McGlovin' Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 What's relegation? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesP_81 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firparka Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 I've just remembered this mug wants to control the transfers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'WellDel Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 The more he plays the more his value drops. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standupforthemotherwell Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 (edited) 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 June 27 by Wellin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 (edited) 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 June 27 by capt_oats 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randolphtops Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 (edited) 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 June 27 by eliphas 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firparka Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelyDosser Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 (edited) Kind of a time time for a step up from every society member tbh. Spread it around social media as clear and concise as possible. Unless this is already in the pipeline? Edited June 27 by SteelyDosser 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 (edited) Will Kelly really have doubled his wage? I don't really have any thoughts on the move other than being glad we're shot of him tbh- but I don't think Rangers would have came within a million miles of touching him if it wasn't for the homegrown thing with McLaughlin and McCorie leaving. Maybe (probably) they have just chucked a few grand extra at him because its what they do but I don't imagine they'd have had much competition for him other than L2 and maybe L1 clubs in England. Edit- I do realise the doubled his wage thing is a passing comment that I've jumped on and taken literally. I've just seen a few folk mention it in different places. Edited June 27 by YassinMoutaouakil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.