Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[capt_oats]

21 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Aye, this seems utterly insane that the owners of the club are taking a backseat in the negotiations on whether to sell. It brings the question back to just what mandate McMahon has to be doing this? Our governance structure is totally fucked.

Absolutely.

Like, I understand that the Executive Board includes WS representatives but it seems absolutely nuts to me that we're in a position where the majority shareholder is stating that they're not involved in the negotiations.

It opens up a broader series of questions eg:

• Did the WS instruct the whole 'investment' project? If not, who is the driver? If it's McMahon then, as you say what mandate does he have?
• Did the WS have any sort of veto on the video?
• Do the WS have any sort of input in the negotiation?

Being flippant about it, it feels like we're in a position where the club has opened itself up for pitches for investment that the majority owners didn't instruct with a creative that they didn't approve and the negotiation is being entirely driven by the club chairman who is stepping down in a couple of months.

I mean, I'm not suggesting anything underhand or malicious but...what?! The optics of that are mental.

Edited April 3 by capt_oats

[eliphas]

I'm sure @JayMFC can clear up a few of these points @capt_oats

But yeah, I guess I posted about this before like 500 pages ago  probably, but a wee explainer about the governance structure and who can do what would be lovely. Quicker the WS website is back the better. 

I do expect an chairman and exec board to be able to do stuff without seeking majority shareholder confirmation as long as they are kept updated along the way. But it's the not knowing which leaves us wondering...obvious statement but that's the gap here.

Edited April 3 by eliphas

[Vietnam91]

A former CEO in his days as a mere head of media once told me, with football press releases, its ofter wiser to look for what isn't written than what is.

22 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

but it seems absolutely nuts to me that we're in a position where the majority shareholder is stating that they're not involved in the negotiations.

I see it more that the majority shareholder is distancing itself and putting clear water between what the club put out this morning. Take from that what you will.

24 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Did the WS instruct the whole 'investment' project? If not, who is the driver? If it's McMahon then, as you say what mandate does he have?

The idea of an investor has been on the cards since pre-covid, apparently someone was lined up and it fell through. As for the driver and mandate, as the club board oversee the immediate (via the CEO) to short and medium direction of the club and have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the legal and ongoing operation of the company then I'm sure McMahon would argue its in his remit to find a plug for a gap between turnover and expenses in a bad year.

Of course most would look to improve commercial revenues (hospitality, ticketing (both home and away ends), advertising, sponsorships, etc.) rather than invite investment but that takes both time and effort and it would not be an immediate cash injection you could be graded on. As for the video it was something I felt was 2.5 years late and therefore didn't capture the Zeitgeist. I am sure it was done with we had to get our name out there and in the mix (as that was their strategy). You also can't control what sort of people want to contribute, how much and for what in return. Hearts have the holy grail of "here's £6m, have fun".

Jim has expressed his desire to leave the club and I don't blame him. He's probably done it for far longer than he expected, the job is unpaid and takes up a huge amount of time dealing with faff. Also no chairman wants to do a David Murray and hand the keys over to a Craig Whyte. It's also safe to say that he may have different motivations than the elected members of the WS, because as things stand at this exact moment they are the future.

38 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Did the WS have any sort of veto on the video?

I am unsure, but it was commissioned before the last election that changed the makeup significantly and filmed shortly after. The WS Chairman is featured all the way through it.

 

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Where's the ambition in fan ownership? We could have an empire by now. Motherwell fans have owned Motherwell for what, 8 years? Why don't we put bids in for Airdrie, Accies etc and go from there?

[Ceiling Granny]

I’m always interested to see peoples point of view on these things.  I think by and large I go to see Motherwell because I go to see Motherwell. I know there’s an argument that if we don’t get investment we’ll end up further down the leagues and that might lose us fans.  I just don’t really see the difference though between watching for example us play St Johnstone when our aim is to not be relegated and watching us play Arbroath when we’re pushing for a play off spot. Am I being wildly naive/unrealistic in thinking we’d survive financially at a lower level? I don’t think I’ve ever thought we’d be in the top flight forever, and I don’t see us getting the kind of money that would make things “interesting” in the top flight, so I’m not convinced at all on the merits. 

