Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Firparka]

2 hours ago, David1979 said:

Despite the narrative some people are promoting, a 'no' vote means precisely what it indicates. It means you do not want the Erik Barmack/Wild Sheep Sports deal to be implemented.

This vote is not a vote on any Well Society proposal, either for or against.

Like many folk I joined the Well Society without thinking too much about what it actually meant to the club in general. It just seemed like the right thing to do at the time. As the years have passed, it feels now as though fans have started to expect too much of it. WS was not designed to run the club — the WS is more like a charity than a business. The cause of this charity is to keep MFC in existence into the next century and beyond. The WS was not set up to run the day-to-day business of the club; it was set up to run the 'charitable' cause of giving money to MFC is it needed it (which seems to have been the case). 

If you think of the WS as a charity that owns a majority shareholding in the club that it cares about, it makes much more sense of the current situation. We are not voting on whether the WS has great ideas to increase revenue or whether we believe it has suddenly discovered how to refurbish an old stadium on the cheap — that is the function of the professional CEO and CFO appointed by the board. The WS represents the fan ownership cause, pure and simple. It cannot, absolutely cannot, vote in favour of any proposal that does not guarantee fan ownership unless the members of the 'charity' collectively agree beforehand that they want to wipe out the WS and its reason for being (fan ownership of the club) and dissolve back into our individual shareholdings as club owners. It would be like the National Trust deciding it was going to sell of its castles as casinos because it was more profitable.

I'm intrigued like everyone else to see what the WS plan is. But all we are being asked to do right now is vote on the Barmack deal. For me, it makes no sense financially, commercially or socially for the community. But most importantly, it does not guarantee fan ownership because there are unaccountable shareholders outside of the Well Society who might side with the Barmacks. (If you read Barmack's comments he also talks about diluting his own shareholding by bringing in other investors. How would he control them?)

I'm prompted to post because I see a lot of comments that position the WS as needing to offer leadership for the club. Conventionally, shareholders don't have to formulate marketing or business plans. Shareholders simply reap the rewards or suffer the losses of the professionals they appoint to run the business. That is the function of the WS and perhaps it's a fair criticism to say they didn't have a strong enough voice on the appointments of the board. As I say, if you think of the WS as a charity (Motherwell 2086!) with a long-term agenda to see the club thrive into the next century, it makes sense that they don't focus on strip design or who we buy our pies from. If the board can't do those things well, then the WS needs to be able to appoint people who can. 

The Barmacks are not applying for the job of CEO — they want to own the club. Different thing. Does the WS need to be the CEO — no. Do we need a management team that is better than the one we have now — again, a different conversation.

Sorry this is a bit of a ramble. And folks might see that I am out here in Canada and say who is this geezer? All I can say is that I have supported the club since I was old enough to kick a ball, was a season ticket holder for 10 years and was at THE cup final. It means a lot to me that we don't do anything crazy with this club. The WS was the right thing to do at the time but we need to understand what the WS is and is not. We need to cut them some slack and give them breathing space to navigate this difficult situation.

[joewarkfanclub]

46 minutes ago, Firparka said:

Like many folk I joined the Well Society without thinking too much about what it actually meant to the club in general. It just seemed like the right thing to do at the time. As the years have passed, it feels now as though fans have started to expect too much of it. WS was not designed to run the club — the WS is more like a charity than a business. The cause of this charity is to keep MFC in existence into the next century and beyond. The WS was not set up to run the day-to-day business of the club; it was set up to run the 'charitable' cause of giving money to MFC is it needed it (which seems to have been the case). 

If you think of the WS as a charity that owns a majority shareholding in the club that it cares about, it makes much more sense of the current situation. We are not voting on whether the WS has great ideas to increase revenue or whether we believe it has suddenly discovered how to refurbish an old stadium on the cheap — that is the function of the professional CEO and CFO appointed by the board. The WS represents the fan ownership cause, pure and simple. It cannot, absolutely cannot, vote in favour of any proposal that does not guarantee fan ownership unless the members of the 'charity' collectively agree beforehand that they want to wipe out the WS and its reason for being (fan ownership of the club) and dissolve back into our individual shareholdings as club owners. It would be like the National Trust deciding it was going to sell of its castles as casinos because it was more profitable.

