Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[RandomGuy.]

7 hours ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I'm not going to sit here and tell the Netflix guy how to make a documentary, but I have been thinking about this and wondering to myself how a BTS Motherwell documentary would be marketed.

I do enjoy those types of programmes and have watched most of them that are available. There seems to be the ones that follow really big clubs like Arsenal, Man City, Spurs, Juve etc. Then the others that follow smaller clubs seem to have some kind of USP. 

Sunderland 'till I die was obviously targeted at them going straight back up, but they went down. 

Wrexham got bought by two actors and are trying to go through the divisions.

Fort William were the worst team in the world or whatever it was.

Real Kashmir had a pale, swearing ginger Scotsman in the Indian league.

I know people use the "rollercoaster" patter about us, but 40 years in the top flight and 33 years without a trophy probably dismisses that to an extent. One of those two ending would probably make a good documentary and I'd fear it would be the former!

I get the impression from his interview it might be about following the journey of youth prospects.

[18May1991]

With apologies if this has been asked umpteen times before, but does anyone know when the Davie Cooper suite opens on match days? 
 

[Handsome_Devil]

46 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I get the impression from his interview it might be about following the journey of youth prospects.

Quite the change for a club that doesn't even bother tweeting the youth team games!

I'm not especially into these things but hasn't that been done before?

[eliphas]

I can only imagine how much Alan/Grant/Laura would be giddy with excitement with, if they were still here, and a guy who talks about social media growth and content initiatives was cutting about the place.

This isn't a criticism of anything by the way...just ironic they all did a bunk and then this guy pops up.

Edited April 12 by eliphas

[capt_oats]

32 minutes ago, eliphas said:

I can only imagine how much Alan/Grant/Laura would be giddy with excitement with, if they were still here, and a guy who talks about social media growth and content initiatives was cutting about the place.

This isn't a criticism of anything by the way...just ironic they all did a bunk and then this guy pops up.

I noticed that Flow and Grant are following him on socials and he's following Burrows on IG:

Also, I'm not sure why people are still focusing on him making some sort of documentary given the mention of it was a) because he was asked and b) his reply was "It would depend on the right elements coming together, but that's not the reason for our interest in Motherwell"

It kind of feels like people are just jumping to conclusions without actually reading what's been said.

Similarly I noticed that the PA journo McCafferty was kind of misrepresenting things again (IIRC it was him that was kicking off over the accounts before Weir clamped his points about Killie in that interview in January).

I mean, that may well end up being true but as yet there's nothing that's explicitly said that it would "end majority fan ownership". It's just what has been rumoured off the back of vague comments from the AGM.

This is the quote about it from Barmack: "Our perspective is we never want to make an investment that disempowers the Well Society and the connection the fan-owned group has with the club. There's a bunch of different ways to construct deals that can accomplish the objectives of a fan ownership model, alongside outside investors.

Any of those deals are dependent on trust and having good relationships. But while it's early stages, we're only interested if we can co-invest with the Well Society."

As I say, the deal may end up being something that "ends" majority fan ownership but as yet, as far as I can tell there's been nothing from either Barmack, the club or the WS that even indicates what the deal is.

Edited April 12 by capt_oats

[Handsome_Devil]

4 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

 

I mean, that may well end up being true but as yet there's nothing that's explicitly said that it would "end majority fan ownership". It's just what has been rumoured off the back of vague comments from the AGM

...

As I say, the deal may end up being something that "ends" majority fan ownership but as yet, as far as I can tell there's been nothing from either Barmack, the club or the WS that even indicates what the deal is.

We've all heard the rumours of what the deal was, I suspect GM has it from sources. I find it a little sloppy from the Herald this wasn't made clear.

Put it this way, despite the soft soap words on the BBC, if you had to bet right now on whether the deal saw us lose control or not, I know where most people would put their chips.

We obviously don't need to do that but if that's the offer, even if he's an interesting guy, I'd be telling him to jog on.

[stu2910]

9 hours ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I'm not going to sit here and tell the Netflix guy how to make a documentary, but I have been thinking about this and wondering to myself how a BTS Motherwell documentary would be marketed.

I do enjoy those types of programmes and have watched most of them that are available. There seems to be the ones that follow really big clubs like Arsenal, Man City, Spurs, Juve etc. Then the others that follow smaller clubs seem to have some kind of USP. 

Sunderland 'till I die was obviously targeted at them going straight back up, but they went down. 

Wrexham got bought by two actors and are trying to go through the divisions.

Fort William were the worst team in the world or whatever it was.

Real Kashmir had a pale, swearing ginger Scotsman in the Indian league.

I know people use the "rollercoaster" patter about us, but 40 years in the top flight and 33 years without a trophy probably dismisses that to an extent. One of those two ending would probably make a good documentary and I'd fear it would be the former!

