Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[thisGRAEME]

18 minutes ago, welldaft said:

The decision has been made to cut our cloth accordingly. It may be and is proving painful but if it protects the long term future of the club then so be it. Even if that means in lower league . 

Strongly disagree with this type of logic tbh.

There's absolutely no reason for us to accept being in a lower division. There are 12 spots in the Scottish top flight, and Motherwell have an average attendance around 7/8/9 in Scotland.

Outside of Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibernian, Dundee United and I suppose Dundee now they're back in the top flight, there's a cigarette paper between the rest of the sides, attendance wise. It's not like Killie or the Buddies have some super-rich backer that sees them streak away from us. If they're doing better than we are, it's because they've used their budget better, and fundamentally, are better run football clubs than we are, which really, is where we are.

We should not be accepting relegation 'for the good of the club's health' when teams like (with the greatest respect!) St. Johnstone and Livingston survive here.

[ML4]

11 minutes ago, welldaft said:

I am not disagreeing but how do you know that we don’t have a plan ? It is a difficult balancing act. In order to raise revenues you need to invest in quality staff and an improved service offering. That takes money. 

Hospitality for example. I have experienced this many times. And at best it is fairly average. But if you only have 70 or 80 people at best each Saturday what more can you do. There is only so much you can charge before people decline the opportunity. 

I don’t envy DW or the board at all. I am sure there are areas that could improve with a bit more guidance and support and little cash investment. But until we get a FT CEO I guess keeping us cash neutral or a small deficit and in the league is the absolute priority.  

I think its fairly clear there is no plan. Not for growth at least. You mention hospitality. It is average. But then there is no accountability or resource or thought put into how it can be done better. It is something out of the 90s as it is. Nobody is looking elsewhere, or asking what people would pay for. It is always do what we know, and pray.

[ML4]

3 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I broadly agree with you but it needs to be acknowledged that the investment in these people is immediate, the (potential) return is not. And you can imagine the reaction if we miss out on a striker to St Johnstone, a centre back to Livingston in the window and get relegated in May while saying we invested six figures in office staff to secure our long-term future...

The other problem, or quirk with this, is it can be hard to put a value on things which aren't quantifiable - brand etc - at the best of times. To take money out of the first team to invest in the general things, knowing half the fans will hate it anyway (think of eventual attitude to the Burrows/Russell community drive) requires not just money but conviction and planning we're simply not going to conjure up overnight.

As said, I do agree it's needed but it needs a coordinated approach with a long run-in period when folk aren't going tits due to results...the trouble is, if you keep putting it off because there's a disaster on the pitch you'll never do it and eventually we won't avoid the trapdoor.

It's why - without wanting to be too fatalistic - my expectations for our short-term future are so negative. We relied on burrows for so much for so long that having no succession plan was criminal and the problems we've created, while plain to see, seen to be beyond fixing any time soon.

Supposedly there was a succession plan but noses were put out of joint and that was that

I accept to a degree what you are saying on immediate impact. But there are things that are definitely quantifiable the club could be investing in. And it cannot all be looked at through the idea of well what if we get relegated because we hired people to make us more money? It is a business. And we are teetering on the brink on the pitch as is. People need to see past it.

[thisGRAEME]

1 minute ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I broadly agree with you but it needs to be acknowledged that the investment in these people is immediate, the (potential) return is not. And you can imagine the reaction if we miss out on a striker to St Johnstone, a centre back to Livingston in the window and get relegated in May while saying we invested six figures in office staff to secure our long-term future... 

I mean that's basically last year with the pitch/stadium improvement chat. It was the right thing to do, regardless, IMO.

3 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

The other problem, or quirk with this, is it can be hard to put a value on things which aren't quantifiable - brand etc - at the best of times. 

This is true and not true. If you put a focus on putting value on these things, and then subsequently turn that into cash money through the work you're doing, whether online or within the community you work with, then it has a value.