[eliphas]

8 minutes ago, Ceiling Granny said:

I’m always interested to see peoples point of view on these things.  I think by and large I go to see Motherwell because I go to see Motherwell. I know there’s an argument that if we don’t get investment we’ll end up further down the leagues and that might lose us fans.  I just don’t really see the difference though between watching for example us play St Johnstone when our aim is to not be relegated and watching us play Arbroath when we’re pushing for a play off spot. Am I being wildly naive/unrealistic in thinking we’d survive financially at a lower level? I don’t think I’ve ever thought we’d be in the top flight forever, and I don’t see us getting the kind of money that would make things “interesting” in the top flight, so I’m not convinced at all on the merits. 

It's a fair post and one I'd imagine a good % of fans would agree with. 

I really don't know what I'd do if we dropped down the leagues. I 100% think we'd exist - but would I continue with a season ticket and going to every home game? 

As I posted previously I'm feeling at a bit of a personal cross roads with the us at the moment. Not particularly enjoying the home games due to quality in show, stopped going to away games due to young family. I'm not sure watching us play Arbroath and Dunfermline in the Championship really floats my boat. I'm a glory hunter basically I think. Haha.

[thisGRAEME]

15 minutes ago, Ceiling Granny said:

Am I being wildly naive/unrealistic in thinking we’d survive financially at a lower level?

Significantly smaller clubs than Motherwell more than "survive".

[Vietnam91]

Just now, thisGRAEME said:

Significantly smaller clubs than Motherwell more than "survive".

Yeah just no more Oli Shaw's recruited at the 11th hour

[Swello]

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

Absolutely.

Like, I understand that the Executive Board includes WS representatives but it seems absolutely nuts to me that we're in a position where the majority shareholder is stating that they're not involved in the negotiations.

It opens up a broader series of questions eg:

• Did the WS instruct the whole 'investment' project? If not, who is the driver? If it's McMahon then, as you say what mandate does he have?
• Did the WS have any sort of veto on the video?
• Do the WS have any sort of input in the negotiation?

Being flippant about it, it feels like we're in a position where the club has opened itself up for pitches for investment that the majority owners didn't instruct with a creative that they didn't approve and the negotiation is being entirely driven by the club chairman who is stepping down in a couple of months.

I mean, I'm not suggesting anything underhand or malicious but...what?! The optics of that are mental.

It only really hit me a few weeks ago when I was thinking it through that the WS are minority voters on the Exec board, which still takes some getting your head round. 

If I was being completely charitable* - I would argue that it is 100% in the remit of the executive board to find new sources of revenue but clearly it is not within their gift to change the ownership model and/or the balance of share ownership given the size of the majority shareholding held by the WS.

With the Burrows/McMahon/Weir time now at an end - it would make a lot of sense to review the governance model that the club operates under as part of the next phase.

 

*If I was being completely un-charitable, I would say that the executive board have paid lip service to fan ownership and have run the club (whether for good or bad) on completely their own terms as if the WS were an inconvenience or an afterthought.

[Handsome_Devil]

9 minutes ago, eliphas said:

I really don't know what I'd do if we dropped down the leagues. I 100% think we'd exist - but would I continue with a season ticket and going to every home game? 

Personal circumstances aside, most fans would get on board again very quickly because that's what fans do.

It's not failure that kills clubs our size, it's apathy that comes from a lack of hope.

You see how Dunfermline or Falkirk fans suddenly get going again when things get exciting and you can look at the rollercoaster of on the bus/off the bus Killie have had in the last three years.

Obviously we hope not to have a long spell out, that would put us in serious bother...but there's clearly a window where you can get the fans to rally before it comes to that.

[Wellin]

19 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Significantly smaller clubs than Motherwell more than "survive".

I want more than survival. I want investment in my club. 

[Wellin]

2 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

That rumour was started on SOL by the resident troll, who in the absence of facts often injects stuff to fill the information vacuum.