I'm intrigued like everyone else to see what the WS plan is. But all we are being asked to do right now is vote on the Barmack deal. For me, it makes no sense financially, commercially or socially for the community. But most importantly, it does not guarantee fan ownership because there are unaccountable shareholders outside of the Well Society who might side with the Barmacks. (If you read Barmack's comments he also talks about diluting his own shareholding by bringing in other investors. How would he control them?)

I'm prompted to post because I see a lot of comments that position the WS as needing to offer leadership for the club. Conventionally, shareholders don't have to formulate marketing or business plans. Shareholders simply reap the rewards or suffer the losses of the professionals they appoint to run the business. That is the function of the WS and perhaps it's a fair criticism to say they didn't have a strong enough voice on the appointments of the board. As I say, if you think of the WS as a charity (Motherwell 2086!) with a long-term agenda to see the club thrive into the next century, it makes sense that they don't focus on strip design or who we buy our pies from. If the board can't do those things well, then the WS needs to be able to appoint people who can. 

The Barmacks are not applying for the job of CEO — they want to own the club. Different thing. Does the WS need to be the CEO — no. Do we need a management team that is better than the one we have now — again, a different conversation.

Sorry this is a bit of a ramble. And folks might see that I am out here in Canada and say who is this geezer? All I can say is that I have supported the club since I was old enough to kick a ball, was a season ticket holder for 10 years and was at THE cup final. It means a lot to me that we don't do anything crazy with this club. The WS was the right thing to do at the time but we need to understand what the WS is and is not. We need to cut them some slack and give them breathing space to navigate this difficult situation.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

The WS is being forced into a leadership role because the Executive Board have shown none and created an information void.

It suits their agenda which is to sell the club.

They need the WS sidelined and disempowered to do that. The only alternative is to fight back.

 

[McGlovin']

10 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

A WS majority isn't quite a 100% red line for me because I can create some hypothetical exceptions, but in reality it is. Others will consider sacrificing long-term security for potential short-term gain worth it, and I can understand that though I don't agree with it - everyone has different risk profiles in every aspect of life.

What I really don't get though is looking at the numbers and structure of this deal and thinking yep, go for it. It's hilariously one-sided and designed to give Barmack a no-risk investment, which even if he does absolutely nothing will more than double his money in six years (unless he gets us relegated) while virtually ending the Society.

Even if you think fan ownership can't take us to the 'next level', to think it's so bad you'd throw away a rock solid balance sheet, security over the ground, the guarantee of future revenues to invest in our own growth etc for a monorail salesman getting the club for a steal while pitching "AI, Wembley, tequila and trust me I'm honourable but no I won't put that in writing," is off the chart fucking mental.

Has anyone told Barmack about relegation yet?

[YassinMoutaouakil]

What's relegation?

[JamesP_81]

1 minute ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

What's relegation?

Think it's something that used to happen in olden days football , like keepers picking up the ball after a pass back to them or first tackles no matter how wild being free from punishment. 

[Swello]

17 minutes ago, JamesP_81 said:

first tackles no matter how wild being free from punishment

Technically known as "letting your opponent know you're there" - not a day goes by when I don't miss the other team's winger being clattered in the 3rd minute with loud cheer & laughter soundtrack.

[Firparka]

18 minutes ago, McGlovin' said:

Has anyone told Barmack about relegation yet?

Relegation is something that North American sports owners find very tough to understand because it flies in the face of guaranteed income for a sports franchise. My business life has taken me to North America and I have spent time with the marketing departments of sports teams, especially the Vancouver Canucks in the NHL and the Atlanta Braves in the MLB. When we were all just chit-chatting about sport, and I mentioned MFC's brushes with disaster, they were mystified. How can you run a business like that?