If you want to make nice wee videos to pad out your own showreel to get a move elsewhere, then it doesn't really have a value.

[Swello]

10 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

If they're doing better than we are, it's because they've used their budget better, and fundamentally, are better run football clubs than we are

We had a good few years where we probably were that club that other town clubs looked at as the example of how to do it - but we really aren't that at the moment.

The biggest thing that makes a difference when you are in amongst lots of similar clubs is getting value for money for the budget we do have and the strategy of having a small but decent squad backed up with academy players isn't unrealistic or unachievable for us - far from it. In technical terms, we have bought an absolute wheen of shite (and/or broken) players over the past few windows and that is what is hurting us.

If we weren't buying out managers contracts every few months and doing a ridiculous supermarket sweep every January to undo the mistakes made in the summer window, we could use our budget on better players and no-one would ever be talking about fucking Department Heads and CEO's. Almost everything stems from poor first team recruitment and I would be fixing that before anything else.

20 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

If you want to make nice wee videos to pad out your own showreel to get a move elsewhere, then it doesn't really have a value.

Can't think who/what you're talking about here...

Spoiler

 

 

[welldaft]

13 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Strongly disagree with this type of logic tbh.

There's absolutely no reason for us to accept being in a lower division. There are 12 spots in the Scottish top flight, and Motherwell have an average attendance around 7/8/9 in Scotland.

Outside of Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibernian, Dundee United and I suppose Dundee now they're back in the top flight, there's a cigarette paper between the rest of the sides, attendance wise. It's not like Killie or the Buddies have some super-rich backer that sees them streak away from us. If they're doing better than we are, it's because they've used their budget better, and fundamentally, are better run football clubs than we are, which really, is where we are.

We should not be accepting relegation 'for the good of the club's health' when teams like (with the greatest respect!) St. Johnstone and Livingston survive here.

Your interpretation of my comments is not what I meant. No issues with that at all. But for the avoidance of doubt what I meant is that if the alternative was another administration. I would rather have a club to support than no club at all, even if that meant we ended up in a lower division. I don’t want us to be in a lower division anymore than anyone else. 

However the reality is that with a significantly reduced budget that is becoming a more increasingly likely outcome sooner rather than later. We have done a fantastic job for nearly 40 years avoiding relegation whilst teams with much bigger budgets (Hibs, Hearts + DDee Utd) have not which kind of dispels your argument around the bigger city clubs. 

Killie do have a reasonably wealthy backer. Maybe not super rich but able to subsidise the club more than we can with the Well Society funds. I would be very surprised if St Mirren have not backed their Manager with more funds than we have this season and last. 

That leaves us, Livi, Ross C and St Johnstone. We all know that Ross C have a wealthy backer. So probably between the other 2 clubs and us. Which is the way it is panning out so far this season. If Livi get relegated (hopefully) and United come up then next season will most probably be an even tougher task. 

 

[capt_oats]

5 minutes ago, Swello said:

If we weren't buying out managers contracts every few months and doing a ridiculous supermarket sweep every January to undo the mistakes made in the summer window, we could use our budget on better players and no-one would ever be talking about fucking Department Heads and CEO's. Almost everything stems from poor first team recruitment and I would be fixing that before anything else.

There's probably an argument (which I'd make tbqh) along the lines of the first team manager being accountable for first team recruitment since it's ultimately them signing off on deals which in turn brings it back round to the whole buying out manager contracts and ridiculous supermarket sweep situations.

To that point, Kettlewell signed Oli Shaw for Ross County and backed him when he brought him to Fir Park. Pape Soauré was with us on trial so Kettlewell had time to have a look at him and knew what his injury history was...he still went ahead and signed him (albeit on a short term deal).

