Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[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

['WellDel]

I've got to admit to never having gotten round to signing up to the Society so excuse my ignorance, but after these discussions over the past few days it's something I'm going to put right soon.

The blurb on the 'fishal page is minimal and obviously gives the options of membership at £5, £10, £25, and £50 bands with no clear distinction if each upward increment affords you any more benefits, or if it's just a matter of which one you can afford and everyone being equal.

To that end, is it possible for folk to commit to a regular payment in-between these preset values? For instance, someone currently paying £25 a month may find jumping up to £50 a stretch, but might feel they could more comfortably offer £30 or £35. Is it/could it be an option for individuals to choose their own monthly sub? Perhaps it is but it's just not made clear. I Don't know the in's and out's of it, but with every penny a prisoner on both the fans' and the club's side, maximum flexibility could help in eeking out a few more precious £££'s if folk don't feel they could commit to the next level, but could spare an extra fiver every month instead. 

[Handsome_Devil]

6 minutes ago, 'WellDel said:

I've got to admit to never having gotten round to signing up to the Society so excuse my ignorance, but after these discussions over the past few days it's something I'm going to put right soon.

The blurb on the 'fishal page is minimal and obviously gives the options of membership at £5, £10, £25, and £50 bands with no clear distinction if each upward increment affords you any more benefits, or if it's just a matter of which one you can afford and everyone being equal.

To that end, is it possible for folk to commit to a regular payment in-between these preset values? For instance, someone currently paying £25 a month may find jumping up to £50 a stretch, but might feel they could more comfortably offer £30 or £35. Is it/could it be an option for individuals to choose their own monthly sub? Perhaps it is but it's just not made clear. I Don't know the in's and out's of it, but with every penny a prisoner on both the fans' and the club's side, maximum flexibility could help in eeking out a few more precious £££'s if folk don't feel they could commit to the next level, but could spare an extra fiver every month instead. 

I'm pretty sure you can pay whatever you fancy, even if that's not quite what the advertising blurb says.

[capt_oats]

1 hour 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. 

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. 

Aye.

Not that anyone's asking but I voted for the first option as well on the basis that the brief indicated that the vote wasn't binding.

If you're asking me *now* I wouldn't vote for an option that would see the WS lose its majority shareholding - which isn't to say that I'm not interested in hearing what they have to say - but as a starting point I don't see that this initiative or whatever you want to call it was cobbled together with that as a desired outcome.

Similarly as I said earlier, voting for an option at this point in time (interim CEO, chairman heading out the door etc) that would see the current majority shareholder relinquish that regardless of any caveats seems a bit wrong headed.

Then again, show me a pitch deck and I might change my mind but right now the idea of the WS losing its majority isn't for me.

As I said earlier I think this is something that we should be approaching from a position where we have some sort of strategy and joined up thinking rather than being forced into urgency because the chairman chucked £17k at a video and decided to upload it to YouTube which is honestly where it feels like we are at the moment.

@Handsome_Devil put it well earlier in saying there's a feeling of "beware old men in a hurry" here.

As if it wasn't already clear, I have absolutely no faith in Jim McMahon and Co either.

Edited February 23 by capt_oats

[eliphas]

33 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 hour ago, Handsome_Devil said:

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

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

Not for me. Don't particularly want a brand,  marketing and content guy or gal running the club. We need to be shooting higher than that for the CEO job. 

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

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 are able to spend more money than us every season then it stands to reason that sooner rather than later that we'll run out of luck eventually go down.

Objectively speaking, Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen have (almost) always been well ahead of any provincial club that isn't financially doped. I'm not sure why you think that's a recent development at all. 

Quote

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.)

The level that you're accustomed to seems to be glossing over the massive administration event that occurred right in the middle of that period, which if it weren't for very fortuitous circumstances could have seen you in a dire state of survival, never mind maintaining a statto book record. 

From an outside perspective I cannot understand why you'd be gesturing longingly at either Dundee club as a model, given the long history of one of them and the ongoing, outrageous bin-fire mismanagement occurring at the other. Kilmarnock were also quite fortunate to clamber out of the second tier at the first attempt after throwing money at to scrape past a part-time challenger: otherwise they'd be fucked too. 

The grass isn't always greener and the ceiling for Motherwell right now is really no more restricted than it ought to be if you fancy reliably having a club to follow. 

