Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[rowsdower]

As per the latest WS email, you can put yourself forward to join one of the workstreams. This is how we're going to make pakora happen.

[Busta Nut]

I think Paton should be a good squad player. But SK likes him in the first xi. 

[Hendo]

3 hours ago, Stevie Kirk said:

Only logical explanation is there was an ancient burial ground below the east stand that got disturbed during the recent health and safety work . We are now suffering serious bad Juju .

If Paton has had bad luck its more likely to be karma.

[thisGRAEME]

1 hour ago, Vietnam91 said:

Don't know the inner workings of the SPFL but I would have thought there was a lot of pressure from wee teams to go back to 3 subs seeing as it was a temporary measure.

When a team in theory can introduce 5 subs with combined wages could pay your whole squad for 3 weeks then its added to the "something is pretty wrong" list of  why our game continues to increase the wealth and sporting gap rather than address it. Not that our OF record before 2020 was anything special.

But as we are in a 11-1 voting system seems it is here to stay.

However, it does feel like its looking to shut the gate once the horse has bolted. There are more pressing issues over us repeatedly switching off, not recognising momentum swings and being caught on the hop trying to deal with them. You'll attain more points over a season addressing this than having access to 5 subs.

It isn't an 11-1 vote for that, and from memory there were only a handful of clubs against it.

From memory; managers like it, so clubs voted for it.

[camer0n_mcd]

14 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

It isn't an 11-1 vote for that, and from memory there were only a handful of clubs against it.

From memory; managers like it, so clubs voted for it.

75% of clubs voted for it. Motherwell were one of the ones that voted against it, I remember Alan Burrows speaking out at the time saying that it favoured the bigger clubs.

[Vietnam91]

2 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

75% of clubs voted for it. Motherwell were one of the ones that voted against it, I remember Alan Burrows speaking out at the time saying that it favoured the bigger clubs.

75% across the whole Cinch or Prem only?

[camer0n_mcd]

22 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

75% across the whole Cinch or Prem only?

75% of Premiership clubs. Championship/league 1 voted for it separately a week a two afterwards.

[eliphas]

In theory, 5 subs is a good idea, certainly from a player welfare point of view. But in practice I'm not a fan really for the reasons people have already mentioned. 

Do agree with @Vietnam91 though in that it's not a major factor in our season or results. Or, certainly there are other things we can do better, much better, to stop losing goals. For as long as I can remember watching us we've lost goals to 'bigger' teams who can bring on better players late in the game.

[Handsome_Devil]

56 minutes ago, eliphas said:

In theory, 5 subs is a good idea, certainly from a player welfare point of view. But in practice I'm not a fan really for the reasons people have already mentioned. 

Aye, I absolutely hate it, it's yet another largely pointless change which just makes it even harder for the haves to lose to the have nots.

Virtually every notable change made in football since the pass back rule (which was spot on tbf) has made things worse rather than better and they're now tying themselves in knots with things like sin bins because we're in a situation where Palma giving a message to his mate gets the same yellow card as Butcher for cynically stopping a decent chance on the edge of the box.

It should be a relatively simple game, even with modern speed, attitudes, whatever, how the authorities continue to make this look so frigging hard is beyond me.

[Pettigrew]

Any idea of response levels to the Well Society poll so far?

[capt_oats]

Following on from that post last night where I mentioned that curiously the only outfield area of the park that we haven't signed anyone this season is centre back it occurred to me that of the six options we're using for the back three, none of them were actually originally signed by Kettlewell.

• McGinn (Alexander)
• O'Donnell (Robinson)
• Mugabi (Robinson)
• Butcher (Hammell)
• Blaney (Hammell)
• Casey (Hammell)

It's not a particularly important point (it’s probably purely coincidental) as we were oversubscribed there from the start of the season but it's an odd quirk given that save Spittal (Alexander) and Miller (Academy) our nominal 'successes' this season (Spencer, Biereth, Gent, Bair, Zdravkovski etc) have been Ketts signings whereas the area we're massively underperforming have been the ones other guys brought to the club.

Edited February 27 by capt_oats

[Swello]

12 minutes ago, Pettigrew said:

Any idea of response levels to the Well Society poll so far?

Good reminder - been away over the past week and missed a lot of the discussion around this and haven't voted yet. 