It's probably not a hill for me but I see folk taking shots at Daws quite regularly, don't get me wrong I'm quite surprised he's still here post-Alexander given we got shot of all the other backroom staff but I genuinely don't think our recruitment with him as HoR has been significantly worse than it was with Foyle in the role. We've maybe not had the Carson, Kipré or Gillespie-like high watermarks but equally was Riku Danzaki any more or less of a bust than Casper Sloth? Is Shane Blaney any worse than either Nathan McGinley or Ricki Lamie? Not for me.

[Handsome_Devil]

54 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

I mean that's basically last year with the pitch/stadium improvement chat. It was the right thing to do, regardless, IMO.

This is true and not true. If you put a focus on putting value on these things, and then subsequently turn that into cash money through the work you're doing, whether online or within the community you work with, then it has a value.

If you want to make nice wee videos to pad out your own showreel to get a move elsewhere, then it doesn't really have a value.

Yeah, I was pro the investment last year too but there were plenty who weren't. And while we may disagree, if you're a fan-owned club with a limited base it's a fine line in carrying everyone with you regardless.

I also agree re value stuff fwiw but it's hard to say when spending that money what the expected return is, when you think you'll get it, proving a link etc...so when every penny's a prisoner it's not surprising, if sad, that gets binned.

[capt_oats]

It'll be interesting to see what he does...besides throw all our strikers on when we're losing with 20 mins to go obvs.

Edited December 12, 2023 by capt_oats

[thisGRAEME]

1 hour ago, welldaft said:

Your interpretation of my comments is not what I meant. No issues with that at all. But for the avoidance of doubt what I meant is that if the alternative was another administration. I would rather have a club to support than no club at all, even if that meant we ended up in a lower division. I don’t want us to be in a lower division anymore than anyone else. 

However the reality is that with a significantly reduced budget that is becoming a more increasingly likely outcome sooner rather than later. We have done a fantastic job for nearly 40 years avoiding relegation whilst teams with much bigger budgets (Hibs, Hearts + DDee Utd) have not which kind of dispels your argument around the bigger city clubs. 

Killie do have a reasonably wealthy backer. Maybe not super rich but able to subsidise the club more than we can with the Well Society funds. I would be very surprised if St Mirren have not backed their Manager with more funds than we have this season and last. 

That leaves us, Livi, Ross C and St Johnstone. We all know that Ross C have a wealthy backer. So probably between the other 2 clubs and us. Which is the way it is panning out so far this season. If Livi get relegated (hopefully) and United come up then next season will most probably be an even tougher task. 

 

Apologies if that came across as nippy, it wasn't intended!

You're not wrong on the avoiding relegation, but broadly, Hibs/Hearts/United all got relegated because they were fucking disastrously poorly run football clubs. Chuck Killie into that mix when they went down because they saw Steve Clarke's inevitable departure and did... nothing to prepare, which led them to where they were. 

We're fortunate as a club atm as we can see what the problem is, IMO. We can see it coming, we can see it happening around us, and fundamentally, someone has to take control of it otherwise we'll end up in the same boat. St. Mirren are a good comparison, really, in that they have a similar scale to us, a similar model, and a similar fanbase to us, but in every respect, feel like they have a clear plan with everyone pulling in the same direction to be there. They've been consistent in what they're doing, how they're operating and how they're managing things, and we're simply not.

 

[welldaft]

19 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Apologies if that came across as nippy, it wasn't intended!

You're not wrong on the avoiding relegation, but broadly, Hibs/Hearts/United all got relegated because they were fucking disastrously poorly run football clubs. Chuck Killie into that mix when they went down because they saw Steve Clarke's inevitable departure and did... nothing to prepare, which led them to where they were. 

We're fortunate as a club atm as we can see what the problem is, IMO. We can see it coming, we can see it happening around us, and fundamentally, someone has to take control of it otherwise we'll end up in the same boat. St. Mirren are a good comparison, really, in that they have a similar scale to us, a similar model, and a similar fanbase to us, but in every respect, feel like they have a clear plan with everyone pulling in the same direction to be there. They've been consistent in what they're doing, how they're operating and how they're managing things, and we're simply not.

