Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[camer0n_mcd]

Grant Russell has his say 

 

[Handsome_Devil]

9 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

Grant Russell has his say 

 

He never gives up tbf to him.

[eliphas]

10 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

He never gives up tbf to him.

I mean. We all can say plan and leadership Grant.

Edit: Don't have twitter so only seeing that here and noticed it's a thread. Genuinely not bought into 99% of what he says as any real needle mover.(the season ticket stuff with CRM is saying is a good shout ). Ultimately coming down to a final tweet which is essentially a rebrand. I know he's a marketing guy but come on.

Edited February 23 by eliphas

[ropy]

1 hour ago, Wellwatcher said:

I would be inclined to choose the first option but of course I would consider any proposal so not sure what to do with this.

[Molotov]

I really hope that Motherwell retain majority fan ownership.

To get control from your previous owner was significant. 

My club St Mirren are majority fan owned and hopefully will stay that way.

SMiSA were originally looking to secure complete control (minus minority existing shareholders) but did a deal to involve another party (Kibble) which resulted in handing over 27.5% plus a minimum of 2 seats on board. No seats are available to the existing minority shareholders (circa 21%).

Why could the Kibble partnership not have developed without the need for them to have any shareholding in our club.

Why is a children’s charity requiring shares in a professional football club? 

The last few years have been challenging but we seem to be “getting along”. For now….

I accept that we may face times of uncertainty and will likely be relegated as we have a much lesser budget than most top flight clubs. We are outperforming our resources. 

But it will (hopefully) remain our club. 

I hope you too retain your identity within your community as a majority fan owned club. 

Good luck!

[Handsome_Devil]

14 minutes ago, eliphas said:

I mean. We all can say plan and leadership Grant.

Edit: Don't have twitter so only seeing that here and noticed it's a thread. Genuinely not bought into 99% of what he says as any real needle mover.(the season ticket stuff with CRM is saying is a good shout ). Ultimately coming down to a final tweet which is essentially a rebrand. I know he's a marketing guy but come on.

I think it's hard to be critical of him not going into too many specifics in twitter... he's clearly put a lot of thought into his pitch.

Tbh I was horrified at the thought of him being CEO but as circumstances (or available info, perhaps more accurately) change, I've changed with them and I've concluded that someone like him is exactly what we need.

[StAndrew7]

11 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I think it's hard to be critical of him not going into too many specifics in twitter... he's clearly put a lot of thought into his pitch.

Tbh I was horrified at the thought of him being CEO but as circumstances (or available info, perhaps more accurately) change, I've changed with them and I've concluded that someone like him is exactly what we need.

I really don't think I could handle having Captain Hindsight in charge of the club.

"No, no, they should have used the CRM to retain season ticket holders!"

"They shouldn't have re-signed Ricki Lamie after he signed a PCA last season"

Edited February 23 by StAndrew7

[MurrayWell]

FWIW I voted for the first option where the Well Society keeps control. Not sure why anyone would jump two-footed into the unknown at this point. 

While I don't think the Well Society is perfect, I do think they've recognised where needs to be improved. The whole "investment video and campaign" was around us being fan-owned, not selling the club. If someone wants to join in with that and invest then ideal. 

I've also got absolutely no faith in Jim McMahon and Co., piss up and brewery spring to mind. 

[Handsome_Devil]

2 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I really don't think I could handle having Captain Hindsight in charge of the club.

Aye, I don't for a moment think he'll get it. Bridges, burnt etc.

But there are times you want peace and conciliation, and times you want an argumentative twat breaking some plates...a bit of modernization and speculate to accumulate in the right areas is exactly what we need.

And someone not shy about shaking up the rest of the league, particularly when it comes to marketing, TV etc, is no bad thing either.

So yeah, if we we were willing to swallow some pride and he was willing to make amends in the right places I think it'd be a very good match atm.

However, the chances of that are nil...so someone like him will have to do.

[capt_oats]

3 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I think it's hard to be critical of him not going into too many specifics in twitter... he's clearly put a lot of thought into his pitch.

Tbh I was horrified at the thought of him being CEO but as circumstances (or available info, perhaps more accurately) change, I've changed with them and I've concluded that someone like him is exactly what we need.

