Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

9 minutes ago, SteelyDosser said:

Any information release could breach financial trading laws, especially if those interested have other investments.

How this offer is kept under wraps while the WS decides could be a bit of an issue too

I don't think we are being bought be a publicly traded company.

[Handsome_Devil]

10 minutes ago, SteelyDosser said:

Any information release could breach financial trading laws, especially if those interested have other investments.

How this offer is kept under wraps while the WS decides could be a bit of an issue too

It's unrealistic to think they'll keep it under wraps, they've absolutely no way of practically enforcing that.

[Handsome_Devil]

20 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Good write up from McGarry about the investment stuff in his Herald mail out just there.

Can't argue with that, it reads like a summary of the greatest hits from on here!

[capt_oats]

On 02/04/2024 at 23:20, well fan for life said:

SOD better win POTM or you lot are dead to me.

Get him on the plane.

[thisGRAEME]

See fwiw, @JayMFC is intending to post but for some reason P&B is doing weird shit on his browser

[Desp]

1 hour ago, thisGRAEME said:

See fwiw, @JayMFC is intending to post but for some reason P&B is doing weird shit on his browser

The Yanks have got him already...

[Wellmental21]

Seen so much arguments for and against investment but yet to hear anyone connected or within the society say they have the confidence the society can take on the burden of finances in the absence of cup runs , player transfers etc

Every argument seems to be around selling our soul or selling to folk that will make us bust. No one seems to have the belief someone akin to les Hutcheson is out there willing to invest to make us stable for min return

[Wellmental21]

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

Get him on the plane.

About time he got the credit he deserves. Has his flaws but always gives 100%

[Handsome_Devil]

44 minutes ago, Wellmental21 said:

Seen so much arguments for and against investment but yet to hear anyone connected or within the society say they have the confidence the society can take on the burden of finances in the absence of cup runs , player transfers etc

Every argument seems to be around selling our soul or selling to folk that will make us bust. No one seems to have the belief someone akin to les Hutcheson is out there willing to invest to make us stable for min return

To take the second point first, Hutchison had a local interest and if there were any of these angels out there now they'd have been in touch. Everyone interested now has made it clear this isn't philanthropy so checking how much they want and how they intend to get it is pretty obvious due diligence.

But for the first point, why on earth would they do that? Our entire business model is geared around playing football - which brings prize money - and selling players. We do not need to cope without these things because over a longer financial cycle we will probably always have them. And in the case of disaster, the short-term modern contracts we all hate sportingly are the financial safety net to gut costs overnight.

We always should be budgeting for a deficit in the worst case scenario. To run guaranteed balanced books would be madness. So there being a theoretical deficit isn't a problem.

A concern is definitely that this potential number is edging up. But as you say no one in the Society has shown details yet, no one advocating for investment has produced a fag packet showing how someone taking a solid ROI out the club will leave us better off.

The Society has never tried to fund the club properly and details of that - and how Caldwell intends to increase direct revenue - are needed. The risk of doing that ourselves is much lower than handing over the keys...it should absolutely be tried first before we do something stupid we regret.

Edited April 4 by Handsome_Devil

[capt_oats]

It’s the Netflix guy that was mentioned on here ages ago and was the offer that seemed to be preferred at the AGM.

I see Bret Easton Ellis is following him on IG (as is Dee, which is more pertinent to this thread I guess).

[0Neils40yarder]

2 hours ago, Wellmental21 said:

About time he got the credit he deserves. Has his flaws but always gives 100%

His flaws are a lengthy old list in comparison to his effort

[Busta Nut]

3 hours ago, Wellmental21 said:

No one seems to have the belief someone akin to les Hutcheson is out there willing to invest to make us stable for min return

Les will be spinning in his hammock at the thought we're potentially sellin up already.

[Vietnam91]

9 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

Les will be spinning in his hammock at the thought we're potentially sellin up already.

Remember when Les burst onto the scene and 5 minutes later Flow's out in the Caribbean in a linen suit and panama hat.

Edited April 5 by Vietnam91

[Wellmental21]

10 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

To take the second point first, Hutchison had a local interest and if there were any of these angels out there now they'd have been in touch. Everyone interested now has made it clear this isn't philanthropy so checking how much they want and how they intend to get it is pretty obvious due diligence.

But for the first point, why on earth would they do that? Our entire business model is geared around playing football - which brings prize money - and selling players. We do not need to cope without these things because over a longer financial cycle we will probably always have them. And in the case of disaster, the short-term modern contracts we all hate sportingly are the financial safety net to gut costs overnight.

We always should be budgeting for a deficit in the worst case scenario. To run guaranteed balanced books would be madness. So there being a theoretical deficit isn't a problem.

A concern is definitely that this potential number is edging up. But as you say no one in the Society has shown details yet, no one advocating for investment has produced a fag packet showing how someone taking a solid ROI out the club will leave us better off.

