Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Handsome_Devil]

7 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

I'll feed that back. Not sure a follow up email would materialise but it's worth highlighting as an option.

I suppose the email does say it's non-binding and sometimes you just have to hope folk pick up on that. But as I say, a few comments do make me wonder if it could have been clearer.

I imagine a reminder would have been going out late Monday or early Tuesday ahead of the Wednesday deadline anyway. I don't think you need to clarify anything tbh but a recap of the bullet points never hurts.

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, eliphas said:

In all seriousness though, if we take Grant Russell to the side for the moment as my head kind of got lost in him as an individual last night probably and I genuinely don't have anything against the man. 

My main point to I think it was @Handsome Devil's post is really just if I was picking a CEO I don't really want someone in with brand and marketing basically as their main experience and selling point. Even I'd that's football brand and marketing.

I'd rather it was someone who has maybe ran a football club before, someone with solid proven financial and negotiation skills defintley but don't need to be a finance guy, someone who can foster some great relationships with other CEOs, views marketing and brand etc as important for definite, someone who has been in and about the football side of it too a little bit too probably given the size of our club and the fact they won't be able to appoint an exec team below then. 

So, a very simple hire....easy. 

In an ideal world, sure.

If you'd asked me the same question a year ago as Burrows was packing his bags I'd probably have been making a similar argument in terms of what I'd hope the candidate would look like however I'm probably in a similar place to @Handsome_Devil in so much as I think the past 12 months has definitely changed my view on that.

I suppose the way I'm looking at it now is, someone like Scot Gardiner or Gerry Britton have experience of running football clubs (badly) whereas Burrows when he was given the GM role hadn't. He'd essentially been shadowing Dempster but was engaged, understood the club along with its fanbase and had a "can do" attitude - did he get everything right? No but I don't think anyone would argue that his time in the role wasn't successful.

I'm being slightly disingenuous there by putting up two legitimate idiots vs someone who did a good job for us but it's enough to illustrate a point in so much as I'm probably at a point now where I'm less concerned with previous experience of running a football club as a CEO being as essential vs basic competence and demonstrable experience of being in the room in the same way Burrows was with Dempster and Russell was with Flow.

I don't think I'm being wide of the mark in saying that public perception of the club was the best its been in years during the period Burrows and Russell were heading things up.

We've gone from that to literally having to publicly apologise to our manager for having failed to communicate a contract extension had been triggered 8 months ago and watch our chairman bumble his way into unintentionally creating an existential crisis for the club ownership ostensibly because he doesn't seem to understand that messaging in communications is actually important. The fact that he was sitting in front of the cameras having to field questions and explain that the club isn't in financial difficulty the day after his video launched is evidence of that.

To that point, for the moment we're still a fan owned club (and hopefully continue to be) if we're highlighting desirable qualities then alongside actual competence in the role and the "can do" attitude I mentioned I think it's probably important that we get someone in who not only understands the club but also values the idea of fan ownership and the fanbase themselves.

While I absolutely get that Russell is someone who isn't for everyonem as I said in a post last night I think it's probably fair comment to say that he's engaged and *gets* fan ownership along with modern fan culture in a way that the incumbent board just don't but it feels like someone *like* that who is perhaps more in sync with the refreshed WS board would be valuable.

Again, I'm not saying these weren't traits we were looking for in a candidate anyway but with the way things have gone recently they've probably become more important considerations than they might have been a year ago (IMO).

Edited February 24 by capt_oats

[ML4]

No CEO at our level of salary is going to tick every box.

The first question however needs to be: what are the boxes? The Society plan needs to set objectives and targets for what is needed to run a successful football club.

Revenue targets from tickets and shirts. Minutes given to young players. Amount made from selling players. That sort of thing. Not “finish 8th in the league”.

Once they know what they actually want to achieve, break it into areas and then find the candidate that can demonstrate the best plan for achieving those goals. Either through their own expertise, or by hitting a percentage of it and hiring skilled people to fill the gaps.

We should not be judging Russell, or anyone else mentioned for the role, based on their expertise or experience or otherwise. They are all capable of doing the job - we can assess that. But have them present their plan, their vision and the finances involved based against the goals. Make them demonstrate they can do the job as we need it as a club. Do not just hire off a CV.

Edited February 24 by ML4

[KirkySuperSub]

All this chat about the WS and investment of late has made me consider my own situation.

I was an original WS member, a one-off payment of £300 I think it was, but since that date, I have contributed not a penny since.

Tbh, despite getting emails thru from the WS, I wasn't even sure myself if I was still 'classed' as a member, although assumed so since I have had no comment to the contrary.

I'm digresssing, but as I've said before, my attendance at games has diminished over the last decade quite considerably, to be somewhat null at this point, but I do wish to return in the near future as my wee boy gets older.

He's 6 just now, and but is currently showing little interest in football to date, I'd rather not force the issue, and wait until he's more into it, with his pals at schools etc., a dangerous game to play, considering they're all Rangers fans.