It's true that the ticket marketing, matchday experience, food and beverage, merchandising and other income-generating operations of NHL/MLB/MLS teams is very sophisticated, and maybe there are some tricks of the trade that could apply to MFC. But the cold, hard fact of relegation is one thing a US or Canadian sports team doesn't have to worry about. They also get to trade for players in a controlled pool as well which is another income-security process. So they can borrow more easily to make big changes to stadia and so on, knowing that year to year they are in a pretty stable scenario.

For me, the Barmacks' proposal isn't wrong because they are American and clueless. It's wrong because it offers no vision for the club in our current reality. For example, he says he only has 10% of the information he needs to make MFC successful. Fair enough. But the fact is that our stadium needs refurb. So, in general terms, he ought to have a view on the timescale and ballpark (pun intended) costs of those upgrades or a general view on the feasibility of a new stadium, or stadium sharing, or leasing a stadium, or any number of options that a genius-level CEO could conjure up.

[Busta Nut]

I've just remembered this mug wants to control the transfers.

['WellDel]

3 hours ago, Ron Aldo said:

Motherwell and Rangers social media departments. 

 

 

After the past couple of seasons this was one of those 'I'll believe it when I see it' situations, and now that I have well, fucking lol. Fair do's to him and his agent though probably doubling his wages to not play football is some deal. Scotland International doing the heaviest of heavy lifting, kit hamper attendant probably more accurate.

[Wellin]

2 minutes ago, 'WellDel said:

After the past couple of seasons this was one of those 'I'll believe it when I see it' situations, and now that I have well, fucking lol. Fair do's to him and his agent though probably doubling his wages to not play football is some deal. Scotland International doing the heaviest of heavy lifting, kit hamper attendant probably more accurate.

 

Totally a good deal for him. Understatement - you've got to weigh up whether it's worth it to be richer and sit on your arse or actually play every week. Although I've seen enough goalies get injured at Motherwell to know there's always a chance you'll get first team football 

[RandomGuy.]

The more he plays the more his value drops.

[standupforthemotherwell]

As funny as it is, football is a short career so a wage rise to sit and do nothing is better than getting similar wages to what he was on while having to do some work. There was no chance he was getting a first choice gig at somewhere paying more.

There is also the Trevor Carson situation which comes to mind. Could have moved to sit on a bench on good money but instead we rejected the transfer and illness almost ended his whole career shortly afterwards. He's never reached those performance levels or earning potential since then.

You could also like it to Mark Gillespie. Getting paid an absolute fortune to sit and watch the team he supports every week and all he has to do is train a few times a week for a couple of hours.

Dream job.

[Busta Nut]

He ticks a few boxes for them with regards to registration anaw.

Came through at the ****.
Is a homegrown player.




Also I just want to add, it rips ma knitting when folk say things like "footballers careers are short". They don't become lame at 35. They can do other things. 

[Wellin]

36 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said:

As funny as it is, football is a short career so a wage rise to sit and do nothing is better than getting similar wages to what he was on while having to do some work. There was no chance he was getting a first choice gig at somewhere paying more.

There is also the Trevor Carson situation which comes to mind. Could have moved to sit on a bench on good money but instead we rejected the transfer and illness almost ended his whole career shortly afterwards. He's never reached those performance levels or earning potential since then.

 

You could also like it to Mark Gillespie. Getting paid an absolute fortune to sit and watch the team he supports every week and all he has to do is train a few times a week for a couple of hours.

Dream job.

I get your point but I think Kelly would have got first team football somewhere. Sitting on the bench after years of being first pick might bring its own challenges. As for Carson he obviously wants to play and good on him. I think Gillespie is far too good a keeper to be bench warming. 

Edited Thursday at 19:16 by Wellin

[capt_oats]

50 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

He ticks a few boxes for them with regards to registration anaw.

Came through at the ****.
Is a homegrown player.

Tbh, on top of those points I just think it's a (genuinely) sensible move for him.

Realistically after the season he's had any team he'd have got wouldn't have been a particular step up (IMO). He feels like someone who might actually benefit from just taking a break for a while so in that respect two seasons as a back-up with the **** keeps his profile up without him actually having to play.

