in the next week or two, and a return to a standalone Well Society website, that provides members with all the actual information they want and need, is already underway.
And as a whole, the Well Society Board continues to put together its own strategy and plan, for both the Society and the football club, that it is hoped members can put their faith in should the Society remain as majority shareholder. So I think at our end, we're just cracking on feeling quite positive about what we're doing - the Well Society will grow, members will find that the information and experience they've been deprived or found difficult to access beforehand is soon accessible, fan-ownership will continue to work, and I'm personally very enthusiastic that the new CEO comes into the club with a wealth of experience around income generation, following a recruitment process that the Well Society Board was heavily involved in.
So aye, not actually sure if any of that is particularly useful as such. Basically, the Chairman & Executive Board will continue to discuss things with the potential investor, while the Well Society continues the work we'd identified needed done prior to the investment video even going out - work that we're really positive about and work that we think will see growth in the Society, increased income generation in the club, and a platform to take the already-working fan-ownership model at Fir Park, and make it better. Of course, the perfect addition to that is positive investment that works for both the football club and the Well Society, and so if that is what comes from these negotiations, then that will be a further thing to be positive about.
15 -
17 minutes ago, capt_oats said:
Oh, absolutely.
I seem to remember Alexander being entirely in favour of it and for a lot of (naive) people there was an expectation that it would be a great leveller and in general it's be a panacea for Scottish Football...despite all evidence to the contrary.
Indeed some may say it was a case of...
Aye. There's no question the actual consultation should have been much earlier & been more engaging. But I think the strongest lines in the club's statement are those around wholly negative feedback & folk who'd now vote against VAR, and they're strong lines exactly because plenty of folk were actually on board with VAR originally.
2 -
4 minutes ago, capt_oats said:
Also, I probably wasn't that surprised at the time come to think about it. I was perhaps a little disappointed as someone vehemently opposed to VAR but I think it's easy now, after it's been such a shambles, to be quite revisionist. The actual truth is, at the time, a lot of folk were pretty content to welcome in VAR, on the proviso it was done well.
Obviously that proviso looks laughable now, but I wouldn't really say that the club voted for VAR against some sort of groundswell of opposition.
1 -
14 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:
Yeah despite the club sitting on the knowledge of a league vote for a good few weeks before. It may be argued they didn't want to risk a WS vote.
I agree with the comments about the short turnaround in terms of a consultation with fans, and I also have to say that I've been vocally opposed to VAR from the very beginning, but it's also probably just worth flagging that I was surprised that, through the Society's consultation, there was a majority in favour of VAR.
0 -
9 minutes ago, capt_oats said:
I have to admit that I hadn't even looked at the survey yet, I was just sharing it to help the target be reached. Might fill it out now though...
0 -
Couple of you may have already completed this online or on Saturday when Sean from the Society Board, along with some volunteers, was talking to people outside the ground - but if anybody's got a spare few minutes, feel free to fill out this survey on Society values etc: The Well Society (office.com)
Not far off the target originally set for respondents, so if some of the fine posters on P&B complete it, the target should be easily accomplished, ta!
2 -
7 minutes ago, Swello said:
This is the part that honestly I've always found more difficult to understand from a governance point of view (and it may just be because I'm not very bright and I'm picking it up wrong). The well society must be the only majority shareholder (are we allowed to say owner?) in football history that has minority voting rights on the board of it's own club.
Let's leave aside the argument that the 'Well society would ever become involved in any day to day decisions (which would be a ridiculous state of affairs) - but in the situation where the Executive Board was minded to do something "big" that the Society were dead against (let's say selling Fir Park to a housing developer and sharing NDP for an open ended period) - what safeguards are there that the 71% shareholding could actually be brought to bear? If I understand correctly, it's one person, one vote on the Executive Board, so the Well society reps are always in the minority, far more so if/when new directors are added.
It kind of feels like the whole thing relies on the "good chap principle" that the UK model of governance was based on before the current lot finally trashed it - basically, the folk on the Exec board were good guys like Alan Burrows or Jim McMahon who wouldn't knowingly make a harmful decision, so the 'Well Society can sit in the corner and nod their head and not worry about it - but this obviously becomes a different story when we invite outside investment or the cast changes.
This would be my understanding, aye.
