Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[steelmen]

4 minutes ago, Wellin said:

Someone just posted on SO saying that some members are non paying and that we have junior members as well and that might account for the percentage figures. 

They clarify it at the bottom of the message

 

*17 votes of the 1010 votes cast were invalid for the following reasons:

• Junior Steel members: 3
• No membership record: 3
• Voted twice: 11

[Ceiling Granny]

27 minutes ago, Luke92 said:

As we have seen before, social media can create a bit of a false impression...

There are a lot of people who don't use it or enter forums like this one. I would imagine people within that demographic make up a fair chunk of the members.

One thing I would say is the turn out (albeit to a poll) is dreadful and should be taken into account.

Does beg the question, for a poll as important as this one. If folk cba to vote on it, how enthusastic will be there for further contributions etc?

I’d think the ambiguity of the question, and the lack of ability to put forward questions etc probably contributed to this. I’m not suggesting it should/could have been done differently (except the wording), but it wasn’t really an “engaging” process, which I think you need to get a lot people to bother.
 

If you don’t feel the question is worded correctly, can’t communicate that (ie  the way you’re voting doesn’t quite reflect your feelings) and your answer has to be binary, I can see why some people wouldn’t have a clue which way to vote far less anything else. That and there’s no real peril with not voting at this stage, worst case you see the options on the table - hardly a driver to vote for the undecided. 

[santheman]

3 minutes ago, Ceiling Granny said:

I’d think the ambiguity of the question, and the lack of ability to put forward questions etc probably contributed to this. I’m not suggesting it should/could have been done differently (except the wording), but it wasn’t really an “engaging” process, which I think you need to get a lot people to bother.
 

If you don’t feel the question is worded correctly, can’t communicate that (ie  the way you’re voting doesn’t quite reflect your feelings) and your answer has to be binary, I can see why some people wouldn’t have a clue which way to vote far less anything else. That and there’s no real peril with not voting at this stage, worst case you see the options on the table - hardly a driver to vote for the undecided. 

I think thats it in a nutshell.

People Ive spoken to are a bit unsure of what to vote for so just haven't bothered and think that they'll just wait and see what the offers look like before deciding.

Happy to agree in principle but the crunch will be what's in the fine print.

 

[eliphas]

11 minutes ago, Ceiling Granny said:

That and there’s no real peril with not voting at this stage

Spot on. 

20 minutes ago, Wellin said:

Someone just posted on SO saying that some members are non paying and that we have junior members as well and that might account for the percentage figures. 

Don't think it's that. I am non paying technically I guess. Paid the lump at the start when that was what the deal was, not been a regular monthly contributor for a good while now. 

[Wellin]

Just now, eliphas said:

Spot on. 

Don't think it's that. I am non paying technically I guess. Paid the lump at the start when that was what the deal was, not been a regular monthly contributor for a good while now. 

I don't either having looked at the email again. 

[Wellin]

8 minutes ago, santheman said:

I think thats it in a nutshell.

People Ive spoken to are a bit unsure of what to vote for so just haven't bothered and think that they'll just wait and see what the offers look like before deciding.

Happy to agree in principle but the crunch will be what's in the fine print.

 

I personally think this vote was important in the respect that a decision was being made on whether well society fans would be happy to let the well society lose it's majority investment in the event of an outside investor coming in - I get the email could have been better worded but we are talking about clicking a button here. 

[Gallus Numpty]

48 minutes ago, Luke92 said:

One thing I would say is the turn out (albeit to a poll) is dreadful and should be taken into account.

It should be taken into account, but it's not that dreadful, to be honest. Most folk who run a lot of online surveys will tell you 20-30% is about the average response rate, regardless of the issue at hand or the number of questions.

[MurrayWell]

Can't say I'm massively surprised at that outcome, the phrasing will have contributed to the result, that and the fact it wasn't on a specific proposal. Wasn't how I voted, still not sure it's the best way to kick off negotiations as anyone looking to invest will know they could push for full ownership, in theory anyway. 

I mentioned previously I had some concerns about the turnout at the latest elections for the WS and this turnout hasn't been great either. I think what the new society board have planned sounds great, and will hopefully inject a bit of enthusiasm, but there is clearly a bit of tiredness around it all, even from current members. 

In general I'm still optimistic about fan ownership, alongside investment but there is a good bit of work to do you'd imagine. 

Interesting to see how this develops over the next few weeks, but the longer this goes on the longer we are without key figures at the club, with a huge summer ahead. 

[thisGRAEME]

Just FWIW, I would be very wary about sharing the Buyabu rumours online anywhere (particularly on somewhere as public as on here is) when still in the process of a police investigation.

[santheman]

Maybe someone on here can answer this.

Is there a minimum amount you need to have paid into the WS before you get a vote?.

Reason I ask is a mate has been paying in a fiver a month for 2 years so £120 so far.

He gets all the weekly WS emails but didn't get the one asking you to vote.

[well fan for life]

Surely that's the sensible option that's won there. It's not binding, we're not about to sell out to some dodgy owner who will asset strip us. The vote purely says that it would be considered. It's fanciful to suggest that some multibillionaire would just chuck us a load of cash without asking for anything in return.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Mon the Aussies

[Handsome_Devil]

50 minutes ago, steelmen said:

Im not sure i agree with you. People have just voted to say they would consider it. I am 100% for the society but why wouldn't we have a look and see if someone wanting 51% for X amount of money is a good deal. We need to look at all options (although as the vote was non binding I am sure they would have anyway)

 

 Our negotiating position hasn't weakened, it might have even strengthened it. If we had ruled out talking to people wanting a majority shareholding that would have ruled people out. we are now saying we are prepared to listen to all investors.