 

No worries at all . I probably should have phrased it better.

We all want what’s best for MFC. I also get your point or points as we are the 6th most successful Scottish League side in history. But I tend to be more of a realist rather than pessimist or an optimist. 

In your response you stated that there was no reason for us to accept being in a lower division. My point is that sadly there are many reasons. We might not like it. We might not want it. But again larger city clubs (badly run or not) have been relegated with vastly bigger budgets. 

St Mirren who you mention above have spent many seasons in the lower leagues whilst we have been in the top flight. Falkirk and Dunfermline. Arguably (historically) similar size clubs to Motherwell have been languishing in the lower leagues for a considerable time now. 

When you start reducing budgets in line with bottom 8th, 9th, 10th place etc. When you are not being run as efficiently and effectively as possible (as would appear the case now) then relegation becomes a distinct possibility. Again I certainly hope we can avoid that fate for many more seasons to come. 

[Luke92]

If we are really being honest with ourselves, Kettlewell's positive run last season took the attention away from the CEO situation far too easily. Fast forward 9 months and we appear to be no further forward with medium to long term strategy. Recent run of form and media coverage has brought this back to the awareness.

In my honest opinion, that 'statement' and the whole CEO debacle is amateur hour. I'm not even going to try and make excuses for any of that. For a professional football club of our size I actually think it is quite embarassing. There are non professional institutions that take their roles more seriously than our board seem to. Even if they could not appoint a CEO, the interim man should be trying to lay out a strategy rather than just living in the short-term.

A lot of folk don't want to hear anything bad about the fan ownership model but I still do not think it is working. I have a lot of respect for a number of the people involved but communication wise it is still shocking.  The fact most folk are hearing about a CEO 'update' via twitter or a fan's forum speaks volumes. Surely one of the aims of the WS should be to create more fluid dialogue with all fans? The way things are operating give me no motivation to invest in fan ownership. I also have no faith that the WS is properly seeking to address the CEO situation or the clear issue with recruitment.

[Handsome_Devil]

8 minutes ago, Luke92 said:

If we are really being honest with ourselves, Kettlewell's positive run last season took the attention away from the CEO situation far too easily. Fast forward 9 months and we appear to be no further forward with medium to long term strategy. Recent run of form and media coverage has brought this back to the awareness.

In my honest opinion, that 'statement' and the whole CEO debacle is amateur hour. I'm not even going to try and make excuses for any of that. For a professional football club of our size I actually think it is quite embarassing. There are non professional institutions that take their roles more seriously than our board seem to. Even if they could not appoint a CEO, the interim man should be trying to lay out a strategy rather than just living in the short-term.

A lot of folk don't want to hear anything bad about the fan ownership model but I still do not think it is working. I have a lot of respect for a number of the people involved but communication wise it is still shocking.  The fact most folk are hearing about a CEO 'update' via twitter or a fan's forum speaks volumes. Surely one of the aims of the WS should be to create more fluid dialogue with all fans? The way things are operating give me no motivation to invest in fan ownership. I also have no faith that the WS is properly seeking to address the CEO situation or the clear issue with recruitment.

What's your alternative suggestion or how would you make what we have better?

[Desp]

17 minutes ago, Luke92 said:

A lot of folk don't want to hear anything bad about the fan ownership model but I still do not think it is working. 

I mean, this is clearly just wrong.  Whether you think it's working well or could do better is one thing, but it's obviously working as we're still one of the top teams in the country with quite a few quid in the bank. 

I've heard a thing or two about the recent statement that went out from the WS, which was interesting, but I believe there are four or five (?) new Board members that are in now in place?  I'm more than happy to give these guys a chance to try and put their stamp on things.  Who knows, maybe we'll see a drastic, upwards, change in comms, membership numbers, activities etc or maybe they'll be stuck banging their heads off a wall as the old white guys who ran it before are happy to continue not rocking the boat, being yes men to those above and keeping their seat on the Club board nice n comfy.

