Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[StAndrew7]

4 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

This is 100% where I am.

There's been a lot of discussion recently about poor judgement, to me launching that video (well meaning as it may have been) at a point at which we have no permanent CEO and a chairman who had indicated he's stepping down felt ill-judged and that's regardless of what I thought of the content or the messaging.

To me, sorting that stuff out first then approaching the subject of investment from a position of relative stability and allowing for some joined up thinking would have made far more sense than just launching that video in the way we did.

Instead, as you say, we find ourselves in a circumstance with an urgency attached that isn't helpful in the slightest. 

Same here. It's drawn attention to the club and attracted potential investment, which is what it was meant to do, but to have it happening at a time when the club is (in my eyes) in a particularly weakened position structurally, was a mistake. The Chairman did apologise for how long it had taken to launch the initiatives (it was spoken about at the last AGM I was able to attend in person, which I think would have been 2022).

I think there's some bullish/financial back and forth going on about exclusivity, deadlines for certain responses etc. that have given the illusion that we need a decision now, when we don't.

As was said on Wednesday, we can go back and tell them we need more time to make a decision on all of that, based on WS feedback/decision making and also if we want to appoint a CEO for some well-needed stability (although how much influence the WS decision has on that I don't know; I guess it depends on what is put to the members). If we do appoint our own CEO, I assume that might make one of them pull out if they want to do their own thing from that perspective.

I get the impression there's a rush from one of the potential investors because of a desire to conclude things before the summer to be involved in squad planning etc. for next season. I don't think we should be caving to that at all.

[Handsome_Devil]

11 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

There's been a lot of discussion recently about poor judgement, to me launching that video (well meaning as it may have been) at a point at which we have no permanent CEO and a chairman who had indicated he's stepping down felt ill-judged and that's regardless of what I thought of the content or the messaging.

There is a distinct feeling of being beware old men in a hurry here.

Possibly the false impression but it seems like the outgoing duo would like to conclude on a bang rather than quietly getting an honorary seat and lifetime supply of chasni pies while handing over to their successors.

[Luke92]

15 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

This is 100% where I am.

There's been a lot of discussion recently about poor judgement, to me launching that video (well meaning as it may have been) at a point at which we have no permanent CEO and a chairman who had indicated he's stepping down felt ill-judged and that's regardless of what I thought of the content or the messaging.

To me, sorting that stuff out first then approaching the subject of investment from a position of relative stability and allowing for some joined up thinking would have made far more sense than just launching that video in the way we did.

Instead, as you say, we find ourselves in a circumstance with an urgency attached that isn't helpful in the slightest. 

On this point, I don't think that is clear to our average supporter. The way the Chairman and interim CEO have communicated this, it feels like it is urgent.
It feels like, if we don't do something, we are going to be in trouble. So I don't blame the average fan thinking this.

The feeling I get is, the two of them want to rush something along and shoot off.
 

[welldaft]

Again I will re-iterate that I have huge concerns around any form of investment with a view to a financial return. I am not sure how a club like Motherwell can yield a decent enough ROI or any for that matter regardless of how well structured the Business plan is and how competently it is actually implemented. 

I guess the problem with the Well Society is that even if they manage to raise an extra 50% PA which would be an excellent outcome. Would that be enough to keep the club afloat and competitive without outside investment. I have my doubts. This then comes back to the argument we learn to live within our means and take the consequences, which will almost inevitably lead to relegation at some point.

As many have said (and I agree) it is still a better option for the long term future of the club than handing over to a speculative investor who will soon lose interest when they realise (what most of us already know) that it is highly unlikely they will make any great ROI as they hope and plan for. I am not dismissing any outside investor as I / we don’t have enough detailed info to base a proper judgement. 