Aye as you say Motherwell are ironically probably the most boring team in the top flight right now...in a good way.  Maybe the documentary will be you guys all just sitting around with the popcorn and a cup of tea watching the rest of Scottish football losing the plot around you.

In all seriousness though I think a Scottish football documentary that focuses on any club except those 2 will benefit us all greatly.  There is very little media coverage given to matches that don't involve them so it must be easy for outsiders to forget we all exist really.  You can imagine though some American seeing 6000 people turning up last minute to watch a 5 goal comeback win in the mud and suddenly finding themselves going down the Scottish football rabbit-hole.  "Wow that pitch is terrible, they must be a tiny provincial club...that reached a European semi final?!", "wait 2 Dundee teams have done that, that's crazy, I wonder where the other plays...Oh right next door, how does that work?", "wait Aberdeen did WHAT in the 80s?!"

[StAndrew7]

12 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

We've all heard the rumours of what the deal was, I suspect GM has it from sources. I find it a little sloppy from the Herald this wasn't made clear.

Put it this way, despite the soft soap words on the BBC, if you had to bet right now on whether the deal saw us lose control or not, I know where most people would put their chips.

We obviously don't need to do that but if that's the offer, even if he's an interesting guy, I'd be telling him to jog on.

I absolutely agree, but that article mentions majority stakeholder status in the opening paragraph then does nothing to back it up. No quotes, no references, nothing. Although if it is the case and they're after it for peanuts, it can get in the fucking sea.

If he does indeed have it from sources (i.e. his dad as an ex WS Chairman or someone else within the club) then someone, somewhere, has potentially breached a confidentiality agreement about an ongoing commercial/financial negotiation. If that's the case, then it's very, very poor from all involved.

Stinks of someone pushing their own agenda because they're "In the know" which is exactly what's fucking wrong with the club and its hierarchy at times.

Edited April 12 by StAndrew7

[capt_oats]

25 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

We've all heard the rumours of what the deal was, I suspect GM has it from sources. I find it a little sloppy from the Herald this wasn't made clear.

Aye, tbh that’s why I mentioned his erm, partisan coverage of the accounts. Where he was giving himself a stroke over the wage bill compared to Killie etc.

Basically, it’s not the first time he’s gone off piste.

Edited April 12 by capt_oats

[Archie McSquackle]

Assuming the only interview is with the BBC and that's his only source, that's a bit of a leap from McCafferty. Unless, as suggested, he has insider information, that's the opposite from what I was taking from that interview. 

[Handsome_Devil]

18 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I absolutely agree, but that article mentions majority stakeholder status in the opening paragraph then does nothing to back it up. No quotes, no references, nothing. Although if it is the case and they're after it for peanuts, it can get in the fucking sea.

If he does indeed have it from sources (i.e. his dad as an ex WS Chairman or someone else within the club) then someone, somewhere, has potentially breached a confidentiality agreement about an ongoing commercial/financial negotiation. If that's the case, then it's very, very poor from all involved.

Stinks of someone pushing their own agenda because they're "In the know" which is exactly what's fucking wrong with the club and its hierarchy at times.

It's definitely not poor from all involved, it's literally GM's job to dig out stories

And sure, whoever is leaking may have an agenda but for GM all that matters is it's factually true - now everyone will judge themselves whether to believe the rumours we've seen but personally when I weigh up what has been said and by whom, my reading of various financials and balancing the probabilities, I'm pretty confident he's reporting the truth in terms of the deal.

And if it stinks, well that's certainly problematic in one way, yes, but if the media is the only way those in the know can alert us early to perceived danger or risk, is that still a bad thing? Remember the irregular verb from 'Yes, Minister': "I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."

So hat-tip to GM for me ,assuming he's got his sources checked properly, and a wrap on the knuckles for his subbie.

 

 

[Handsome_Devil]

19 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Aye, tbh that’s why I mentioned his erm, partisan coverage of the accounts. Where he was giving himself a stroke over the wage bill compared to Killie etc.

Basically, it’s not the first time he’s gone off piste.

He fannied the Killie comparison for sure but I think he'll turn out to be straight down the on piste with this one when we see the details...time will tell.

[Busta Nut]

3 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

I get the impression from his interview it might be about following the journey of youth prospects.

This is the only way this guy can make money IMO taking a cut of the profits from the sale of youth (or any one really) players. We don't need more investments to do that.

[Antiochas III]

If McCafferty is right a couple of things...

 

1. Someone at Fir Park needs sacked, and probably worse

 

2. Well Society can not request any protections and believe they will hold up under any scrutiny as they'd be so low in ownership % after the deal it be laughable to expect anyone to listen to them.  