[Luke92]

45 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

What's your alternative suggestion or how would you make what we have better?

The CEO stuff? Start acting like a grown up organisation and complete proper due diligence prior to starting recruitment. Not sure what recruitment firm we used but it sounds like it was a total waste of time. Invest our own time in understanding what we want in a replacement and work out what the best way to achieve that is. The recruitment process appears to have been a rudderless pursuit given the fact Burrows left in January of last year. I really liked Burrows but I find out hard to believe that any effective process would take this long to appoint an effective successor. Also, if you are going to have an interim guy in place make sure he defines a medium term strategy rather than only addressing short-term concerns. I'm sure it wouldn't be anything revolutionary that a sucessor would disagree with. Effectively what we have here is 11 months have passed where there is no clear strategy communciated internally or to fans.

WS Comms wise? Create regular updates to all registered fans on a variety of issues/initiatives. The only information I seem to get about the club strategy is on Twitter, AGM's, irregular emails or football forums. Don't really care what medium we use but make it regular, consistent and clear and start to address fan concerns and strategy in a clear way. If we addressed the communication stuff it would be a start, I've had this concern for a couple of years now and nothing has changed.

31 minutes ago, Desp said:

I mean, this is clearly just wrong.  Whether you think it's working well or could do better is one thing, but it's obviously working as we're still one of the top teams in the country with quite a few quid in the bank. 

I've heard a thing or two about the recent statement that went out from the WS, which was interesting, but I believe there are four or five (?) new Board members that are in now in place?  I'm more than happy to give these guys a chance to try and put their stamp on things.  Who knows, maybe we'll see a drastic, upwards, change in comms, membership numbers, activities etc or maybe they'll be stuck banging their heads off a wall as the old white guys who ran it before are happy to continue not rocking the boat, being yes men to those above and keeping their seat on the Club board nice n comfy.

I shall rephrase this for you, in my opinion I do not think the fan ownership is working effectively at our club. If the only focus is remaining in the league and ensuring we have money in the bank then I think we should reassess what our goals are. I hope the new members will make a difference, I am sure a lot of them will have some ideas about some of the stuff I have mentioned.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Luke92

[Handsome_Devil]

7 minutes ago, Luke92 said:

The CEO stuff? Start acting like a grown up organisation and complete proper due diligence prior to starting recruitment. Not sure what recruitment firm we used but it sounds like it was a total waste of time. Invest our own time in understanding what we want in a replacement and work out what the best way to achieve that is. The recruitment process appears to have been a rudderless pursuit given the fact Burrows left in January of last year. I really liked Burrows but I find out hard to believe that any effective process would take this long to appoint an effective successor. Also, if you are going to have an interim guy in place make sure he defines a medium term strategy rather than only addressing short-term concerns. I'm sure it wouldn't be anything revolutionary that a sucessor would disagree with. Effectively what we have here is 11 months have passed where there is no clear strategy communciated internally or to fans.

WS Comms wise? Create regular updates to all registered fans on a variety of issues/initiatives. The only information I seem to get about the club strategy is on Twitter, AGM's, irregular emails or football forums. Don't really care what medium we use but make it regular, consistent and clear and start to address fan concerns and strategy in a clear way. If we addressed the communication stuff it would be a start, I've had this concern for a couple of years now and nothing has changed.

I shall rephrase this for you, in my opinion I do not think the fan ownership is working effectively at our club. If the only focus is remaining in the league and ensuring we have money in the bank then I think we should reassess what our goals are. I hope the new members will make a difference, I am sure a lot of them will have some ideas about some of the stuff I have mentioned.

I agree with the recruitment bit, without knowing where or why it went wrong it looks pathetic.

What medium-term strategy would you have? We already went all in on the community thing and pulled back, we already tried commuting long-term contracts to a manager and key players with potential and sacked that too.