I am a WS member but do not contribute monthly. Simply as I was very disappointed in how it unfolded. Initially I was impressed with the launch and the differing tiers and associated benefits. When the benefits were taken away / stopped I was not overly bothered. But to find out (for example) you no longer have parking at the club when you are in the car on a match day it is disappointing as much as it was unsurprising. Also when giving a decent wedge during the Covid season and not even getting an acknowledgment was also poor. This would apply to everyone no doubt. Not why I gave the money, but as someone who spent a career in Customer Management the very least you expect is an acknowledgement / thank you. 

I am enthused when I read Jay talk about the direction the Well Society is headed with fresh ideas etc. For many like myself I want to see an increased level of professionalism and for WS members to be treated as valued customers. Not to be taken for granted as I feel is the current situation.

Edited February 23 by welldaft

[Luke92]

Had some time to read through the various takes on the AGM and some really good posts on here/SO and wanted to add my 2 pence! There has been a huge amount of good information provided by folk working with the WS and otherwise so hats off to everyone!

Personally, I think it is vitally important for people on both sides of the spectrum to stay open minded about what the future holds. Folk need to actively listen to what eachother have to say and try not to be entrenched in their own personal opinion. There are clear risks on both sides.
There also needs to be an understanding that, whilst folk should educate themselves about the situation, your average fan on Twitter may not have a full grasp on Motherwell's financial accounts.

Regardless of whether you are of the mind the fan ownership model is 'working' or not. It seems clear to me that a change or atleast a rejuvenation is a must

I am quite keen to understand in more detail about what a new WS strategy would actually look like. I've read through the suggestions from some board members and whilst these all sound fine, they are a bit vague and some of them sound slightly airy-fairy. 

What I and a lot of other fans want to understand is, with our fan base, how are we are going to increase WS revenue to a significant enough level to compete? A very basic question but i want projections for what this looks like. Appreciate this should come in time but this is why there is a level of scepticism and also a willingness to listen to prospective investors.

On the other side, who are these investors, what are their track record and what is their long-term vision? Any investors would require massive scrutiny and as many have mentioned these people aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. I understand why we put out the video to attract investors but we probably have attracted a few sharks who smell the blood in the water. Also I don't really understand what value the WS would have if it only had a minority stake. 

Edited February 23 by Luke92

[StAndrew7]

2 minutes ago, welldaft said:

As many have said (and I agree) it is still a better option for the long term future of the club than handing over to a speculative investor who will soon lose interest when they realise (what most of us already know) that it is highly unlikely they will make any great ROI as they hope and plan for. I am not dismissing any outside investor as I / we don’t have enough detailed info to base a proper judgement. 

I agree with a fair bit of what you've said in your post, but the bit I've bolded here I disagree with. Absolutely none of us know anything about the likely ROI in any business plan, model or whatever an investor brings with them. We can't arbitrarily say that it won't happen because "we already know". The accounts/returns that were shown a few pages back (I think, maybe they're on SO, I'm confused posting between the two still ) show that the club can and is profitable/in a positive position cash wise since fan ownership became a reality. That's why we've attracted this attention - we've demonstrated that we can provide a return on investment.

Now, the recent profits are down to transfer fees and other windfalls; it's already been mentioned that the terms of any engagement with investors include that transfer funds for players will remain in the club, so that (on the surface) may kill any ROI. However, with certain share types, an investor can take out an agreed percentage of profit (which could/would be limited to prevent them taking it all or a significant portion of it) without jeopardising the financial outlook of the club.

Also, as you say, as we haven't seen detailed business plans and investment models, we don't know what kind of ROI they're expecting, or the timescales over which it's expected. I would anticipate any investor would not be looking at short term gain here; if they are, as you rightly say, we should be very, very wary of them. As I understand it any share purchases in the club will be done gradually rather than in one big lump.

[StAndrew7]

16 minutes ago, Luke92 said:

On the other side, who are these investors, what are there track record and what is their long-term vision? Any investors would require massive scrutiny and as many have mentioned these people aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. I understand why we put out the video to attract investors but we probably have attracted a few sharks who smell the blood in the water. Also I don't really understand what value the WS would have if it only had a minority stake. 