See, specific to that Tweet I disagree with him that seeking external funding is waving a white flag.

I think that most of us would agree that there's a ceiling to what the WS can sustain so to that point external funding should be something that the club is open to.

I also completely understand why people's mileage may vary with him however having said that, I think he *gets* fan ownership and perhaps more to the point modern fan culture in a way that the incumbent board and interim CEO just...don't and I'd say that both McMahon and Weir's apparent dismissiveness of the department he headed up probably speaks to that.

Tbh, looking at where we are at the moment then someone like that actually feels like a good starting point.

Given the way that things have panned out over the past year and a bit I think it's become entirely clear (as if it wasn't before) who was at the heart of making the club/fan ownership dynamic work (spoiler: I'm talking about Alan Burrows in case it wasn't clear).

It's not to say everything was peachy in the 6 months or so before he left but I don't think it's overstating things to say that once we lost that presence and skillset Burrows provided everything seems to have gone sideways.

Dunno, it seems unlikely it's an option after either McMahon or Weir intimated that we weren't looking for a candidate with a previous Motherwell connection along with him currently being at West Ham but I'd say that I'd probably buy into Russell's approach to running Motherwell far more than whatever the f**k McMahon's been up to over the past year or so.

[fat_tony]

6 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

FWIW I voted for the first option where the Well Society keeps control. Not sure why anyone would jump two-footed into the unknown at this point. 

I read the question as whether you'd be willing to consider any proposal that would see the society losing its controlling stake, or absolutely will not even listen to any proposal unless the society retains control.

I don't think it's jumping in to the unknown to suggest that it would be worth at least hearing any proposals before chucking them out.

I'd rather the society keeps its controlling stake but it's not inconceivable to me that there might be a scenario where it's worth losing the controlling stake for the right proposal. It's certainly worth having all the options to weigh, IMO.

[Busta Nut]

34 minutes ago, Molotov said:

I really hope that Motherwell retain majority fan ownership.

To get control from your previous owner was significant. 

My club St Mirren are majority fan owned and hopefully will stay that way.

SMiSA were originally looking to secure complete control (minus minority existing shareholders) but did a deal to involve another party (Kibble) which resulted in handing over 27.5% plus a minimum of 2 seats on board. No seats are available to the existing minority shareholders (circa 21%).

Why could the Kibble partnership not have developed without the need for them to have any shareholding in our club.

Why is a children’s charity requiring shares in a professional football club? 

The last few years have been challenging but we seem to be “getting along”. For now….

I accept that we may face times of uncertainty and will likely be relegated as we have a much lesser budget than most top flight clubs. We are outperforming our resources. 

But it will (hopefully) remain our club. 

I hope you too retain your identity within your community as a majority fan owned club. 

Good luck!

I hope we stay fan owned too.

St Mirren though I keep hearing are a bit of a basket case behind the scenes. That and just spending that gov loan.

[Handsome_Devil]

3 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

See, specific to that Tweet I disagree with him that seeking external funding is waving a white flag.

...

Dunno, it seems unlikely it's an option after either McMahon or Weir intimated that we weren't looking for a candidate with a previous Motherwell connection along with him currently being at West Ham but I'd say that I'd probably buy into Russell's approach to running Motherwell far more than whatever the f**k McMahon's been up to over the past year or so.

Aye, he overdid the headline, no argument there.

And yeah, the rest spot on... previously I thought Weir and McMahon were going to stand down and appoint someone different...I more and more suspect they'd appoint someone the same.

They've been great servants and can no doubt still contribute somehow...but I'd much rather the freshly elected Society board takes the lead on things like the CEO. As an aside, we also urgently need fresh blood on the club board to bring the average age down a bit...

[eliphas]

4 minutes ago, fat_tony said:

I read the question as whether you'd be willing to consider any proposal that would see the society losing its controlling stake, or absolutely will not even listen to any proposal unless the society retains control.

I don't think it's jumping in to the unknown to suggest that it would be worth at least hearing any proposals before chucking them out.

I'd rather the society keeps its controlling stake but it's not inconceivable to me that there might be a scenario where it's worth losing the controlling stake for the right proposal. It's certainly worth having all the options to weigh, IMO.

 

That's how I read it too. 