Don't really care what medium we use but make it regular, consistent and clear: the Society basically do exactly that already with their weekly emails. The lack of strategy in them comes from the fact the volunteers are who they are and we don't have anyone better. I'm also crossing fingers the new blood gives us a boost.

What goals should we have beyond being solvent and being in the league to take advantage when we can?

I'm not being sarky btw, I know that's often how these things come across on on the internet, but when you seem so set on it I'm just curious.

[capt_oats]

On the topic of First Team recruitment here are our signings split by season and HoR in post at the time lifted from an old post and updated a bit, I should probably have put it in a spoiler but it's actually worth having a look at some of the names (there are a lot).

Incidentally, I think it's been acknowledged that the deals for the likes of Moult who signed in the early stages of the summer 15/16 window were set up by the previous guy, Gary Owers who was only at the club for a couple of months before Foyle took over in August 15:

MARTIN FOYLE

Baraclough:
15/16
Theo Robinson, Craig Samson, Jake Taylor (loan), Liam Grimshaw (loan)
Total = 4

McGhee
15/16 (winter)
James McFadden, Morgaro Gomis (loan)
Total = 2

16/17
Ben Heneghan, Richard Tait, Jacob Blyth, Dean Brill, Carl McHugh, Craig Clay, Ryan Bowman, Luca Belic (loan), Lee Lucas, Elliot Frear, Russell Griffiths (loan), Zak Jules (loan), Shea Gordon, Stephen Pearson
Total = 14

McGhee total signed = 16

Robinson:
17/18
Alex Fisher, Gael Bigirimana, Craig Tanner, Trevor Carson, Andy Rose, Russell Griffiths, Charles Dunne, Cedric Kipre, George Newell, Ellis Plummer, Rohan Ferguson, Deimantas Petravičius, Liam Grimshaw, Gennadios Xenodochof, Curtis Main, Peter Hartley (loan)/(permanent), Nadir Ciftci (loan), Tom Aldred (loan) x 2, Stephen Hendrie (loan)
Total = 19

18/19
Mark Gillespie, Liam Donnelly, Danny Johnson, Aaron Taylor-Sinclair, Alex Rodriguez-Gorrin, Christian Mbulu, Conor Sammon (loan), Ross McCormack (loan), Gboly Ariyibi (loan)
Total = 9

19/20
Declan Gallagher, Liam Polworth, Jake Carroll, Casper Sloth, Jermaine Hylton, Christopher Long, Sherwin Seedorf, Christian Ilic, Christy Manzinga, Ross MacIver, Bevis Mugabi, Tony Watt, Harry Robinson, Devante Cole (loan)/permanent, Mark O'Hara (loan/permanent), Mikael Ndjoli (loan), Rolando Aarons (loan) 
Total = 17

20/21 (Summer)
Ricki Lamie, Jordan White, Nathan McGinley, Scott Fox, Stephen O'Donnell, Aaron Chapman, Jordan Archer, Jake Hastie (loan), Callum Lang (loan), Robbie Crawford (loan)
Total = 10

Robinson total signed: 55

Alexander:
20/21 (Winter)
Liam Kelly (loan), Steven Lawless, Harry Smith (loan), Sam Foley, Robbie Crawford (loan made permanent), Jordan Roberts (loan), Eddie Nolan (loan), Tyler Magloire (loan)
Total = 8

NICK DAWS

21/22
Connor Shields,  Justin Amaluzor, Kaiyne Woolery, Kevin Van Veen, Liam Kelly, Darragh O'Connor, Mich'el Parker, Callum Slattery, Juhani Ojala, Sean Goss, Sondre Solholm Johansen, Ross Tierney, Jordan Roberts (loan/loan made permanent), Victor Nirennold, Joe Efford, Robbie Mahon, Liam Shaw (loan)
Total = 17

23/23 (Summer)
Paul McGinn, Blair Spittal, Josh Morris, Aston Oxborough
Total = 4