Anyway, coincidentally, I have recently been considering contributing where I can to the WS, perhaps a small monthly contribution, given I'm not giving the conventional way on matchdays.

I'm enjoying the debate, a lot of carefully, considered points being made.

Personally, I voted for the first option, purely as the detail of what we're actually being asked to vote on is at present unknown.

I think both the Club, fans and the WS put a hell of a lot of time, commitment and dedication into becoming an entity in the first place, what 7, 8 years ago, to offer that up to an unknown investor, would be folly in my view.

I'm of the opinion that having a club to support, at the level of where our financial standing and fanbase allows, is far preferable than chasing a few 3rd places and two European qualifying play-off games every other season.

I'll caveat that however, that's my stance on the subject...unless we're talking Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos levels of wealth here, and we're suddenly going to be bidding for Jude Bellingham to start threading throw balls to "The Bair" for next season.

[eliphas]

56 minutes ago, KirkySuperSub said:

Personally, I voted for the first option, purely as the detail of what we're actually being asked to vote on is at present unknown.

Absolutely vote for what you want and why - genuinely not pushing a case here.

But that's not really what we were asked to vote for though. 

Your vote placed has said you would not in anyway consider any proposal that reduces the majority shareholding. Full stop. Red line. 

Whereas it sounds like you would with some more detail around an actual buyer bid consider it. Which is the other option

[Antiochas III]

People need to understand for an Investor to come in and be majority shareholder at 51%, for the Well Society to have 49% ownership there can be no other shareholders.  This means these magic protections are at the sole discretion of this investor.  

 

 

Edited February 24 by Antiochas III

[YassinMoutaouakil]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Not a go at Motherwell fans, but its been interesting seeing debates about ownership on Twitter over the past week amongst fan bases due to stories about Motherwell and Saints potentially changing hands, and how theres a form of snobbery appeared about how fans owning a club is the only "acceptable"/"correct" way and every other option will see the club die.

Meant to make a similar point but got wrapped up in other stuff. I totally respect anyone who is diehard into fan ownership and refuses to budge an inch. I've definitely noticed on Twitter though that folk have started talking about it as if it's some sacrosanct part of Motherwell FC that we've always done and not something that's still fairly novel and not exactly an unqualified success. You'd think it was like QP turning professional or Rangers signing Catholics. 

[MP_MFC]

It kinda is a really important thing IMO though it was the culmination of the journey from the last time someone pumped money into us and then decided enough was enough and took us through admin, dodging some other…questionable characters along the day to making sure that there will always be a club to support. 
 

I’d guess that a lot of the people who hold the view that the WS is highly important are people who were growing up during that tumultuous period and were genuinely concerned there wouldn’t be a club any more. 

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, capt_oats said:

While I absolutely get that Russell is someone who isn't for everyonem as I said in a post last night I think it's probably fair comment to say that he's engaged and *gets* fan ownership along with modern fan culture in a way that the incumbent board just don't but it feels like someone *like* that who is perhaps more in sync with the refreshed WS board would be valuable.

If he was in the role he would have to try to represent your club and work with a bunch of people within Scottish football who he regularly makes very publicly clear he thinks are idiots.

[Handsome_Devil]

2 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Meant to make a similar point but got wrapped up in other stuff. I totally respect anyone who is diehard into fan ownership and refuses to budge an inch. I've definitely noticed on Twitter though that folk have started talking about it as if it's some sacrosanct part of Motherwell FC that we've always done and not something that's still fairly novel and not exactly an unqualified success. You'd think it was like QP turning professional or Rangers signing Catholics. 

I don't think it's a point of moral superiority by any means but having taken this long to ensure the long-term future, by virtue of fan ownership, I think it's understandable people wary of throwing it away.

As an aside, are St Johnstone fans not interested in buying the club? Presumably current ownership would be quite accommodating?

[craigkillie]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Not a go at Motherwell fans, but its been interesting seeing debates about ownership on Twitter over the past week amongst fan bases due to stories about Motherwell and Saints potentially changing hands, and how theres a form of snobbery appeared about how fans owning a club is the only "acceptable"/"correct" way and every other option will see the club die.

You call it snobbery, I call it a genuine belief that the best people to run football clubs are people who actually care about them. It's one thing having local businessmen owning clubs and running them in a way which often benefits themselves, the club and the local community, but it's a totally different thing to having external investors, often from overseas, who have absolutely zero connection to a club and therefore can only possibly ever see it as a vehicle for making money for themselves.

[Handsome_Devil]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

If he was in the role he would have to try to represent your club and work with a bunch of people within Scottish football who he regularly makes very publicly clear he thinks are idiots.

Perhaps he's right, perhaps he's wrong.

But there are times to be a grey mouse and times to shake it up a bit, and after the last couple of diretctionless years, I'm not against us picking a couple of fights, if we think it's appropriate.

 

[Handsome John]

50 minutes ago, Antiochas III said:

People need to understand for an Investor to come in and be majority shareholder at 51%, for the Well Society to have 49% ownership there can be no other shareholders.  This means these magic protections are at the sole discretion of this investor.  