There have been multiple times over the past few years, at least since my involvement, where discussions and even slight progress has been made towards an equal Executive Board. This has never quite been realised, however, much to some frustration. As mentioned before, there has appeared to be a lack of urgency employed around the whole thing from the club's perspective because, essentially, "everyone is a Well Society member anyway". That's partly why there's now a drive to ensure that it is part of any strategy going forward, exactly for the reasons you've outlined - paying a fiver a month (or even not, as the case may be) is not reason enough to have the majority shareholder able to be outvoted going forward.
Allied to that, a part of the Society strategy will hopefully be on identifying and recruiting non-Society representatives for the Executive Board that really allow the club to access the kinds of skills and experience needed in a modern football club. The CEO is obviously a huge appointment, but I think it overshadows sometimes the opportunity that now exists to establish a genuinely capable, driven Executive Board that can take the club forward under fan-ownership.
3 -
28 minutes ago, eliphas said:
Yeah definitely. To be perfectly honest, through a combination forgetfulness, laziness, lack of interest and having a small child I've completely lost track of who does what and what feeds into what and what does not between the The Club, The Well Society and The Community Trust.
If someone could do me a venn diagram that would be brilliant?
If I was to think about it, since the well society got majority ownership and had seats on the club board I've always thought basically the well society could push through whatever they wanted essentially (i.e. if we kidded on the well society were a foreign investor tyrant for a minute) but the WS haven't and we've essentially been owners but let 'the club' and it's employees do things with occasional WS input? Is that about right?
Not to hark on about the golden days of a standalone website, but there essentially was a venn diagram on there showing how the Executive Board, Well Society Board, and the (at the time) Supervisory Board related to each other.
The short answer to your question is no, the Executive Board call the shots with regards to the football club, not the Well Society Board. The setup - certainly since I've been involved - has been a five person Executive Board with the Well Society possessing two seats. The Chairman throughout that time has not been a Well Society representative. This has essentially meant that the Well Society Board can make a case to its two representatives on the Executive Board for something, while hoping that that they then make that case on the Society's behalf within the club boardroom. But even if they do, there's no guarantee that the Executive Board will make anything of it.
It's worth highlighting, however, that everyone who sits on the Executive Board is a Well Society member. This has been the counter-argument the many times that some of us have asked for a 50/50 split on the Executive Board, as any other majority shareholder would expect (at the very least). Part of the Society's strategy going forward, though, is to ensure a more even split on the Executive Board so that we can ensure there's a direct line from Well Society members to the Well Society Board to the Executive Board. That's something that has to be given serious consideration though, because there's got to be an effort to get the right skills and experience in the boardroom, alongside that representation - rather than just flinging an extra body in there as a tickbox exercise.
3 -
On 02/03/2024 at 08:01, eliphas said:
Next home game is two weeks away - I'd hope to see the WS out in force in the stands, the Cooper, the hospitality suites letting people know what they are doing and what they are building. Bold WS banners up to make it clear who they are. @JayMFC could the WS use the advertising space around the stadium for example that's out of date? I mean there's adverts in the main stand men's bogs that have out of date Joe Efford kit sponsorship on them.
So in the good few years I've been involved with the Society now, I have come close to tearing my hair out on a number of occasions in relation to this kind of thing. I remember spending months repeatedly highlighting how the array of wee frames for advertising in the East Stand toilets were lying empty, and I was constantly told they were going to be used by the club's commercial department. I don't think they ever actually were until maybe nearly a year later.
Pre-pandemic, I felt like we were making genuinely slow but reasonable progress in terms of visibility and general communications. We had wee stalls up the back of stands on the concourse at a number of home games, attempted to do Society versions of "MP surgeries" at Fir Park, and had a website that - although pretty mundane - was hosting information on the Society, including allowing us to issue statements on genuinely important matters that gave the Society its own voice. However, it feels like that progress wasn't just halted in the last couple of years, but was rolled back to some extent. I think that's why there's a genuine positivity now - now having a board with a majority who understand what's needed to improve, both drastically and quickly, and are actually prepared to put in the time and energy required to make it happen.
So in short, absolutely - I totally agree with your comments about visibility and presence, and we'll definitely be looking at the ways in which we can maximise that going forward. I do know that Speedie has already begun identifying a possible location for a constant Society presence going forward, so hopefully that's something that can come to fruition soon.
Just while I'm here (I took a bit of a break from the forums for a wee while there as the Society & investor stuff is currently all-consuming), I thought it might be worth just picking up on one or two other things.
