Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[wellboy1991]

6 minutes ago, boozyBJ said:

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

Membership Card? Don’t think I got one of those bad boys lol. Maybe I did but it was 7 years or so ago.

I didn’t get one of the pies they dishes out previously either that was a bummer. However not a surprise as usual suspects who got them. Not that I’m salty….

Edited February 23 by wellboy1991

[boozyBJ]

9 minutes ago, wellboy1991 said:

Membership Card? Don’t think I got one of those bad boys lol. Maybe I did but it was 7 years or so ago.

I didn’t get one of the pies they dishes out previously either that was a bummer. However not a surprise as usual suspects who got them. Not that I’m salty….

Only other disappointment was never got ‘Goals of the Season’ dvd as well

[capt_oats]

22 minutes ago, welldaft said:

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 ! 

I know there's been a lot written over the past few days but it's worth pointing out that it was mentioned at the AGM that neither of these bids will be 'transformational' "straight away" (per @StAndrew7's summary posted both here and on SO).

On 22/02/2024 at 09:02, StAndrew7 said:

• The share purchases will not be instant, nor will the investment be "transformational" straight away; one bid is proposing the WS go down to "around 50%" and another is wanting a controlling stake, but the % was not mentioned

Similarly, the vote isn't a vote against outside/external investment it's a vote asking if people would be willing to see the WS lose it's majority shareholding.

I think most people would be open to external investment.

Edited February 23 by capt_oats

[ropy]

1 hour 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 how dare they..

They wish to reconnect

[MurrayWell]

The whole point of the vote is to see the red line of Well Society members, it's not anyone saying a definitive yes or no to investment. 

I'm absolutely not against external investment, I'm actually pretty for it, provided it's in the club's best interests.

But what I don't like is the idea that we have been told one thing (again) while other options are on the table (ie, selling the club completely). The whole campaign was around "join this community" not "do you want to buy the club?". Of course each offer should be considered on its own merit, and let's all be real if there is truly transformative investment on the table there is a high chance it'll get the votes once the details are shared. 

But I do think saying "we'd maybe sell the club" straight off the bat without any information isn't the way to go either, if folk would prefer that the club stay in the hands of supporters with outside investment complementing that (where I am btw). 

The whole point of fan ownership was to avoid us falling into the wrong hands. Concern would be if someone, without the best intentions, knows fans could be up for giving up ownership to the highest bidder we could find ourselves in a tricky situation. 

Again, this obviously isn't a final decision but will set the negotiation parameters by the sounds of it, I think saying we want to remain fan owned is the better place to start. 

[welldaft]

Just now, capt_oats said:

I know there's been a lot written over the past few days but it's worth pointing out that it was mentioned at the AGM that neither of these bids are 'transformational' (per @StAndrew7's summary posted both here and on SO).

Similarly, the vote isn't a vote against outside investment it's a vote asking if people would be willing to see the WS lose it's majority shareholding.

I think most people would be open to external investment.

The simple issue is that anyone willing to invest money in Motherwell is unlikely to do so without having a controlling interest. It is just not going to happen.

As a Motherwell fan I might consider it. But truth be told even I would want to be in charge of the major decisions. 

It is almost akin to you buying a house for £500k and a group of people who have contributed £30k telling you what the decorations will be, when you need a new kitchen and so on and on. You simply would not accept that in any way shape or form.  Strange analogy maybe but no one is going to invest millions in MFC without calling the shots. Hence why we have been asked vote on those specific questions. 

[wellboy1991]

12 minutes ago, boozyBJ said:

Only other disappointment was never got ‘Goals of the Season’ dvd as well

Wait… what. I missed that aswell…

[ropy]

39 minutes ago, wellboy1991 said:

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. 

I joined at entry level back in the day, when we got the opportunity to vote on the Rangers debacle it was heavily hinted that there would be financial repercussions if we voted against them, so I upped my contribution to the next tier, I can’t remember what that was but I got a nice bottle of Claret signed by McCall and a ball signed by the payers.  I consumed the wine, no idea where the ball is.  I vaguely remember a dvd and I got the offer to attend the team photograph day, which I never took up.

 

[ropy]

6 minutes ago, welldaft said:

The simple issue is that anyone willing to invest money in Motherwell is unlikely to do so without having a controlling interest. It is just not going to happen.

As a Motherwell fan I might consider it. But truth be told even I would want to be in charge of the major decisions. 

It is almost akin to you buying a house for £500k and a group of people who have contributed £30k telling you what the decorations will be, when you need a new kitchen and so on and on. You simply would not accept that in any way shape or form.  Strange analogy maybe but no one is going to invest millions in MFC without calling the shots. Hence why we have been asked vote on those specific questions. 

You’re not married then?

Edited February 23 by ropy

[welldaft]

My membership level amongst other things included an invite to the Directors box……

After a year or two I enquired where this was. Only to be told well you have not requested it. 

So an invitation means I had to invite myself. It is at that point and many others I decided enough. 

As I said earlier it was actually very well marketed and attractive in the 1st instance. The problem as always with MFC is the actual delivery. 

It would not take much to have someone in charge who knows how to treat the customer and ensure continued loyalty beyond attending match days.  But Motherwell and to be fair many other clubs have just failed in this regard over and over. 

[Vietnam91]

3 hours ago, ropy 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.

Very much where I was ropy.