He'll be 30 after his contract is done with them if he wants first team games then there's every chance that he'll be better positioned to get a decent club after two seasons in the background with them than he would be just now having spent the bulk of the season looking like he was having panic attacks any time the ball came near him.

Edited Thursday at 19:44 by capt_oats

[eliphas]

6 hours ago, David1979 said:

Despite the narrative some people are promoting, a 'no' vote means precisely what it indicates. It means you do not want the Erik Barmack/Wild Sheep Sports deal to be implemented.

This vote is not a vote on any Well Society proposal, either for or against.

 

 

 

Correct. 

I think we're saying the same thing. Or certainly what I think and maybe didn't get across is the same view as what you've got there 

To be honest, I'm focussing in my original post which you replied to, rightly or wrongly, on maybe what most people here would see as a negative view (ie. that a no vote should not be taken as a 'for' WS vote). But that's just my personal grumblings about the WS which is a completely different and long chat which doesn't impact my vote. My grumbles about the WS are longstanding, reignited by this whole thing, and it's why I'm keen to see the WS new strategy from the newly added to board. Do I need it to make me vote in this upcoming vote? No. Do I think it would be good for the WS to get out there? Yes. Should they have to? No. 

 

[Randolphtops]

47 minutes ago, Wellin said:

I get your point but I think Kelly would have got first team football somewhere. Sitting on the bench after years of being first pick might bring its own challenges. As for Carson he obviously wants to play and good on him. I think Gillespie is far too good a keeper to be bench warming. 

I really rated Gillespie in his time here, and was surprised at the move, but might have been family going 'home' was the draw as much as boyhood team and better wages and maybe with an eye on coaching in future

[eliphas]

4 hours ago, Firparka said:

We are not voting on whether the WS has great ideas to increase revenue or whether we believe it has suddenly discovered how to refurbish an old stadium on the cheap

I definitely agree on this. This vote is purely about EB's bid.

 

4 hours ago, Firparka said:

WS was not designed to run the club

Also agree on this. The WS in it's current form wasn't designed to do that and isn't. 

But. This is where I start to diverge from a few people. I don't think the WS should just be a charity as per your example as we move forward.  I don't think though it needs to run the club day to day either.  But I do think there is somewhere in between that the WS needs to be. More involved. More agenda setting. More in the boardroom. More involved in strategic decisions. Not just a lender of last resort and not just a mechanism to funnel in a couple hundred grand every year. Someone like 20 pages back put it quite well along those lines, also a no to EB voter, but I can't find it right now!

Edited Thursday at 20:25 by eliphas

[Wellin]

21 minutes ago, Randolphtops said:

I really rated Gillespie in his time here, and was surprised at the move, but might have been family going 'home' was the draw as much as boyhood team and better wages and maybe with an eye on coaching in future

Yeah of course that's also a factor. 

[Firparka]

3 minutes ago, eliphas said:

I definitely agree on this. This vote is purely about EB's bid.

 

Also agree on this. The WS in it's current form wasn't designed to do that and isn't. 

But. This is where I start to diverge from a few people. I don't think the WS should just be a charity as per your example as we move forward.  I don't think though it needs to run the club day to day either.  But I do think there is somewhere in between that the WS needs to be. More involved. More agenda setting. More in the boardroom. More involved in strategic decisions. Not just a lender of last resort and not just a mechanism to funnel in a couple hundred grand every year. Someone like 20 pages back put it quite well along those lines, also a no to EB voter, but I can't find it right now!

Absolutely. The WS started life as a 'kind-of' a charity. But recent events have shown that it really needs to think like an owner/majority shareholder and push for its agenda, long-term. We could debate how that happens, and certainly it needs to be more engaged with the full WS membership, but at a minimum it needs to influence the board appointments and, ultimately, the professionals who run the club day to day. It would be reasonable IMHO that the WS sets benchmarks for performance in certain areas, which it looks like they are doing, and then finds the right people to execute.