In hindsight, the consultation question very possibly was a bit vague. I think the reason for that is simply that there was a huge effort to try and make both the content and the question itself as "non-leading" as possible. As a Society member, I've always voted for folk to join the board who I think will progress & protect fan-ownership, not folk who I think will still down and have conversations about investment with third parties who want to end fan-ownership. There was a real concern that we simply didn't have a mandate to do that. That's what the consultation was about - either getting that mandate from members so that we know we're not acting out of line by talking to investors who want majority control, or getting confirmation from members that we're wasting everyone's time by doing so.
On a purely personal level, I'd have probably preferred a different outcome in the vote, purely because my preference was for the club to appoint a CEO as soon as possible & get on with recruiting for the Executive Board in order to get the club out of the limbo it's currently in, while continuing to seek external investment that doesn't impact on fan-ownership. However, I completely understand why any Well Society member would vote to keep the options open, and that's absolutely fine - as I say, the consultation was just about setting out the parameters we are approaching discussions with, rather than anything else, and we can now do that. There was a deliberate approach to try and keep it as neutral a question as possible - which is probably why it perhaps spilled over from neutral into vague territory.
In the meantime, I am genuinely positive about what we're now doing as a collective with a common purpose, fresh ideas, and a majority willing to put in the graft required. The workstreams in place are going to see some real, tangible improvements going forward. Even just very obvious things like scrapping the frankly ridiculous decision to incorporate the Society's website into a couple of pages hidden on the club's official website and returning to our own standalone website that provides all the information, including things like minutes and policies, will go a long way to solving issues around communications and transparency. It's been a bugbear of mine for a few years now that the Society was convinced by folk inside the club to go down that route and we've paid for it since, so I am delighted we're now at a point of being able to re-join pretty much every fan-ownership group on the planet in having our own website. I mean, when you actually write that out it is just mind-blowing that anyone thought it was a good idea to get rid of a Well Society website in the first place.
The approach we are taking to the Well Society's strategy will, in my opinion, allow the Society to put itself forward as the best option, rather than just the default one. That's the aim and I think we're now very confident we can do that. Fan-ownership hasn't failed and it isn't not working. But the Well Society can be so much more than it currently is and, after having a great deal of my enthusiasm sapped over the last year or two (to the extent that a couple of my fellow board members had to persuade me to stand again in October, which I'm relieved I agreed to), I feel very positive again that we're going to get there.
18 -
11 minutes ago, eliphas said:
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.
I'll feed that back. Not sure a follow up email would materialise but it's worth highlighting as an option.
I suppose the email does say it's non-binding and sometimes you just have to hope folk pick up on that. But as I say, a few comments do make me wonder if it could have been clearer.
1 -
On a side note, it's been encouraging to see some positive mentions of the actual consultation email content itself. I'm not sure if that's the widespread response but there's certainly been some favourable comments made. It might not seem like it, but a lot of collective work went into the content to try and ensure it was as balanced as possible and avoided anything that was too leading in either direction, so if that has been achieved, it's a good thing.
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. It's to give the Well Society and club parameters within which to approach current, and any further, investment offers in terms of negotiations, while also clarifying if steps such as green lighting a CEO and beginning to rebuild & refresh the Executive Board can be undertaken, or whether those kinds of things need to remain on hold.
However, I think it's worth highlighting that if the Hollywood A-Lister did indeed rock up at the Chapman Building carting wheelbarrows of cash and looking for majority shares, nobody would say "sorry Taylor hen, the Well Society voted in a non-binding consultation not to give up fan-ownership so you'll need to taxi it back to the airport".
11 -
55 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:
There's an awful lot to be considered, but I've seen quite a few knee-jerk reactions to any investment before we really know much more than what I/we heard on Wednesday night. I appreciate you've probably got a bit more knowledge based on the WS board having had discussions with the two parties involved (and that those are probably to be kept confidential) so maybe have a bit more knowledge/a take on the individuals.
Yeah, obviously none of us on the Society Board would be putting out details at this stage, although - as outlined at the AGM - we have had discussions with both, saw sight of the extent of proposals, and had a chance to do our own due diligence in terms of who they are, what they're intentions are, how in line they are with the club's values etc. Obviously all of that would then be provided to members, were we to get to a point of seeking agreement from the Society membership in relation to a particular investment offer.
Also, in terms of that due diligence, I personally think it's important that the Society Board is putting any investment offer out to members, as long as it's credible, makes sense, is actually a reasonably "good deal", and doesn't have any particular red flags. I assume that's what people have understood the Society's role to be at the moment, rather than just offering out any option that comes along to members, but thought it might be worth clarifying.