The Society has never tried to fund the club properly and details of that - and how Caldwell intends to increase direct revenue - are needed. The risk of doing that ourselves is much lower than handing over the keys...it should absolutely be tried first before we do something stupid we regret.

I don’t think you have picked me up correctly on the first part. I certainly don’t think cup runs/player sales and top 6 finishes can be certified as a given. However for the basic run costs of the club, the society have yet to my knowledge shown an ability to cover these in their entirety. Any of the above should be seen as a bonus and reinvested across the club in my view.

Since John Boyle and inc John Boyle the club have depended on various directors to support various elements financially over and above club income and society income. So without these “beneficiaries” we have an absence of income that we can draw on which I believe is the sole driver for private investment

I don’t believe nor to be honest think it’s correct that investment in the club should come without reward, as modest as this may be for some. However I do believe there are people out there in our own back garden that would be prepared to support a club that stretches beyond its responsibilities on the park for the return + of their investment.

ultimately if an investor is seeing a return of their investment through a strong commercial strategic delivery or player sales for example then it means that the club is ultimately in a stronger position than it is now as it can afford to return and pay those dividends whilst competing on the park

in terms of the short contracts I do appreciate where you are coming from however it can also work against us when driving income through player sales

I'm 100% all for the society having sole ownership but it needs a better strategic plan, improved governance and a financially sound income generating plan that gets us all on board and working alongside for the long term . Dont want to bash the society because its done a fantastic job in many ways but if the majority of fans want it to be the sole owner then we need to all have a plan to back and to back it with real drive and commitment for the longer term

at the moment so much info on both sides club and society are hearsay so we will continue to have conflicting reports of what it is we require and what it is we want as a fan base and club 

[Wellmental21]

7 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

Les will be spinning in his hammock at the thought we're potentially sellin up already.

Never thought the guy got the credit he deserved for what he did for us at the time. Not sure if there were reasons for that that I’m unaware of

[Gallus Numpty]

1 minute ago, Wellmental21 said:

Never thought the guy got the credit he deserved for what he did for us at the time. Not sure if there were reasons for that that I’m unaware of

I suspect the main reason is that, like a lot of very wealthy people, he just never seemed very likeable or relatable. 

[JayMFC]

13 hours ago, thisGRAEME said:

See fwiw, @JayMFC is intending to post but for some reason P&B is doing weird shit on his browser

Fired up another laptop and it appears fine on here - but I thought I better hurry on and post before I'm silenced on this too... 

Nah, all joking aside - I've been lurking and reading the thread this week, lots of good points, and I know I've been tagged a few times. Don't want to go back and multi-quote everything, but I do want to respond to a couple of points.

Firstly, I believe @capt_oats had a few questions about the Well Society's role in the investment video - I'm going to just take the easy option here and just not answer those. It's something that the Society would respond to officially if someone sent in those questions directly by e-mail.

In terms of the current negotiations themselves, I'd just reiterate what it's in the Society statement - that the Well Society Board is not a part of those negotiations. I know there's a lot of comments and questions around why that is, and whether that's right or not, but again, I'm going to opt out from responding to that. Essentially, that's what the situation is - the Chairman & Executive Board have been discussing options with potential investors, and one of those has reached a point that all parties currently involved are happy to proceed to a next stage.

That said, it's not the case that the Society is kept entirely in the dark. I think it was confirmed at the club AGM that the Society had met with both interested parties at the time. We have also received some updates on progress and some key aspects of discussions, which I would imagine have allowed each of us as individuals to at least start to form some initial thoughts on whether the deal would be good/bad/indifferent for the club and whether members would be likely to think the deal was good/bad/indifferent for the club, but there's no collective position and we haven't had any discussions around reaching one. Basically, it wouldn't be right to do that until we were in receipt of any finalised agreement that the Chairman & Executive Board had reached with an investor and we were able to fully understand what that could mean for the club and for the Well Society.

If we reach that point, Well Society members would be balloted and, in order to make a fully informed decision, would be provided with as much detail as possible. I think it's worth flagging that any potential investor will have been told from the off that their offer would need to be cleared by Well Society members, so it will not come as any surprise that extensive details of any offer should need to be released to members. If any potential investor had a problem with that, I'd suggest they'd have been better looking into a club that wasn't fan-owned - so I don't foresee a problem in making sure members are informed when it comes to a vote.

I think @StAndrew7 has raised a question about whether Society members are club shareholders or not. The answer is no - the Well Society is the shareholder and Well Society members are exactly that, members. So it's up to the Well Society as the majority shareholder how it would vote in any shareholder vote - and it is the democratic and moral position that the Well Society's vote would be guided by its members.

Just on that too - firstly, there's no guarantees we reach a point where there's a shareholding vote or Well Society member ballot, we all know how negotiations work and things might just not reach that point. However, there's also a discussion to be had by the Well Society Board itself around how it conveys its views on any potential offer. There's obviously no automatic assumption that anybody will care what the Society Board itself thinks is positive or negative but the discussion still needs to be had around the communications that accompany any ballot, whether that's remaining neutral, providing a recommendation one way or another, providing arguments for or against, or whatever.