The question is worded slightly oddly (although the email is by far the best they've ever put out IMO) - I wish they had used "a proposal" instead of "any proposal" but at this point, I'm going to stay open minded even though ultimately I want majority ownership for the Society to continue permanently. 

I hope they get a decent response because it looks like a lot of work has gone into this..

[thisGRAEME]

44 minutes ago, Swello said:

Good reminder - been away over the past week and missed a lot of the discussion around this and haven't voted yet. 

The question is worded slightly oddly (although the email is by far the best they've ever put out IMO) - I wish they had used "a proposal" instead of "any proposal" but at this point, I'm going to stay open minded even though ultimately I want majority ownership for the Society to continue permanently. 

I hope they get a decent response because it looks like a lot of work has gone into this..

Aye. It's funny how this has all worked, but the nonsense that's gone on, alongside the changes of the Society board feels like it's reinvigorated it to a level only matched by the launch.

While that's not intended as a criticism of the previous operations of it, but it does feel like a real opportunity to make a fairly significant step forward with it.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

I just voted against the Well Society losing it's majority shareholding.

I didn't join instantly myself. From memory it was £300 to join in the beginning before they started monthly memberships and the fact that I was a student at the time, coupled with the fact that team was class meant that £300 from any Motherwell budget would be going on away days or euro trips back then. 

If I'm honest, after that, for a few years, I wasn't as interested or engaged in joining, until I did so just before the pandemic.

I'm still very pragmatic about fan ownership - if I think it's the best solution I'll be for it, if I think it's not I'll be against it - but for us, I genuinely think the 'Well Society having a majority shareholding is what is best for the club. Say the club sold it to a wealthy man, with no ulterior motives or red flags. They could run the club successfully for a period of time, but that won't last forever. At that point, they will want to sell the club for the best deal possible and probably won't be concerned who to and us as fans won't have a say in it.

That's what sells it to me - having a say in this investor, the next investor and the one after that. 

Looking at the figures @capt_oats posted of our P&L since being fan owned, it's actually fairly encouraging. Getting to two cup finals in one season and selling David Turnbull does appear to have helped us run for a few years and had we not had to do the structural work and then subsequently fix it, things would be looking very kind on the bank. 

It's really hard to be overly critical of finances, when we have money in the bank and generally remained in the black due to the aforementioned cup finals and player sales, which is actively our model. Not to mention surviving a pandemic and giving free season tickets out the following year.

My obvious concerns around that model going forward are how much we shit the bed in cup competitions and how much Brexit has affected our youth players even reaching the stage where they get to a professional contract for us. Part of me does think that we are seeing Lennon Miller in our first team just now because his Dad was a pro himself and seems to have his head screwed on to advise him on what's best for his career. I reckon most others in his shoes would've taken the McAlear / Leitch / McKinstry route by now. I also have doubts about our ability to "buy to sell" in today's market, given Slattery and Kelly's three year deals look like they will be seen out without any serious interest.

I am definitely of the thought that a hybrid model of the society and outside investment is the best thing going forward. I have serious concerns about growth in the society. In thirteen years, surely there are very fine margins to be gained by new members? I'd imagine just about everyone interested would've signed up now. Are we reliant on current members upping their monthly payment? With the area not being the most affluent and the climate we are in, there might not be the biggest scope for this. I also think in so many ways the horse has bolted in terms of re-engaging disengaged fans. I do also think that it would be a tough sell for someone with no link to the club to invest, without getting the biggest say for it.

Ultimately, if we continue to go down The Well Society route, we might see a drop in our standard of player, we may see us drop divisions and find it tough to come back, but at the end of the day we'll still have the club. As much as it may not appeal to others, that's good enough for me.

 

 

 

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I am definitely of the thought that a hybrid model of the society and outside investment is the best thing going forward. I have serious concerns about growth in the society. 

Great post, outlines my feelings on the whole situation.

Going back to the interested parties and saying "naw" to them wanting majority ownership isn't necessarily going to send them packing right now; one, both, or other investors who haven't been fully engaged with could come back and say that they'd be fine with a smaller stake in the club. That, for me, would be the ideal scenario as you say.