55 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:One concern I do have around the Society (for now) is the poor turnout in the board elections last year; about 18-20%, I think? I know there are plans to increase engagement etc. but if there's a requirement for a vote on the above in the coming weeks, is there a way you think that turnout can be boosted? Given the seriousness and obvious amount of discussion and engagement that's happening I'm expecting it not to be an issue but it's still something that's nagging at the back of my mind.
It's a fair point. One thing I would say is that I think that's really just a reflection of how a lot, if not most, Well Society members seem to be quite content with things just rumbling on, and haven't taken a great deal of interest in the elections. Our survey data genuinely does show that the majority of Society members think things are totally fine - that's not to say there aren't drastic improvements necessarily, I'm the first to say that - but I think the turnout for elections just reflects that it's not really priority.
At the same time, we've had differing turnout figures - which I don't have to hand unfortunately - for things like the VAR consultation, the share sale ballot etc. And my understanding is, although it was before my time, the ballot to prevent Rangers from getting back into the top flight had a high turnout. So I think it's really just dependent on the topic, and I would expect there to be far, far more interest in a vote on any potential investment opportunities.
In short, I think the Society is just like the real world - give folk a local government election, and loads of folk won't even know it's happening; given them a referendum, and there'll be a big turnout.
55 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:I've stated on SO/maybe here that I'm not a member (although I'm considering it, given both yours and Dee's engagement messages etc. in the last couple of days) but the upcoming vote will be a fair test of what you've laid out so far; how d'you feel about it all?
So my own personal views at the moment - and these are not the views of X, Y, Z, etc etc - are that I personally would argue against the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding in the club. There is a sense of urgency that's been attached to all of this that I don't think is particularly helpful - the club is simply in the same position it's been for years, where, if we have a poor season and no cup run and no player sales, a gap needs plugged. It is, of course, very important to sort that out, which is why I totally agree that a balance between fan-ownership & outside investment would be ideal, but I get the impression that a lot of folk think this has suddenly come to the fore at the AGM. The only reason it's being discussed so vocally now is because there are a couple of offers on the table because of the video, not because the club is in peril.
I believe that I've been voted onto the board by (admittedly 18-20% of!) members to progress & grow fan-ownership, and to stick to that original rallying call of preventing the club from falling into the wrong hands. I believe that fan-ownership throws up concerns about sustaining what level of football you can maintain in the long-term without serious growth of the current model or outside investment, but guarantees the club will exist forever. And my own personal opinion is that there's actually a lot of merit in going ahead and appointing a CEO, transforming the Well Society's communications & governance via the workstreams being rolled out, producing a strategy that outlines the Society's plans for the future, and continuing to seek investment that works for all involved while protecting the long-term future of the football club.
I don't think we can do the above, at least in relation to the CEO, while negotiations carry on for weeks, maybe even months, involving the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding (something I believe, again, was clarified at the AGM - the reason for no CEO isn't that a recruitment process hasn't been carried out or because there are no suitable candidates, it's just not going to happen while these negotiations are ongoing). For others, delaying that appointment to conclude those negotiations might very well be worth it, but not for me.
And just on the consultation itself, which I know was also outlined at the AGM, that should be going out soon - there's just some work being undertaken around the content of it & timescales involved.
4 -
33 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:
Fair play to the folk going in to bat on twitter, every time I've looked I've seen a stupider take than the one I saw an hour ago.
I know Twitter is hardly representative of pretty much anything but some of the rhetoric out there does give me the absolute fear, which is a bit of a comedown from coming out of a Well Society meeting on Monday evening feeling the most positive I've felt about fan-ownership since before the pandemic.
Some folk seem to think this is simply the real life equivalent of using the editor to give yourself a higher transfer budget on Football Manager, rather than the genuine future, and potentially even long-term existence, of the football club.
2 -
7 minutes ago, eliphas said:
Should add, also absolutely 100% keen to see the WS strategy.
Just on the discussions around a WS strategy, worth highlighting that my Society comrade Derek posted a bit more around the thinking there on Steelmen Online earlier. I'm not sure if he's registered here though, so figured I'd go with the old copy & paste job:
"I just wanted to pick up on the point made about The Society having the opportunity to present it's own plan.
Firstly, as some have pointed out, I think from it's inception the Society has been hugely successful but in my opinion one of our real failings has been to effectively communicate our success. I noticed a very good summary from capt_oats on Pie & Bovril that detailed since 16/17 the fan-ownership model has been profitable; Net - £2,415,205. Our loans to the club (around 900k) have been invaluable and who knows where we'd be without that input.