I voted for the second option. That I would consider it. Which I would be sure I'd want to hear what people have to say. Defintley in no way is that me saying I'd vote for any old option presented.

As @Busta Nut says, I hope we can stay fan owned too, but for me I'd like to be presented with all possible options and red lining not giving up majority ownership isn't for me tbh. I totally understand why people would though if it's really a passionate subject for them for multiple reasons.

Edited February 23 by eliphas

[thisGRAEME]

16 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

And someone not shy about shaking up the rest of the league, particularly when it comes to marketing, TV etc, is no bad thing either.

 

Not shy about tweeting about it, no.

[Handsome_Devil]

6 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Not shy about tweeting about it, no.

Indeed. Probably preferable to leaders who give the impression of not being 100% certain what a social media is!

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

See, specific to that Tweet I disagree with him that seeking external funding is waving a white flag.

I think that most of us would agree that there's a ceiling to what the WS can sustain so to that point external funding should be something that the club is open to.

Genuine question: why do you need an owner of the club to 'sustain' a certain level, as opposed to simply funding the level that your revenue naturally sustains anyway? You're not even toiling in the lower leagues; there's no surface-level reason why owner-investment is necessary.

[Vietnam91]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

Genuine question: why do you need an owner of the club to 'sustain' a certain level, as opposed to simply funding the level that your revenue naturally sustains anyway? You're not even toiling in the lower leagues; there's no surface-level reason why owner-investment is necessary.

Because we can't be relied upon to repeatedly tuck away lower league opposition in cup ties.

[thisGRAEME]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Genuine question: why do you need an owner of the club to 'sustain' a certain level, as opposed to simply funding the level that your revenue naturally sustains anyway? You're not even toiling in the lower leagues; there's no surface-level reason why owner-investment is necessary.

This is, in part, kind of the issue for a lot of people I think?

There's a not insignificant part of the Motherwell support that think we should be challenging for third place, in large part, because we have?

That carries a lot of context however, and in general, we've had our more successful seasons when other teams have fucked up, and we've been there to take advantage of it. 

To me; that's where we sit. We're a 6th-10th sized team in Scotland, who occasionally have a wee daft spell. 

That's roughly where our attendance is, it's where we will be. That Kilmarnock and St. Mirren are on the up is their turn at it, whereas in pure resource terms traditionally, we can't compete with Aberdeen, Hibernian and Hearts (probably United too, but lol at them). 

Folk want more money so we can challenge for third, wherever it comes from, which is wild to me, but here we are.

I dunno. I'm currently missing turning up to watch my football team then go home without hours of back and forth about stuff that I'm not totally sure I understand. 

[YassinMoutaouakil]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

Genuine question: why do you need an owner of the club to 'sustain' a certain level, as opposed to simply funding the level that your revenue naturally sustains anyway? You're not even toiling in the lower leagues; there's no surface-level reason why owner-investment is necessary.

For me anyway, for basically the whole time I've been aware of Scottish football we've been part of the pack just behind Hearts, Aberdeen and Hibs- and there usually being a decent chance of at least one or two of them being a basket case in any given season meaning that, if a few things go right, we've a shot at finishing in the top 5. The three of them seem to have motored away from us a bit financially and the most of the rest of the "pack" that I mentioned- the Dundee teams, Killie, St Mirren have all pretty publicly outbid us for players in recent seasons, ostensibly down to external investment. If there's 9 or 10 other clubs in Scotland that are able to spend more money than us every season then it stands to reason that sooner rather than later we'll run out of luck eventually and go down.

Obviously all the equivalent clubs I mentioned earlier have been relegated in this timeframe, as well as the likes of Partick, Inverness, Dunfermline and Falkirk. It hasn't been the end of the world for any of them and we don't have any more of a god-given right to be in the top flight than they did. But.. I mean, I'd rather we were. I'm pretty sure I've seen us finish 2nd as many times as I have in the bottom two. Personally I'd rather we explored any sort of serious proposal that keep us on a competitive footing at the level we've been accustomed to for 40 years rather than just assume that Motherwell have to be fan owned even if that means we have to accept a significant step down relative to our standing in Scottish football (I'm not saying it actually does necessitate that.)

Edited February 23 by YassinMoutaouakil