I've managed to muddle the double quote thing, apologies @welldaft but I think it's not great because we're now going to spend more months without a CEO or direction to then probably reject the offer.

We'd be much better reinvigorating the Society, sorting the club leadership etc and taking it from there...all of that will inevitably be stalled when we negotiate a deal I imagine the majority of Society members will promptly laugh off anyway.

[Busta Nut]

What does anyone who wants an outside investor think the realistic outcomes are?

 

[Swello]

Regardless of this vote - I think the club and society would have continued to speak to the investors anyway quite honestly. The real vote is when we know what the proposals are and at that point, I'd be extremely unlikely to vote to go below 51% unless it was a ridiculously good offer - but for now, they can talk to who they want IMO.

[Doctor Manhattan]

4 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Mon the Aussies

More likely...

[Wellin]

3 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I've managed to muddle the double quote thing, apologies @welldaft but I think it's not great because we're now going to spend more months without a CEO or direction to then probably reject the offer.

We'd be much better reinvigorating the Society, sorting the club leadership etc and taking it from there...all of that will inevitably be stalled when we negotiate a deal I imagine the majority of Society members will promptly laugh off anyway.

Don't you think that fans might have voted yes to outside investment for a reason? I completely understand that some fans are against it but others clearly aren't. I voted yes and obviously we will need to see what any outside investment option comprises of before making a decision. I completely get that the society are trying to engage fans at this point in time.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

It was pointed out in a WhatsApp group that there was no alternative to voting digitally and that may have affected turnout. Although, I guess those not digitally clued up probably would fall into the older age bracket largely - something tells me they would have strengthened the outcome we did see. I appreciate I've double stereotyped there, but that's my gut feeling.

I was surprised by the outcome, most of the views I've seen seemed to be against it. However, I need to appreciate the fact that I read and chat Motherwell on here and on WhatsApp groups with my mates whilst deliberately avoiding Steelmen Online and Twitter, means I definitely don't get the full picture.

Playing devil's advocate to my own vote - there will be 'Well Society members who have no interest in fan ownership, who only contribute for the preservation of the club who are now happy that there's another option. There have been parts of me over the past year or so, that has thought that certain incidents wouldn't have happened by a business ran where someone's capital was at stake - not appointing a CEO for a year, failing to communicate the manager's contract extension (as well as several players), having to get that structural work done twice etc.

The bottom line for me was that we could thoroughly vet who we sell the majority stake to this time, but that's the last time we would have a say. It could be sold to a Whyte, Mileson, Romanov-esque type who runs us into the ground, or to someone like the fella from Dundee Utd who runs them rather unsustainably.

I'd be happier finding our level of sustainably running the club, than I would be chasing glory in the short term. Especially now when you think the likes of Hibs and Aberdeen are still struggling despite high spending, there's no guarantee we would get ROI even in a football sense, never mind a financial one. 

I know the idea of that doesn't appeal to all of our fans. I know we all like to moan and vent naturally, but it seems many of our fans think we should expect better than a young manager and young players making mistakes. Had we to drop levels to keep the club going sustainably, that wouldn't appeal to a lot of people. 

I wonder if there is any scope for transparency on how the quoted numbers of members are broken down. How many paid a lump sum at the start, how many are contributing monthly etc. I'd like to know what constitutes an "active member". There will be people who could have paid a lump sum in 2012 but no longer contribute, yet have given more money than someone paying £5 a month for the last five years. There was obviously also a point where we handed out memberships to players - I don't think Theo Robinson or Jacob Blyth are voting on the proposals.

 

[welldaft]

14 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I've managed to muddle the double quote thing, apologies @welldaft but I think it's not great because we're now going to spend more months without a CEO or direction to then probably reject the offer.

We'd be much better reinvigorating the Society, sorting the club leadership etc and taking it from there...all of that will inevitably be stalled when we negotiate a deal I imagine the majority of Society members will promptly laugh off anyway.

Fair points. And you may well be proved right.

I suspect that any offer will be underwhelming. But and it is a BIG but. We may yet see a proposal for outside investment that ticks many boxes.

@Busta Nut has asked what this may look like. Wish I knew. I have said on numerous occasions I cannot see why anyone would invest in Motherwell and expect an ROI. I mean I saw the other day that the guy who bought Everton has ploughed £750m of his own money in and where are they right now. Dundee United another obvious example.min our neck of the woods. A larger club but despite £10-£15m invested sit in the Championship and may yet be there again next season. 

There is no money to be made in football, unless you invest in one of the very top clubs and manage it prudently. Which no one seems able to do or very few clubs such as the likes of Brighton and Lille with huge net transfer gains. 

[CoF]

2 hours ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Found it quite confusing that Livi have a guy calling himself "Carson" despite looking far more like a Mark Gillespie.

My revelation the other night finding out it was Sam Nicholson who, 8 years ago, was on the receiving end of one of the worst tackles in Scottish football history. I always remembered the picture but never made the connection to him.