It's important to note that there's room for significant improvement from the Society and if we want to move forward and succeed we must acknowledge our shortcomings. On that note, I'd argue that we've simply not been good enough at is converting those members who are not paying a monthly subscription to actually stump up (if they are in a position to do so) and we've not inspired those who are currently paying to up their contributions. There's many reasons why people might not be paying a monthly subscription but the change from the original model to the current one example; some have paid their initial fee before it was move to monthly DD's and haven't paid much since. This should be an easy fix, and as Jay has highlighted, I feel with the current re-vamped board in place we are in a much better position to do this sort of thing.
On said plan, I've been really impressed and inspired by the additions to The Well Society board at the end of last year. The contributions from Amber, Sean and Phil have been excellent and I believe we're moving forward at pace.
From our discussions, and I hope that other members of the Society board who contributed to this don't mind me sharing their vision, it has became clear we must explore in detail the potential of both the 'Well Society and the operations of the club to maximise revenue and to grow.
Some suggestions put forward from Board members include;
- Extensive market research of our fan base, cross referencing habits around tickets sales with our membership to identify potential membership growth. In turn allowing the board to develop a strategy for increasing the revenue of TWS, forecasting financial targets therefore dictating our organising strategy for future years.
- Commission a study of the operational structure of the club similar to what other Scottish Clubs are doing. This will help us identify what additional roles and infrastructure are required and what financial investment would be secured for them over a set time period. A fundraising strategy can then be developed as part of a comprehensive operational strategy that ensures cohesion and shared vision throughout the club that can be collectively evaluated regularly.
- Host a fact finding conference at Fir Park bringing together fan owned clubs across Europe to explore best practice, develop relationships and commercial opportunities.
This alongside the ongoing work and sessions hosted by Phil Speedie should ensure a closer relationship between the Majority Shareholder and the operations of the club and I would hope that it would empower members to be more involved and bring them closer to the club and the vehicle which they are funding.
By compiling the results from the above projects we can present a fully comprehensive 5-10 year strategy that will sustainably grow the revenue of the club, reduce potential financial risks and ideally ensure remain competitive on the park. The strategy should lay out the require project specific investment and infrastructure requirements and lay out a roadmap to achieve each.
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.
We've no doubt got a wealth of talent in our ranks that is going untapped. We've got 3,800 not only from Lanarkshire but across the Globe and we simply don't know enough about them and we don't know what each individual can bring to the table. That needs to change, and it needs to change fast, regardless of external investment or not.
I've been really heartened by progress and I'd like to thank all those that have been involved it in, but there's a long way to go and I'd like as many 'Well fans to be part of that journey as possible.
Regardless what the future brings, I think discussions like this are so important in highlighting how much the Club means to so many people."
4 -
15 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:
I think a number of us need to recognise Jay's influence and drive for greater democracy, transparency and most importantly getting the changes to the structure of the WS Board. This is key to where we shall find ourselves at present and importantly not accepting the wrong proposal. He did this when he was very much outnumbered on the board by the old guard but with sound and well crafted reasoning as evidenced by his posts on here, plus because it was just the right thing to do, he drove change which allowed the election in October. He is pretty humble. I hope he don't mind me sharing his level of frustration at times and seriously considered his ongoing participation. However, he didn't relent and I for one am very grateful for it and so should many who were unaware.
I couldn't possibly comment.
2 minutes ago, Desp said:Do we need to?
Only if you ever want back into Thursday 7s.
2 -
11 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
There didn't seem to be much impact on our crowds or the general feeling amongst our supporters when we got relegated, and I feel like it would be the same for Motherwell - there's likely a bit of a sense of being "due" it at some point. The problems start if you don't come straight back up I'd say.
The "due it" point is huge for me. I was born in November '85 - Motherwell were promoted in the May of that year, so we've never been out of the top flight my entire life. Whether we get wonderful, transformational investment or not, I don't believe for a second I'm seeing out the rest of my days never experiencing relegation.
Completely agree the actual issue is around coming back up, but the way in which relegation is pointed to as though it's the end of the world as we know it I think is slightly misguided, because I fully expect it to happen at some point in the near future regardless.
2 -
9 minutes ago, capt_oats said:
FWIW: there's been additional reporting on that SO post.