We'll get to know that in due course, as and when things progress, if at all. As @JayMFC has said, the WS have met with the two groups/leads who are furthest down the line at this point, so have had at least a bit of exposure to them, who they are and their vision for what they want to do. It's still very early on in the process and I think the fears of sharks in the water are warranted. However, with the investments coming in buying of shares (rather than loans or other financing secured against club assets) there's buy in at least to prevent any stripping of assets etc.

Edited February 23 by StAndrew7

[Handsome_Devil]

15 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I agree with a fair bit of what you've said in your post, but the bit I've bolded here I disagree with. Absolutely none of us know anything about the likely ROI in any business plan, model or whatever an investor brings with them. We can't arbitrarily say that it won't happen because "we already know". The accounts/returns that were shown a few pages back (I think, maybe they're on SO, I'm confused posting between the two still ) show that the club can and is profitable/in a positive position cash wise since fan ownership became a reality. That's why we've attracted this attention - we've demonstrated that we can provide a return on investment.

One of the reasons I'm less sceptical (though still fairly sceptical!) of the US offer is the suggestion the drive will come from off field activities. I've no doubt there is potential there, the only question is how to exploit it.

As for ROI, it's incredibly hard to judge but what I would say is the chance of generating a semi-reliable return worth the risk of relying on our players not to miss open goals or fumble corners into the net against Morton is virtually nil. If you want 10% annually on your £2m investment, by the time we've bridged the funding gap and cover losses on some meh seasons, you need 600k on top every three years. Possible, yes, sometimes, a satisfactory return on Bevis Mugabi deciding the destiny of your dividends? Perhaps for the local butcher back in the day, not for businessmen coming in from the other side of the world. The accounts are great and while it's unfair to remove Turnbull from that - it's literally our business plan - if you remove the truly exceptional free money Covid loan it's not quite so mental.

Essentially if someone reckons there's money to be made around a football club, I'm quite open to partnership. If someone claims there's money to be made by how we play football, I'm branding them a red flag wrong 'un until they provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Edited February 23 by Handsome_Devil

[Dosser1886]

Probably a stupid point but I'm a WS member putting something like £10 a month, he haw really. Can we not have a bit of a campaign for existing members to up their payments given where we are and the potential risks of 3rd parties coming in. Appreciate how hard times are but even upping by a few quid would surely help a bit. May not be a game changer. As I said probably a stupid point but there you go.

[StAndrew7]

2 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

One of the reasons I'm less sceptical (though still fairly sceptical!) of the US offer is the suggestion the drive will come from off field activities. I've no doubt there is potential there, the only question is how to exploit it.

...

Essentially if someone reckons there's money to be made around a football club, I'm quite open to partnership. If someone claims there's money to be made by how we play football, I'm branding them a red flag wrong 'un until they provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That's it for me; the idea of being able to recoup investment, make more money etc. via means other than football (although hopefully that will follow as a result of any investment) is the most attractive to me right now and probably one that excites me more than doing it on the field to an extent. Like I said, hopefully the product on the pitch is improved by the stuff off the pitch, too. Raising our profile internationally could open us up to new player markets, other sponsorship deals...

[StAndrew7]

5 minutes ago, Dosser1886 said:

Probably a stupid point but I'm a WS member putting something like £10 a month, he haw really. Can we not have a bit of a campaign for existing members to up their payments given where we are and the potential risks of 3rd parties coming in. Appreciate how hard times are but even upping by a few quid would surely help a bit. May not be a game changer. As I said probably a stupid point but there you go.

I don't think that's a stupid point at all, in fact I think this is part of the WS Board's plan to increase engagement and the funds available to support the club.

Edited February 23 by StAndrew7

[MP_MFC]

I might have missed it in amongst all the chat on here and on Twitter, and maybe it’s me being simplistic, but did the club board and society board not sit down together before they launched this investment drive to work out what the goal was and make sure we were all aligned and on the same page?