Alexander total signed: 29

Hammell:
22/23:
Stuart McKinstry (loan), Matt Penney (loan), Rolando Aarons (loan), Louis Moult (loan), Shane Blaney, Ollie Crankshaw (loan), Mikael Mandron, Riku Danzaki, Jack Aitchison, James Furlong (loan), Jonathan Obika (loan), Dan Casey, Calum Butcher 
Total = 13

Hammell total signed: 13

Kettlewell:
22/23 (post-January):
Harry Paton
Total = 1

23/24 (Summer):
Jonathan Obika, Conor Wilkinson, Pape Soaré, Davor Zdravkovski, Theo Bair, Mika Biereth (loan), Brodie Spencer (loan), Oli Shaw (loan), Georgie Gent (loan)

Total = 9

Kettlewell total signed to date: 10

We signed 83 players from Foyle's arrival (1st August 2015) up to the point we announced he was moving on - 21st May 2021. Which comes in at 2120 days it includes things like making Russell Griffiths' loan permanent and signing Grimmy twice.

We've signed 44 players since the summer of 21 when Daws entered the chat - one of those was Kelly signing permanently, he signed on loan while Foyle was still here, same with Jordan Roberts who was on loan then loaned again before the loan being made permanent. It also includes the assortment of ringers we brought in to fill jerseys in the early LC games and opening weeks of Alexander's first full season. Daws was announced 11th June 2021 so he's been in the role 914 days.

Again, to echo my own point earlier about the First Team manager being accountable for recruitment you only have to look at Hammell apparently just looking at whichever former player he had handy on his phone or Robinson's policy of signing 2 or 3 in the hope that 1 comes good or his habit of just binning a player out the team after a couple of months and lobbying for replacements or simply Kettlewell signing/re-signing players he knew to be injury risks.

Edited December 12, 2023 by capt_oats

[eliphas]

It can probably all be summed up by saying that we are a full time club which is being led on a part time unpaid basis by volunteers (club board).  Second layer down, the owners representatives are also part time unpaid volunteers (well society board) 

In my opinion, the two boards, led by CEO and Chairman, really need to pool their collective noggins and resources over a number of weeks, get in a room, and  come up with a way to move forward.

That doesn't mean any of them need to be christened a full time CEO or anything, far from it. But they are our empowered club reps and it's their remit. If they aren't up for that then they can pop off. 

[well fan for life]

@capt_oats back with another banger there. 
 

I know there's always going to be a level of dross that we have to tolerate but there's a good number of those signings have been unmitigated disasters. You can see the logic in a couple of them but for the most part it's been throwing shit at a wall and hoping any of it stuck.

Take Conor Shields for example. He was doing well at QOTS, looked to have the physical attributes but when it boiled down to it he wasn't nearly good enough. 
 

You then have the Aarons & Moult (both second time) under Hammell, and now Pape Souare. Huge injury issues but we appeared to be signing them to play every week. Shock horror as they all ended up broken.

Then you've got the folk like Sloth & Danzaki where I can only assume the recruitment folk were off their tits when they cooked up those signings. 
 

Danzaki's pal was great value though. Marvelling at Asda Hamilton. The simple things in life.

[Handsome_Devil]

17 minutes ago, eliphas said:

It can probably all be summed up by saying that we are a full time club which is being led on a part time unpaid basis by volunteers (club board).  Second layer down, the owners representatives are also part time unpaid volunteers (well society board) 

I know you're not the only one to have said this but - in theory at least! - the Society board is the top layer, not the executive. The club board is accountable to the Society, which is represented by those elected/co-opted.

The fact we only have a three-man board would be curious enough at the best of times but two of them also being on the Society board is farcical. 

I know lots of folk find the governance stuff boring and they're not necessarily wrong...but just because it's boring doesn't mean it's not important and if we're wanting to sort the medium-term, big picture whatever, this is a good place to start.