I replied to this on SO, so worth reiterating here:
"Great post mate - just wanted to reiterate this point. There's essentially no status quo option, there's the two investment options as well as the Society undertaking its own study & producing its own strategy, while simultaneously rolling out workstreams to target five key areas (communications, fundraising, membership, governance & events - more information should be shared with members in tomorrow's newsletter). I think we can all agree that there's a ceiling to the kind of growth & income the Society can generate, and what that is is clearly open to debate, but there is a refreshed desire to seriously looking at reaching that ceiling going forward, and, thanks to the board's renewed makeup, there's a majority of folk on there now keen to make sure that happens."1 -
10 hours ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:
Full disclosure that I wasn't at the AGM and I've not thought massively through all the permutations but I can't really see us staying fan-owned and not being relegated in the next 5 years. I suppose the question is whether folk just want to accept that we don't have a god given right to be in the top flight the same as Partick, Dunfermline, Falkirk etc don't or not. Obviously the Taylor Swift option is the ideal scenario but I think anybody wanting to become a majority shareholder without chucking away the "ethos" should probably be at least heard out.
This for me is the entire "debate".
I totally understand folk who think that fan-ownership isn't working. I would disagree with that but I understand it's a totally acceptable opinion to have - particularly as we all have different ideas of what "working" actually means. I think part of that is actually to do with communications, transparency etc that hasn't been good enough from both the Society and the club in previous years in terms of actually showing people that it's "working", but I also think a big part of that is very simple: there's essentially a big spectrum where, at one end, there's "aiming for short-term success no matter the risks" and, at the other end, there's "safeguarding the existence of the club forever, no matter what level that's at."
Every Motherwell fan will fall on that spectrum somewhere, and I don't think there's any wrong answers - people just have different reasons for supporting the club, get different things from going to games, and have different priorities when it comes to their expectations. Personally, I fall quite far along towards that idea that, as long as I have a club to support for the rest of my life, I will be content - even if that means flirting with or even experiencing relegation. I have probably been shunted even further towards that end of the spectrum as a result of discussions I've had around investment. That absolutely does not have to be the same for everyone, and I imagine a lot of people are somewhere in the middle a lot of the time.
Fan-ownership ensures that existence though. While the Well Society has the majority shareholding in the club, the club exists. It may be that, as American investors in particular saturate the European football market, we find ourselves tumbling out of the top flight at some point in the future, as other clubs risk their own long-term futures by chasing that short-term success. There would be difficult decisions to make in that scenario, and a lot of disappointment and heartache, but the future of the club wouldn't be in doubt.
At the other of the spectrum, investment for short-term gain doesn't even necessarily guarantee that short-term gain. Dundee Utd are the absolute perfect example of that so, even if you do choose that route, relegation is far from off the cards. And even if you do receive the few years of keeping up with others in the division, the long-term future of the club ceases to be protected and any decisions about what happens to the club, what it's future looks like, and even who then subsequently takes up the reins further down the line are taken out of the hands of Motherwell supporters.
Again, I don't think there's necessarily a "right answer". Folk want different things from supporting the club. There's my answer and it may be different from other people's, and that's fine. But what's most important is that, with fan-ownership currently in place, if we get to a point where a majority of Well Society members are at that "short-term success" end of the spectrum, then that's what will occur - which, in itself, is almost a good example of a benefit of fan-ownership working and giving the supporters control of the club's direction.
10 hours ago, capt_oats said:I was there. Some laugh.
There were people taking notes so I imagine there will be a full report of what went down on other sites.
McMahon seemed genuinely baffled as to why people thought Kettlewell's contract was up in the summer but he just wanted to clarify because he'd heard that there had been discussion on "social media".
Weir confirmed later on that it was an automatic trigger and (I think) he said he didn't realise it hadn't been communicated until the other day.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kettlewell's extension was news to me too.
8 hours ago, capt_oats said: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.
This is accurate. The Society Board have essentially conducted the recruitment process regarding CEO but are now in a state of limbo due to the terms of some of the investment options on the table.
3 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:That's way down my list of concerns tbh.
I'm not 100% against it until I hear the details but I'm going to need a huge amount of convincing that handing over our future to some random American(s) with no connection to the club or town is a good idea simply because we might get relegated.
This is where I imagine most fans are.
I think it's worth highlighting that none of this is "we'll give you X for Y", there's usually a whole host of caveats and other considerations that mean it's not anywhere near as simple a question as "would you swap fan-ownership for investment". The level of investment itself, who is providing that investment, their intentions for the club, and a whole host of other aspects are incredibly important there too. It's also worth remembering that fan-ownership isn't just some trinket that's been put in a cupboard in the Phil O'Donnell Stand somewhere, it's the result of years and years of time, effort, and money from an endless list of individuals, so I dare say there's a need to actually consider what scrapping all that work is worth to people.