['WellDel]

7 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I'm pretty sure you can pay whatever you fancy, even if that's not quite what the advertising blurb says.

Cheers mate. If that was made clearer it could potentially lead to a few extra quid, perhaps not enough to sign the next Trevor Molloy, but every penny counts, eh?

[Handsome_Devil]

11 minutes ago, eliphas said:

 

Not for me. Don't particularly want a brand,  marketing and content guy or gal running the club. We need to be shooting higher than that for the CEO job. 

What would you prefer, another finance guy like Weir? CEOs develop through their specialty, and pick up cross-cutting skills along the way. You trust they recognise their limitations and appoint good folk to run the departments they can't while respecting their importance (very much unlike Weir). We need to stop being shy, stop being timid, get folk onboard the 'story' again and sell ourselves. We're crying out for the sort of sales and marketing w****r you'd hate to go for a pint with.

[Handsome_Devil]

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

Objectively speaking, Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen have (almost) always been well ahead of any provincial club that isn't financially doped. I'm not sure why you think that's a recent development at all. 

The level that you're accustomed to seems to be glossing over the massive administration event that occurred right in the middle of that period, which if it weren't for very fortuitous circumstances could have seen you in a dire state of survival, never mind maintaining a statto book record. 

The middle three have finally started hiring pros off the pitch and monetising their fanbase and business backing from the bigger cities. There's always been a gap, the issue is how much it's increasing - it just doesn't get noticed all the time when they keep screwing up the actual football.

We would never have gone into administration without an investor and it's a key warning to those who would cede control now. As a club we'll forever have a black mark because someone promised wild money then renaged...tbf it's retrospectively clear we were never in danger of going out of business, the whole thing was outrageous. 

[eliphas]

20 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

What would you prefer, another finance guy like Weir? CEOs develop through their specialty, and pick up cross-cutting skills along the way. You trust they recognise their limitations and appoint good folk to run the departments they can't while respecting their importance (very much unlike Weir). We need to stop being shy, stop being timid, get folk onboard the 'story' again and sell ourselves. We're crying out for the sort of sales and marketing w****r you'd hate to go for a pint with.

To be fair it's a good point. I don't need to go for a pint with them or like them which is clouding me somewhat this evening.

If I can pick freely, maybe a more balanced mix of pure finance focus and pure marketing focus. Someone who has more experience on the actual running of a club properly day to day rather than someone with marketing and brand ideas as their primary focus or experience. Good strategic thinker across multiple areas including experience on the football side of it too. Sound financial  manager and good negotiator. Connections if possible in football.

Hire Grant and stick him in an office to report to the CEO. He was on STV about 5 or 6 years ago. Everyone starts somewhere but I'd prefer someone with more experience applicable to a CEO gig to be guiding us this time around. 

 

Edited February 23 by eliphas

[Dosser1886]

1 hour 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. 

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. 

Would be nice to actually get the email so that you could vote. Never seem to get then from the WS and I put in a whole £10 a month how dare they..

Edited February 23 by Dosser1886

[rowsdower]

4 minutes ago, Dosser1886 said:

Would be nice to actually get the email so that you could vote. Never seem to get then from the WS and I put in a whole £10 a month hour dare they..

Check your spam folder

[MurrayWell]

Each to their own and all that, but I think our position for any negotiation should be "the fans stay owners". Up to the perspective investors if they want to get on board with that. 

Don't really like the whole "would you maybe sell the club though?" Wasn't ever what was pitched and would probably weaken the club's position if investors thought the fans would go for a full sale. 

[capt_oats]

7 minutes ago, eliphas said:

Hire Grant and stick him in an office to report to the CEO. He was on STV about 5 or 6 years ago. Everyone starts somewhere but I'd prefer someone with more experience applicable to a CEO gig to be guiding us this time around. 

I mean, I'm not advocating him for the job (honestly) but he essentially worked alongside Burrows for 4.5 years. He's already done that part.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

55 minutes ago, virginton said:

Objectively speaking, Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen have (almost) always been well ahead of any provincial club that isn't financially doped. I'm not sure why you think that's a recent development at all. 

The level that you're accustomed to seems to be glossing over the massive administration event that occurred right in the middle of that period, which if it weren't for very fortuitous circumstances could have seen you in a dire state of survival, never mind maintaining a statto book record. 