Scrolling down you see that he suggests the video implied we are skint/begging for money (reassured in a hastily arranged face to face with McMahon the day after that wasn't the case, a review of the published accounts would show that. Could the PR company done a better job, yes. Could the message have been delivered more articulately and clearer, yes). How a 10 year old asking a pop star to "geez yer dosh" could transform into "Putting out a video suggesting we require American investment when they were in talks with a potential American investor is extremely dubious." suggests that this investor was in contact in advance of the video not as a result of it, again nothing to back it up.

I suppose it highlights the bigger question going forward. Many have expressed they'd like to see the details of the deal, of course that is everything and context will allow many to make an informed decision.

But then that begs the question, what that looks like to each of us. You'd expect as the offer was deemed palatable the next stage is to the majority owner (Well Society).

The have an elected board many of whom we know. The question is as a WS member:

• Would you want them to publish the offer and go to a public vote either with a presentation of the investor Q&A etc.?
• Would you want it qualified with a "it is the unanimous/majority/5-4 vote of the board to support/reject the offer" as an advisory then a vote or not?
• Would you be happy for them to review and vote at board level if they did not feel this is right for the club and for the WS to draw a line under it there. Releasing something along the lines of "Provisions such as X, Y and Z (outlined in full) were deemed contrary to the WS Board remit and therefore we rejected the need to approach our members with such a proposal".

Yeah. They have inside contacts and apparently know everything about everything 

[Busta Nut]

Canny wait for this to go away tbh.
 

[Wellin]

Just now, Busta Nut said:

Canny wait for this to go away tbh.
 

I don't disagree to be fair. 

[StAndrew7]

2 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

But then that begs the question, what that looks like to each of us. You'd expect as the offer was deemed palatable the next stage is to the majority owner (Well Society).

My understanding is that if there is any offer which is deemed palatable by the executive board it would be put to all shareholders at the same time; there's no pecking order in terms of majority or otherwise.

[StAndrew7]

3 hours ago, eliphas said:

I've got no skin in the game here but I disagree. 

For this to be done properly the club are going about it in the right way and professionally.

Get the expressions of interest and high level bids. Discuss them. Disregard some. Now into a period of more or less exclusitvity but without any binding commitments either way. Get both sides to write down and agree formally what the intentions are and then out to the shareholders, of which the WS are the majority. Even then it can be negotiated if it's not attractive.

Alternative is either put a half baked idea to shareholders that holds no water or extend the info vacuum longer which also gets criticism 

Unless fans are 100% against the idea of investment, which is fair enough, I don't think there is anything to really be annoyed or concerned about here. Yet.

I think cloak and dagger might have been the wrong phrase to use here; @capt_oatsexplained my feelings far better re: the optics of it all. 

[Molotov]

Anyone remember this guy in 1989 at Old Trafford?

Full kit w****r  

I really hope to see similar scenes at Fir Park.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/27/michael-knighton-manchester-united-keepie-uppies-interview

 

[thisGRAEME]

Quite funny in hindsight that the whole video thing was based on the community around the club and in large part, that we're a fan owned endeavour.

"Look at us! We're a unique thing! Want to remove that? Come on down!".

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

10 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

Look who it is on SOL saying it ..... 

It sounds rright to me.

Why are all these americans suddenly keen to invest in scottish football. It isn't to make monney, that is for sure.

Here is my main issue. Why is all this being handled with secrecy. We don't even know who these people are. We are supposed to be a commuity club and if there was a genuine offer that had proper benefits for the club and wider community they would be publicly saying so. instead it is being done in a clandestine manner with no information actually coming out.

instead people are relying on in the know sources to work out wtf is happening.

"US based family". The vagueness cannot be good. And the offer as leaked is derisory.

[Handsome_Devil]

3 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Here is my main issue. Why is all this being handled with secrecy. We don't even know who these people are. We are supposed to be a commuity club and if there was a genuine offer that had proper benefits for the club and wider community they would be publicly saying so. instead it is being done in a clandestine manner with no information actually coming out.

instead people are relying on in the know sources to work out wtf is happening.

The investors probably want to keep out the public eye incase they fail and/or try again somewhere else. It's not unreasonable and they will know this comes at the cost of rumours.

Agree on the whispered numbers though, if that's the ballpark truth it's a total waste of time.