 

3. The last thing Motherwell need is a Wrexham kind of "investment"... here's some money, we want it back, plus 3% over base rate on top of that

 

[StAndrew7]

14 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

It's definitely not poor from all involved, it's literally GM's job to dig out stories

And sure, whoever is leaking may have an agenda but for GM all that matters is it's factually true - now everyone will judge themselves whether to believe the rumours we've seen but personally when I weigh up what has been said and by whom, my reading of various financials and balancing the probabilities, I'm pretty confident he's reporting the truth in terms of the deal.

And if it stinks, well that's certainly problematic in one way, yes, but if the media is the only way those in the know can alert us early to perceived danger or risk, is that still a bad thing? Remember the irregular verb from 'Yes, Minister': "I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."

So hat-tip to GM for me ,assuming he's got his sources checked properly, and a wrap on the knuckles for his subbie.

Aye, that's fair. I mean, if he has "sources" that are leaking it to him, I agree, it's his job to report on those things.

My issue is there's nothing to back it up in the article; it's just repeating a lot of stuff we already know with a fairly racy opening paragraph. I'm not expecting an exclusive tell all EXPLOSIVE interview with someone including direct quotes and what have you but I'd at least expect a reference to where the information has come from, even if it's just an "inside sources" or whatever.

My concern is more how poorly that reflects on anyone who has (potentially) leaked the information out to GM. I've worked under a lot of confidentiality, non-disclosure and exclusivity agreements in my career and they're sacrosanct for me. They're in place for a reason and are to be respected and not breached. If it's the case that details have been leaked, someone in the club, or involved in the process needs sacked, and/or worse. Like I said in my original post, if it has happened, it stinks of "In the know".

Edited April 12 by StAndrew7

[Handsome_Devil]

1 minute ago, StAndrew7 said:

My issue is there's nothing to back it up in the article; it's just repeating a lot of stuff we already know with a fairly racy opening paragraph. I'm not expecting an exclusive tell all EXPLOSIVE interview with someone including direct quotes and what have you but I'd at least expect a reference to where the information has come from, even if it's just an "inside sources" or whatever.

My concern is more how poorly that reflects on anyone who has leaked the information out to GM. I've worked under a lot of confidentiality, non-disclosure and exclusivity agreements in my career and it's a "golden rule" for me. They're in place for a reason and, for me, are to be respected and not breached. If it's the case that details have been leaked, someone in the club, or involved in the process needs sacked, and/or worse.

Your journalistic criticism is entirely fair, it's just not necessarily fair to direct it at GM. I mean it might be but nobody other than him or his sports desk know that.

As for folk needing sacked, well, that's pretty subjective as well. There's no doubt breaking a non-NDA is serious and not to be done lightly but if someone (some two? three?) in FP sees the more, eh, gung-ho members of our support get carried away by the mistaken thought of riches, and Erik setting a narrative in the BBC they believe to be false having seen the details, are they not to be commended for taking personal risk in a bid to set the record straight a little?

 

[ropy]

I don’t think that article says anything at all, just summarises some of the things that have been said and caveats possibilities with ifs and coulds.

[Busta Nut]

Yeah I wasn't sure about the uproar about the article either. 

[StAndrew7]

Just now, Handsome_Devil said:

As for folk needing sacked, well, that's pretty subjective as well. There's no doubt breaking a non-NDA is serious and not to be done lightly but if someone (some two? three?) in FP sees the more, eh, gung-ho members of our support get carried away by the mistaken thought of riches, and Erik setting a narrative in the BBC they believe to be false having seen the details, are they not to be commended for taking personal risk in a bid to set the record straight a little?

Perhaps I was a bit strong in my views there, but if I were to breach one in my line of work I'd be out on my arse very quickly.

(Also a non-NDA would be a disclosure agreement, lol )

As for choosing to breach one or not to set a different narrative, that narrative can be set in exactly the way that Barmack has set his own; through appropriate channels, with an interview, quotes, etc. providing a similar level of information to Barmack's and putting that to bed.

[Handsome_Devil]

Just now, StAndrew7 said:

Perhaps I was a bit strong in my views there, but if I were to breach one in my line of work I'd be out on my arse very quickly.

(Also a non-NDA would be a disclosure agreement, lol )

As for choosing to breach one or not to set a different narrative, that narrative can be set in exactly the way that Barmack has set his own; through appropriate channels, with an interview, quotes, etc. providing a similar level of information to Barmack's and putting that to bed.

Ha, me too.

But I'd disagree with the last bit, the buyer can come out and say lots much more easily than the seller.

5 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

Yeah I wasn't sure about the uproar about the article either. 

He's said it's fact we'll be asked to give up control which is in contrast to the spirit and impression EB so carefully gave hours before, even if he was vague in his wording. I don't think it's massive in the grand scheme of things either, it's a perfect example of fish and chip paper tomorrow, but it's news today for sure.