 

 

Not sure if this is quite correct. Any investment would be in the way of newly issued shares. This would have the effect of diluting the current shareholders but not eradicating them. 

[RandomGuy.]

8 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

As an aside, are St Johnstone fans not interested in buying the club? Presumably current ownership would be quite accommodating?

The club thats selling for almost £10m?

Im sure Geoff Brown spoke about it before and didnt think a club who operated like we do, with the support base we have, would work with fan ownership.

Some article claimed fans had about 15-20% shares as it is, and the current CEO is a fan (not that a new owner wont change that easily if they want).

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

You call it snobbery, I call it a genuine belief that the best people to run football clubs are people who actually care about them. It's one thing having local businessmen owning clubs and running them in a way which often benefits themselves, the club and the local community, but it's a totally different thing to having external investors, often from overseas, who have absolutely zero connection to a club and therefore can only possibly ever see it as a vehicle for making money for themselves.

I meant more that its become a sort of "youre not a real fan if your not part of fan ownership" thing, where people are using it to act like theyre a better standard of fan.

[Antiochas III]

20 minutes ago, Handsome John said:

Not sure if this is quite correct. Any investment would be in the way of newly issued shares. This would have the effect of diluting the current shareholders but not eradicating them. 

Then the Well Society can not own 49% of the shares while the Investor being the majority shareholder...

[Handsome_Devil]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

The club thats selling for almost £10m?

Im sure Geoff Brown spoke about it before and didnt think a club who operated like we do, with the support base we have, would work with fan ownership.

Some article claimed fans had about 15-20% shares as it is, and the current CEO is a fan (not that a new owner wont change that easily if they want).

Aye, what other club. If that amount is true, a gradual transition costing £3-4m over 10 years is far from unrealistic...if the desire is there ofc.

[Wellwatcher]

3 hours ago, JayMFC said:

I'll feed that back. Not sure a follow up email would materialise but it's worth highlighting as an option.

I suppose the email does say it's non-binding and sometimes you just have to hope folk pick up on that. But as I say, a few comments do make me wonder if it could have been clearer.

Perhaps an EGM before Wednesday would have highlighted the importance of the vote and allow proper questioning of the significance of a vote for/against investment where majority shareholding is lost.

[Ceiling Granny]

Brilliant debate on here just now, every time I’ve went to type a response I’ve got caught up in whatever the latest points are. 
 

My position is that for my entire life Motherwell have been in the top league, but at no point have I expected that to be the default position for the rest of my life. Id rather take whichever option means that I still have a club to support, even if that club isn’t in the premiership (and I don’t say that lightly - I fully understand the financial implications of that). So while I’m willing to listen to any offer, it would be stupid not to, the lure of “being better” would have to be balanced with a whole lot of reassurance - including forecasts on sustainability if that money suddenly disappeared.  
 

On the Well Society, I have to say although I pay in monthly I’ve been pretty disillusioned with that for years. I distinctly remember asking a question at some forum during the Rangers debacle and the patronising answer I got (which never really answered the question) left me with no illusion of how the Well Society were viewed by the board. In the subsequent years, while I’m sure there were well meaning people involved, this feeling never really went away, communication was shite and everything else that’s been gone over 100 times already.  However, I’ve been pretty encouraged in the last few months (big thanks to @JayMFC coming on here and clearing a lot of things up) to the extent I was considering increasing my monthly payment.  Which makes this whole thing difficult timing wise for me - because I honestly feel like the society is just starting to get to its fighting weight. 
 

 

[RandomGuy.]

11 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Aye, what other club. If that amount is true, a gradual transition costing £3-4m over 10 years is far from unrealistic...if the desire is there ofc.

The desire doesnt seem to be there, which is why he didnt think it was viable and why it wont happen.

We dont have any fan based way of avoiding disaster and if the sale is, as reported, likely to be going through this season then its far too late to set anything up.

I do think we're a club thats too big in terms of turnover/league position etc., compared to actual "core support" who would put funds into the club, to rely as much as clubs performing at a similar level do as they have larger fanbases. We have ~3000 season ticket holders, depending on how well things are going etc. Ive genuinely no idea how that would translate to members of a St Johnstone version of the Well Society?

[Handsome_Devil]

18 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

The desire doesnt seem to be there, which is why he didnt think it was viable and why it wont happen.

We dont have any fan based way of avoiding disaster and if the sale is, as reported, likely to be going through this season then its far too late to set anything up.

I do think we're a club thats too big in terms of turnover/league position etc., compared to actual "core support" who would put funds into the club, to rely as much as clubs performing at a similar level do as they have larger fanbases. We have ~3000 season ticket holders, depending on how well things are going etc. Ive genuinely no idea how that would translate to members of a St Johnstone version of the Well Society?

Fair dos.

No idea how the numbers compare but even if viable it's just changing the risk rather than eliminating it... running middling Scottish clubs is not easy.