Put it this way - I don't think in today's world it's ever going to be as simple as folk just wanting to swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs around us who have some sort of investment. What else would they sacrifice for that and where are the red lines? Would folk take a few extra quid to ensure that we're potentially finishing 6th or 7th each year, in exchange for a club that loses its entire community-based ethos? Would folk take five years of European adventures, in exchange for investment that is only part of a five year plan, with investors set to pack up & leave soon after leaving the club in the lurch? Would folk take dodgy money from unknown sources to make us the 3rd force in Scottish football until the investors got bored, in exchange for the eradication of our own youth academy? Would folk take all of those sacrifices - the loss of the club's identify, no long-term plan, no youth academy - for a club that could still end up in the Championship regardless of investment like Dundee Utd? All hypothetical scenarios but all very real possibilities.
As I've mentioned before, protecting the club from falling into the "wrong hands" has long been a reason given for fan-ownership, and I think this is a discussion where people need to take fully on board that investors aren't just coming along to chuck money into Motherwell for the good of Motherwell. That's not to say that there can't be a workable, mutually beneficial agreement found - but it's not quite as easy as some, particularly on Twitter, seem to think.
49 minutes ago, Pettigrew said:Who do we have confidence in? The Society?
My honest answer to this would be:
Pre-pandemic Society - probably.
Post-pandemic until October 2023 Society - no.
Post-October 2023 Society - yes, and I would hope that some of that confidence will at least start to build over the coming months.15 -
2 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:
It would seem so.
It obviously depends on the details of what anyone is prepared to offer us but I'm not convinced this is an arms race worth joining.
Investing beyond a club's natural means in Scottish football almost never ends well. McCann was an exception, when Celtic had expectional circumstances, and even he was chased out of Parkhead... anyone else left in triumph?
Off the top of my head only Hearts, Celtic and Rangers achieved enough during the spending periods to remotely justify the bill. As a general rule, the cost ends up being much greater and longer lasting than the success.
As it stands (if you believe the suggestions), there will be a couple of clubs spending a fair bit of money to finish outside the top six next season or two and for those who succeed to only a limited level (Europe without the group stage say or a losing cup final) eventually will find the bill in the post.
We want to spend as much money as we sustainably can and if the city clubs pull away we have little choice but to shrug. Compared to St Mirren, Killie, St J and even Dundee there's a choice though and arguably we're much better scrambling for a season or two and taking advantage of their inevitable downturn than chasing along because everyone else is.
We saw in the late 90s and early 00s, not just to us, what happens here long-term.
I find it incredibly hard to disagree with any of this.
Obviously, from a Well Society perspective, this "arms race" is quite a prevalent topic. I'm sure there'll be an investment update of some degree at the club AGM tomorrow night, following on from Derek Weir's update several weeks ago that there'd been notes of interest, but I'm obviously not going to post any details about any of the actual discussions going on. The Well Society are at the forefront of those discussions though and if any offer was deemed credible enough, then it would require a ballot of Society members for it then to be agreed to.
It's rarely as simple as someone just coming in and throwing some pounds our way though, obviously. When we talk about whether an offer is "credible", for some that will just mean the figures involved. For me though, as someone who's had a bit of trust flung my way by those who voted me onto the Society Board, I think there's far more to what makes an offer "credible", particularly when you are a fan-owned club with a strong sense of community values, and a fan-ownership model that has long proclaimed to be there to protect the club from falling into the wrong hands - there are a lot of "wrong hands" out there looking to invest in football at the moment.
And if someone wants to come in with an investment that is big enough to make a difference, are they likely to do so without looking for some serious input or control in the club? And if the answer is no, what does that mean for fan-ownership?
When you're a fan of a club with a current owner who you're tired or bored of, then it almost becomes an attractive option when there's an investor on the horizon by default I'd imagine. But when you're a fan-owned club, I think there's an element of "be careful what you wish for" to some degree. I have my views on that, that I and others involved in the Well Society have been expressing over the last several weeks, but there is possibly now a case for us actually just asking the members - are you hypothetically prepared to throw fan-ownership in the skip in exchange for investment?
I personally would hope the answer to that is no, particularly as there are a load of very positive things going on behind the scenes at the Society at the moment that will undoubtedly lead to an improved fan-ownership model & experience, and growth to both membership & income. But I think there's a sense that we need to be sure of that particular mandate, to avoid wasting anybody's time - including our own - when it comes to potential investment.