From an outside perspective I cannot understand why you'd be gesturing longingly at either Dundee club as a model, given the long history of one of them and the ongoing, outrageous bin-fire mismanagement occurring at the other. Kilmarnock were also quite fortunate to clamber out of the second tier at the first attempt after throwing money at to scrape past a part-time challenger: otherwise they'd be fucked too. 

The grass isn't always greener and the ceiling for Motherwell right now is really no more restricted than it ought to be if you fancy reliably having a club to follow. 

We'll never have been matching Aberdeen or the Edinburgh clubs' budgets but I'd be very surprised if the relative gap in resources isn't bigger than when they were signing Tim Clancy and Stephen Hughes from us. I'm less concerned about that though as realistically finishing 3rd will always take a combination of us overperforming and the clubs you would expect to be up there doing the opposite. What I think is a bigger deal in the short to medium term is the other clubs around us outgunning us financially to an extent that didn't happen before. It's entirely selfish, and I wasn't really arsed about what St Mirren fans thought when we were taking Sutton or Higdon off them, but I want to see Motherwell signing as good a quality of player and winning games at as high a level as possible. 

If nothing changes then it seems likely we'll go into most seasons aiming for 9th with anything else being an overperformance. If that's the most sustainable option then so be it, I just don't think we have to be looking at it as binary options of managed decline under fan ownership or handing the whole club over to crooks who'll sell Fir Park and see us in League One by 2026.

Edited February 23 by YassinMoutaouakil

[wellboy1991]

1 hour ago, 'WellDel said:

I've got to admit to never having gotten round to signing up to the Society so excuse my ignorance, but after these discussions over the past few days it's something I'm going to put right soon.

The blurb on the 'fishal page is minimal and obviously gives the options of membership at £5, £10, £25, and £50 bands with no clear distinction if each upward increment affords you any more benefits, or if it's just a matter of which one you can afford and everyone being equal.

To that end, is it possible for folk to commit to a regular payment in-between these preset values? For instance, someone currently paying £25 a month may find jumping up to £50 a stretch, but might feel they could more comfortably offer £30 or £35. Is it/could it be an option for individuals to choose their own monthly sub? Perhaps it is but it's just not made clear. I Don't know the in's and out's of it, but with every penny a prisoner on both the fans' and the club's side, maximum flexibility could help in eeking out a few more precious £££'s if folk don't feel they could commit to the next level, but could spare an extra fiver every month instead. 

I’ve been paying since the very beginning a nice little amount a month and received zero benefits. 
 

Have asked a few times for statements and what tier etc I’m at and get usually a very wooly response and the last response about 6 months ago, I’ll look into it and get back to you. Nothing so far. 
 

Don’t get me a wrong I didn’t sign up for the benefits but it is piss poor the comms on that front. 

Edited February 23 by wellboy1991

[wellboy1991]

23 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

I mean, I'm not advocating him for the job (honestly) but he essentially worked alongside Burrows for 4.5 years. He's already done that part.

As far as I’ve heard before he was the brains behind the operation and no surprise it went down hill after he left tbh. 

[boozyBJ]

7 minutes ago, wellboy1991 said:

I’ve been paying since the very beginning a nice title amount a month a received zero benefits. 
 

Have asked a few times for statements and what tier etc I’m at and get usually a very wooly response and the last response about 6 months ago, I’ll look into it and get back to you. Nothing so far. 
 

Don’t get me a wrong I didn’t sign up for the benefits but it is piss poor the comms on that front. 

Ditto. 
Biggest disappointment was I lost my membership card, my own fault and couldn’t get a replacement

[welldaft]

The Well Society has been a very good but somewhat limited safety net. Raising £1.7m is an excellent effort but in truth it is probably not enough to see us sustain our top flight status in the short to medium term.

I have said quite clearly I am sceptical of any investor that is looking or a significant ROI. I just don’t think it is possible with Motherwell FC. I would love to be proved wrong. 

All that said what I don’t get is anyone voting against outside investment before they know the actual terms and conditions. I suspect the club have been forced into this survey by the sound of things. Why else would we need to vote so soon even if it is just an indication. 

It sure as shit would be interesting if the vote shows a majority against outside investment, only for that outside investment to be transformational and actually acceptable as unlikely as that may be. I mean talk about cutting off your  nose to spite your face !