To sit down and collaboratively figure out what the goal was and then simulate potential outcomes to figure out where any red lines were in advance rather than descend into, as someone else referenced earlier, something out of the life of Brian?

Given the strong feelings from Jay and others both inside and outside the society membership that majority ownership would appear to be the third rail we should not go near, why are McMahon and Weir (from my vantage point) acting like even the thought of this being something that could divide a fan base is a huge shock?

 

[welldaft]

36 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I agree with a fair bit of what you've said in your post, but the bit I've bolded here I disagree with. Absolutely none of us know anything about the likely ROI in any business plan, model or whatever an investor brings with them. We can't arbitrarily say that it won't happen because "we already know". The accounts/returns that were shown a few pages back (I think, maybe they're on SO, I'm confused posting between the two still ) show that the club can and is profitable/in a positive position cash wise since fan ownership became a reality. That's why we've attracted this attention - we've demonstrated that we can provide a return on investment.

Now, the recent profits are down to transfer fees and other windfalls; it's already been mentioned that the terms of any engagement with investors include that transfer funds for players will remain in the club, so that (on the surface) may kill any ROI. However, with certain share types, an investor can take out an agreed percentage of profit (which could/would be limited to prevent them taking it all or a significant portion of it) without jeopardising the financial outlook of the club.

Also, as you say, as we haven't seen detailed business plans and investment models, we don't know what kind of ROI they're expecting, or the timescales over which it's expected. I would anticipate any investor would not be looking at short term gain here; if they are, as you rightly say, we should be very, very wary of them. As I understand it any share purchases in the club will be done gradually rather than in one big lump.

Fair enough. But we can at least assume that they would want a return of 5-10%+ PA, otherwise they would be as well buying shares in Aviva for example, which yields a 7% dividend and is at some point likely to be the subject of a takeover in the coming years. I could yield 4.5% right now by sticking my money in Marcus savings. 

I maybe did not articulate my thoughts well enough. I guess what I was trying to say is that if I was lucky enough to be able to afford to own Motherwell FC I would realistically expect to lose money year after year. I would expect to subsidise the club much like Billy Bowie at Kilmarnock, Roy McGregor at Ross County etc. If I was after a good ROI there are literally hundreds of other investments I would consider before choosing a football club and not only that one that is in the Scottish Premier League with a fairly static fan base and limited growth potential. 

I am not saying it is not possible. As you state quite correctly we don’t know what they are expecting to achieve. Of course I would love to be proved wrong I just don’t think I will be a few years down the line if that is the direction we are headed. 

[rowsdower]

Quote

, folk won't just throw their money into a pit. If they wanted to they'd KLF it because that's the most dramatic way to.

What a reference Firing them up on Spotify now, which is a funny development in itself.

[StAndrew7]

16 minutes ago, welldaft said:

...

I am not saying it is not possible. As you state quite correctly we don’t know what they are expecting to achieve. Of course I would love to be proved wrong I just don’t think I will be a few years down the line if that is the direction we are headed. 

I think I'm in exactly the same position as you; I'm incredibly skeptical of it all right now, but nonetheless very interested/intrigued by it.

For me, there's two lines that cannot be crossed as a minimum for any investment: fan ownership remains (or at the very least is no lower than 50% with first refusal is for the WS and private shareholders should the investor wish to sell) and there is no finance or investment secured against the club's assets.

22 minutes ago, MP_MFC said:

Given the strong feelings from Jay and others both inside and outside the society membership that majority ownership would appear to be the third rail we should not go near, why are McMahon and Weir (from my vantage point) acting like even the thought of this being something that could divide a fan base is a huge shock?

I'm not sure where you've gotten that impression from?

It certainly didn't come across like that at the AGM or anything I've had the chance to read since. It's their responsibility as the board to at least consider the terms that have been put to them; the initial starting point was fan ownership remains (along with a few other things like all investment will be in shares, transfer fees remain within the club, etc.) and that has been countered by both parties that are currently interested during initial negotiations, so they need a definitive answer on that from the WS membership on how far they'd be willing to go, I guess? Whatever the outcome of that will then be communicated to the investors.