On one hand I support and am keen for the fan owned model to work as I do think there's lots of untapped revenues, especially with the new vigour.

On the other I know the fans owned Wrexham had to cede control to Reynolds and McElhenney. As this is the gold standard of football club investment mainly because its as much a PR vehicle, Emmy award haul thing as it is the sporting success (which I suppose benefits the first two). I think most believe at some point it will be handed back with them at least a mid table Championship team with new stand and a tripled home gate secure for the next X years.

It could be argued that the latter eclipses the former in desirability but so much rarer to find. So voting "I would" doesn't rule it out.

As mentioned in other posts, neither are binding but it is designed to give the WS an idea of where the membership are. I think if it wasn't only for that TV show the vote would be far closer to 100% in the "I would not" camp.

Edited February 24 by Vietnam91

[rowsdower]

The results of the vote should give us a fair idea of whether the twitter and fb moon howlers or the forum brigade are more representative of our support. Either way, it's good that the vote came out quickly, and it will be good to see where the Society members stand.

Also, seeing SO ans P&B almost aligned on something warms my heart

[JayMFC]

On a side note, it's been encouraging to see some positive mentions of the actual consultation email content itself. I'm not sure if that's the widespread response but there's certainly been some favourable comments made. It might not seem like it, but a lot of collective work went into the content to try and ensure it was as balanced as possible and avoided anything that was too leading in either direction, so if that has been achieved, it's a good thing.

Although that said, one thing that maybe could have been clearer in hindsight going by some of the comments is that idea of the consultation being non-binding. It's to give the Well Society and club parameters within which to approach current, and any further, investment offers in terms of negotiations, while also clarifying if steps such as green lighting a CEO and beginning to rebuild & refresh the Executive Board can be undertaken, or whether those kinds of things need to remain on hold. 

However, I think it's worth highlighting that if the Hollywood A-Lister did indeed rock up at the Chapman Building carting wheelbarrows of cash and looking for majority shares, nobody would say "sorry Taylor hen, the Well Society voted in a non-binding consultation not to give up fan-ownership so you'll need to taxi it back to the airport".

[RandomGuy.]

7 hours ago, welldaft said:

All that said what I don’t get is anyone voting against outside investment before they know the actual terms and conditions.

Not a go at Motherwell fans, but its been interesting seeing debates about ownership on Twitter over the past week amongst fan bases due to stories about Motherwell and Saints potentially changing hands, and how theres a form of snobbery appeared about how fans owning a club is the only "acceptable"/"correct" way and every other option will see the club die.

Edited February 24 by RandomGuy.

[eliphas]

8 hours 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.

Aye that's fine, he can do it again if he wants in under my leadership if I'm picking the CEO. Haha.

Edited February 24 by eliphas

[Handsome_Devil]

8 hours ago, wellboy1991 said:

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. 

Did you hear that from the hypothetical Rrant Gussell I used discussing potential CEOs?

[eliphas]

In all seriousness though, if we take Grant Russell to the side for the moment as my head kind of got lost in him as an individual last night probably and I genuinely don't have anything against the man. 

My main point to I think it was @Handsome Devil's post is really just if I was picking a CEO I don't really want someone in with brand and marketing basically as their main experience and selling point. Even I'd that's football brand and marketing.

I'd rather it was someone who has maybe ran a football club before, someone with solid proven financial and negotiation skills defintley but don't need to be a finance guy, someone who can foster some great relationships with other CEOs, views marketing and brand etc as important for definite, someone who has been in and about the football side of it too a little bit too probably given the size of our club and the fact they won't be able to appoint an exec team below then. 

So, a very simple hire....easy. 

[eliphas]

2 hours ago, JayMFC said:

Although that said, one thing that maybe could have been clearer in hindsight going by some of the comments is that idea of the consultation being non-binding

On record saying I think that was a great email. Very very informative and straight forward I thought.

But, aye, I think it could even be worthwhile to put out a short follow up quickly, as in today on email and socis, explaining what you've explained here about it being non binding etc. 

If some people have missed the point and voted in a different way, even the minority, I'm not sure how that squares up vs votes already posted and all that to be fair.

[JayMFC]

11 minutes ago, eliphas said:

On record saying I think that was a great email. Very very informative and straight forward I thought.

But, aye, I think it could even be worthwhile to put out a short follow up quickly, as in today on email and socis, explaining what you've explained here about it being non binding etc. 

If some people have missed the point and voted in a different way, even the minority, I'm not sure how that squares up vs votes already posted and all that to be fair.

I'll feed that back. Not sure a follow up email would materialise but it's worth highlighting as an option.

I suppose the email does say it's non-binding and sometimes you just have to hope folk pick up on that. But as I say, a few comments do make me wonder if it could have been clearer.

[Handsome_Devil]

1 hour ago, eliphas said:

I'd rather it was someone who has maybe ran a football club before, someone with solid proven financial and negotiation skills defintley but don't need to be a finance guy, someone who can foster some great relationships with other CEOs, views marketing and brand etc as important for definite, someone who has been in and about the football side of it too a little bit too probably given the size of our club and the fact they won't be able to appoint an exec team below then. 

So, a very simple hire....easy. 

Indeed! I suspect much like the players and managers we end up with, we may have an ideal wishlist of attributes but eventually need to compromise somewhere for the best of what we can afford and hope they learn the rest on the way.