The last thing I'd just highlight is that, while the negotiations carry on between the Chairman & Executive Board and the potential investor, the Well Society is just cracking on with the work it needs to do as majority shareholder. No-one would expect the Society just to sit on its thumbs assuming transformational investment is on the way, instead we continue to approach things with October's refreshed Board, and the fresh approach and enthusiasm that has resulted, by ploughing on with a lot of work to ensure that fan-ownership is even stronger in the future, regardless of what happens here.

Contrary to what some people seem to enjoy suggesting on Twitter, fan-ownership demonstrably works, the previous years have shown us that quite conclusively. However, it absolutely can - and needs - to be better. The workstreams that the Society has formed have already hit the ground round with some fantastic work underway in comms, governance, events, fundraising and membership. As the comms workstream lead, I'm buzzing about the standard of contributor we've got on board (at the risk of complimenting a P&B stalwart too much ) and we've already done some fantastic work around identifying what needs to improve - a comms strategy will be finalised in the next week or two, and a return to a standalone Well Society website, that provides members with all the actual information they want and need, is already underway.

And as a whole, the Well Society Board continues to put together its own strategy and plan, for both the Society and the football club, that it is hoped members can put their faith in should the Society remain as majority shareholder. So I think at our end, we're just cracking on feeling quite positive about what we're doing - the Well Society will grow, members will find that the information and experience they've been deprived or found difficult to access beforehand is soon accessible, fan-ownership will continue to work, and I'm personally very enthusiastic that the new CEO comes into the club with a wealth of experience around income generation, following a recruitment process that the Well Society Board was heavily involved in.

So aye, not actually sure if any of that is particularly useful as such. Basically, the Chairman & Executive Board will continue to discuss things with the potential investor, while the Well Society continues the work we'd identified needed done prior to the investment video even going out - work that we're really positive about and work that we think will see growth in the Society, increased income generation in the club, and a platform to take the already-working fan-ownership model at Fir Park, and make it better. Of course, the perfect addition to that is positive investment that works for both the football club and the Well Society, and so if that is what comes from these negotiations, then that will be a further thing to be positive about.

Edited April 5 by JayMFC

[Gianfranco]

These events have turned Jay into the keyboard version of Ketts. 

[JayMFC]

6 minutes ago, Gianfranco said:

These events have turned Jay into the keyboard version of Ketts. 

If you think that my ability to go on and on and on is only a recent thing, I am more than happy for you to continue believing that.

[Handsome_Devil]

53 minutes ago, Wellmental21 said:

I don’t think you have picked me up correctly on the first part. I certainly don’t think cup runs/player sales and top 6 finishes can be certified as a given. However for the basic run costs of the club, the society have yet to my knowledge shown an ability to cover these in their entirety. Any of the above should be seen as a bonus and reinvested across the club in my view.

I don’t believe nor to be honest think it’s correct that investment in the club should come without reward, as modest as this may be for some. However I do believe there are people out there in our own back garden that would be prepared to support a club that stretches beyond its responsibilities on the park for the return + of their investment.

ultimately if an investor is seeing a return of their investment through a strong commercial strategic delivery or player sales for example then it means that the club is ultimately in a stronger position than it is now as it can afford to return and pay those dividends whilst competing on the park

The Society has never previously been required to cover significant costs on a regular basis though. There is no reason to think that now when asked to raise more money, on an ongoing basis or as reserve, they can't - certainly to some extent.

The 'worst case' scenario to leave us with a 750k deficit over a season hasn't happened yet and while it's fair to acknowledge it might, it should be said that it's far from fatal over a season should it happen. And for it to happen over the three-year ish window for us to fall into real bother, it would take the total collapse not only of our sporting performance but also the youth system, scouting etc. Possible yes, likely no.

As for the investment, how much off the park investment would generate the sort of return of interest to an external person? Considering the main aim is first to spend that on the team, I think it's highly unlikely it would produce a worthy ROI. And if we instead chose to raise finance ourselves - through fundraising, loans etc, - we can do it much more securely.

As for returns on player sales, that's theoretically possible but in practice... we use these sales to cover millions of expenses over a three-year cycle. The chance of regularly returning enough profit on that to justify the investment is slim. Remember we tried that under Dempster and failed, tried that under Alexander and it failed, Hibs for example just spent 700k on a guy who has half of Bair's goals. It's a notoriously hard thing to do.

If the American wants to buy 20% or whatever and develop our media presence great, same if the local heroes from East Kilbride want to fund some players. Do it at their own risk knowing it is an incredibly risky investment in terms of making an actual return. If they want to do this to boast at the Country Club or get in the local papers and boost their business presence, fantastic. That's up to them but given all of us who have followed Motherwell/Scottish football have seen what happens elsewhere to investment, giving them the keys, ability to extract money from the club etc is a huge risk our current situation simply doesn't justify atm.