My hope is that it's a firm "no" to anything other than the WS/the fans (we can't forget the small proportion of private shareholders who are also fans in all of this, no matter how small that holding actually is and I'm not just saying that because I'm included in that group) having majority control.

Weir openly stated at the AGM that his wish as a fan and member of the WS was that it succeeds in covering the required gap but also grows and develops into something that can add investment to the club as well, rather than helping it stay afloat. Whilst McMahon didn't say quite as much, he certainly erred towards that in what he said.

Edited February 23 by StAndrew7

[Neil86]

30 minutes ago, Dosser1886 said:

Probably a stupid point but I'm a WS member putting something like £10 a month, he haw really. Can we not have a bit of a campaign for existing members to up their payments given where we are and the potential risks of 3rd parties coming in. Appreciate how hard times are but even upping by a few quid would surely help a bit. May not be a game changer. As I said probably a stupid point but there you go.

To be honest, I can go along with this. I donate a 5er a month, it's gone before it even hits the bank. The only reason I actually donate is because I missed out a ticket to St Mirren away in the Scottish cup a few years ago (before the 4-4 replay) and tickets went on sale to ST holders and Society memeber's, and I was Season ticketless at the time.

I am fortunate enough that I could up that payment so if something like that was to happen, chances are I would but I kind of selfishly just haven't bothered my arse to this point. 

Has there ever been a campaign of this sort?

 

[santheman]

1 hour ago, Neil86 said:

To be honest, I can go along with this. I donate a 5er a month, it's gone before it even hits the bank. The only reason I actually donate is because I missed out a ticket to St Mirren away in the Scottish cup a few years ago (before the 4-4 replay) and tickets went on sale to ST holders and Society memeber's, and I was Season ticketless at the time.

I am fortunate enough that I could up that payment so if something like that was to happen, chances are I would but I kind of selfishly just haven't bothered my arse to this point. 

Has there ever been a campaign of this sort?

 

I'm actually amazed that having been a WS member since the start I've never heen contacted to see if I would be willing to up my monthly contribution.

Hopefully with the changes someone with a bit of sales and marketing experience will address that.

I'm pretty sure that with a bit of effort the monthly contributions could be increased dramatically.

[capt_oats]

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.

5 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Accounts for last season now up on companies house, btw.

Turnover: £5.1m

Transfer fees spent: £300k

Wage bill (all teams): £4.55m

Total loss: £2m

Cash reserves: £4.56m

 

Transfer fee total, and sly dig about keeping an eye on "youth development fees", probably confirms the rumours we spent £250k on a youth player, with the rest being the Nicky Clark fee?

[well fan for life]

3 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.

Wait til the cheque for the crematorium hits their bank account though. 
 

[Handsome_Devil]

39 minutes ago, santheman said:

I'm actually amazed that having been a WS member since the start I've never heen contacted to see if I would be willing to up my monthly contribution.

 

Hopefully with the changes someone with a bit of sales and marketing experience will address that.

I'm pretty sure that with a bit of effort the monthly contributions could be increased dramatically.

Someone current will no doubt give a better overview but at one point, several years ago, a conscious decision was made to limit things... the theory was you couldn't keep going back to the same small fan base over and over again to do, well, who knows? Because the idea - again then - was never that the society would subsidise the club. A safe reserve had been reached, and would be topped up by direct debits and the occasional quiz. We weren't in drastic need of money and if that changed we could always ask again.

It's debatable whether this was a good idea. The intention behind it was definitely noble but being less proactive disappointed some people and has now given those who mock the amounts ammunition.

I think the begging emails will come soon but it needs to be part of a broader strategy inside and outside the club. The oft quoted 3,000 members giving another tenner a month is 360k - not small change by any means but barely half of what we'd need to feel secure.

Edited February 23 by Handsome_Devil