12 -
23 minutes ago, Casagolda said:
To be fair just a few years ago we spent nearly 500k on players under Alexander and pushed the wage structure to breaking point.
What did we have to show for it? We scraped a top 6 finish and got a trip to Ireland. Long term we were left with a bloated squad, full of average players on big contracts that in the end very nearly got us relegated the following season.
Once this summers gone, the last of contracts dished out during Alexander’s big spending era will be gone and we will have very few players under contract for next season. We should also have a new chairman, a new CEO and possibly even a new manager.
So I think you have to separate the short term nature of this season and the longer term changes coming. This season is a result of several years of mismanagement. The fact we’ve not signed anyone this window beyond the end of the season should tell you everything you need to know about what this season is all about. Minimise the spending, finish 10th and start afresh next season.
We absolutely should have signed another striker no doubt but honestly, how we go about filling the 3 key roles outlined above over the next few months is the bigger concern for me going forward.
This is spot on for me.
There's two issues here - the basic expectation that should fall upon any club to be able to fill a squad with the numbers required to navigate a season/half a season, and the whole KVV thing. On the latter, I'm quite relaxed - if folk genuinely do want us to compete with what Kilmarnock are (reportedly) paying (and what St. Mirren (reportedly) wanted to be paying), then I think there's perhaps a wider discussion about fan-ownership & safeguarding the financial future of the club through strict wage structures, budgeting etc to be had.
However, on the former, I think it's a massive failing to be going into a second half of a season where relegation is still a possibility with three strikers that includes an untried young loanee, a long-term injury worry, and a guy who - albeit decent so far this season - was only ever brought in as a 4th choice project.
As always with these things, hindsight will be a wonderful thing in the summer and hopefully then we'll be in a place where that failure to ensure a suitable squad in terms of attackers hasn't actually cost us. But criticism for that at the moment is, for me, entirely justified, and is a separate issue from the KVV stuff. We should have been able to bring in another forward - I don't believe that the choice should ever have been a binary one between obliterating your entire wage structure or bringing in nobody.9 -
On 17/01/2024 at 13:07, JayMFC said:
On the Society front, we had a really useful session with a group of members last night on communications (you may have clocked mention of it on the socials today), led by Scotland's top tannoy announcer. A lot of constructive criticism as expected, the vast majority of which those of us in attendance from the Society not just already knew, but have actually been echoing for quite some time now - so it'll be very useful to have that "evidence" to draw on going forward. There was of course some really good additional ideas, suggestions & concerns raised by folk, a very beneficial discussion all in.
On an optimistic note, as I've alluded to previously, I'm confident things can now genuinely improve with a Society Board more weighted in the direction of enacting the kinds of improvements & changes required, which I suppose highlights the benefit of Society members themselves engaging with the election/re-election process (and sessions like last night).
That's absolutely not a criticism of anyone, more just an observation that everybody rightfully has their own views & perspectives of things on a democratic board, such as what's needed in terms of communication, and sometimes there just needs to be more folk with a similar mindset before you can see (what I would consider as) proper progress.
Folk may have already been aware about this, but just flagging that Speedie will be hosting another session tomorrow night on "member rewards" this time. Worth considering going along if you happen to have a particular gripe, idea or comment related to the whole rewards side of things (and can actually get there without being carried away by a gust of wind obviously).
1 -
On the Society front, we had a really useful session with a group of members last night on communications (you may have clocked mention of it on the socials today), led by Scotland's top tannoy announcer. A lot of constructive criticism as expected, the vast majority of which those of us in attendance from the Society not just already knew, but have actually been echoing for quite some time now - so it'll be very useful to have that "evidence" to draw on going forward. There was of course some really good additional ideas, suggestions & concerns raised by folk, a very beneficial discussion all in.
On an optimistic note, as I've alluded to previously, I'm confident things can now genuinely improve with a Society Board more weighted in the direction of enacting the kinds of improvements & changes required, which I suppose highlights the benefit of Society members themselves engaging with the election/re-election process (and sessions like last night).
That's absolutely not a criticism of anyone, more just an observation that everybody rightfully has their own views & perspectives of things on a democratic board, such as what's needed in terms of communication, and sometimes there just needs to be more folk with a similar mindset before you can see (what I would consider as) proper progress.
7
Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted
Came on to give this very thing a nudge!
Blurb below but check the link in the tweet above for more info, to sign up etc. Excellent chance for a kick about on the Fir Park turf.