Frankly, if they've seen the video, "understood" the club and aren't willing to work alongside/in collaboration with a fan ownership model I'd be questioning if they're the right person/people to invest in the club and would vote against any offer they brought, if it ever got that far.

Definitely interesting times ahead with the outcome of the WS vote. I'm assuming that the results will be announced around the end of the week/early next given the Wednesday deadline.

If it is indeed a "naw" vote from the members, I'd be intrigued to understand how WS wants to retain its majority ownership; 51% is obviously a significant/symbolic holding, but I'd need to understand the maths of how that will work with private shareholders etc. For example; could the WS petition the private shareholders (such as myself and a few others on here) to join them as a voting block, effectively giving them that 51%, but reducing the overall WS shareholding as a percentage of the total. So effectively allowing provision for investment by an external person/group of up to the equivalent of 49% of the club.

[Richie]

Ideally the WS keep majority shareholding, but the way the question was framed, yes I would consider  proposals, depending on what they offered.

 

[StAndrew7]

24 minutes ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I also have doubts about our ability to "buy to sell" in today's market, given Slattery and Kelly's three year deals look like they will be seen out without any serious interest.

This is another concern of mine, it was raised at the AGM, too. Another issue with Slattery in particular is that he's had 3 managers in 3 seasons in 3 different formations and roles. That's not ideal for him to continue his development, nor was how Alexander treated him etc. I think we need to take the hit on that one for poor appointments and understanding of the environment he needed to develop.

Don't get my started on Kelly... 

I think Kettlewell recognises that we need to be developing young talent, but not just through the academy. He gave Bair as the obvious example; he sold his vision for improving his game, what areas he felt he was strong in, others he could improve and has tailored video, individual and group training sessions around bringing out the best in him. Bair's interview from Sunday's Sky coverage is worth a listen too (even just for the big man's sexy Canadian accent ) to see just how much he's enjoying his time with us so far.

That's the kind of example/good press we should be getting out there for other players in similar situations to him; he was what, 24 when he joined us? A lot of players with his limited game time at that age would consider chucking it in. Just goes to show how the right environment can transform ability and confidence levels.

[thisGRAEME]

32 minutes ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

My obvious concerns around that model going forward are how much we shit the bed in cup competitions and how much Brexit has affected our youth players even reaching the stage where they get to a professional contract for us. Part of me does think that we are seeing Lennon Miller in our first team just now because his Dad was a pro himself and seems to have his head screwed on to advise him on what's best for his career. I reckon most others in his shoes would've taken the McAlear / Leitch / McKinstry route by now. I also have doubts about our ability to "buy to sell" in today's market, given Slattery and Kelly's three year deals look like they will be seen out without any serious interest.

I agree entirely with your post Joe, and that's very much where I stand as well. 

On this; I've on occasion had my hair cut by Lee Miller and he's highlighted multiple times that Lennon is a smart kid, looking much further down the line than he ever did as a player, and ultimately; do you want to be Turnbull or do you want to be Hastie is a fairly clear recent-day example. Miller clearly fancies the former, certainly.

On buying to sell as well, I kind of agree, but then again, over the last few years I feel like we've maybe slipped away from making players better. Under Robinson it felt that we really did that on a fairly regular basis. Under Alexander and Hammell... not so much. More recently under Kettlewell? Johnston, Furlong, Goss, Spittal, Van Veen, Davor, Theo, Gent? They're all better players today (or when they left) than they were when they arrived with us.

Obviously, few of these left for cash (Van Veen the outlier), but we're going to sell Theo, which is a) A good example of improving a player and b) very very funny. I would be unsurprised to see us collect some cash for Davor as well. So the chance remains there, if we get back to improving guys rather than doing whatever the f**k we've been doing under the previous two managers.

[witchfindergeneral]

On 23/02/2024 at 21:02, Handsome_Devil said:

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

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.

What do you mean by this? I was under the impression him and Laura left us for West Ham but sounds like there was more to it?

[well fan for life]

58 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

On this; I've on occasion had my hair cut by Lee Miller and he's highlighted multiple times that Lennon is a smart kid, looking much further down the line than he ever did as a player, and ultimately; do you want to be Turnbull or do you want to be Hastie is a fairly clear recent-day example. Miller clearly fancies the former, certainly.

So we're all looking forward to him absolutely cantering it in the Serie A?