eliphas Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 2 hours ago, capt_oats said: This isn't a criticism of the WS folks as it kind of sounds as if McMahon has gone a bit rogue with this and it's put them on the back foot but in hindsight it would maybe have wise for those behind the "project" to have considered this and had some sort of consultation prior to launch. I mean, maybe they did IDK but it doesn't feel like it. I don't know the ins and outs of it at all either but I'd equally say the McMahon/club video and decisions have perhaps been the rocket up the arse the WS needed to get moving. Maybe not what the 'disruption' was aimed to do but, think I said this maybe already (lost track now), if the outcome is a coherent deliverable strategy from the WS, as majority owners, then absolutely all good. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 16 minutes ago, eliphas said: I don't know the ins and outs of it at all either but I'd equally say the McMahon/club video and decisions have perhaps been the rocket up the arse the WS needed to get moving. Maybe not what the 'disruption' was aimed to do but, think I said this maybe already (lost track now), if the outcome is a coherent deliverable strategy from the WS, as majority owners, then absolutely all good. I mean it probably would have been better if we didn't piss money up the wall on a video to do this but I get your point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said: Therein lies the (granted, relatively small amongst an otherwise excellent communication) problem with the question itself; it's open to interpretation. My understanding from the discussions AGM was that it would set the precedence for negotiations moving forward, like you. However, as it is open to a bit of interpretation, the vote may well be closer than people think, as there is still the option to vote down any potential investment proposal that removes fan ownership after it's been presented. That, granted, may just mean investors will back out because they think it's a waste of time to put a lot of effort into their due diligence and final offer(s). A bit of a double-edged sword. Just guessing but I suspect that's less a problem than a feature. You can't have a concrete yes/no on anything without knowing the details and you're not going to know the details until the very end. Even while the no to giving up control had stronger wording, there'll be people in that group who will have exceptions - ceding control to a proven benevolent dictator like Hutchinson or Boyle (for example - they're clearly not interested), or another local boy made good may see some red lines turn pink in comparison to giving ownership to a random from the other side of the world. And tbh any potential who walks because they see a robust, organised and bolshy fan group as a concern rather than an asset... cheerio. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, eliphas said: I don't know the ins and outs of it at all either but I'd equally say the McMahon/club video and decisions have perhaps been the rocket up the arse the WS needed to get moving. Maybe not what the 'disruption' was aimed to do but, think I said this maybe already (lost track now), if the outcome is a coherent deliverable strategy from the WS, as majority owners, then absolutely all good. McMahon is stalling too. He is preparing for the takeover and probably manouvering to stay involved in some capacity. That is why it has been over a year since Burrows left and there has been zero progress on a new Chief Executive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: McMahon is stalling too. He is preparing for the takeover and probably manouvering to stay involved in some capacity. That is why it has been over a year since Burrows left and there has been zero progress on a new Chief Executive. You suggesting McMahon want the CEO role? Personally, Id like a clean slate. The new 'Well Society Board seem to have some impetus. Id like to see them appoint a CEO and together with the CEO look at all areas of the club with a view to seeing what needs improvement. Once thats done we can sit down and look at what investors match up with the way we see the club progressing going forward. It should be on our terms as owners, rather than dictated by the investors. Edited February 28 by joewarkfanclub 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, joewarkfanclub said: You suggesting McMahon want the CEO role? Personally, Id like a clean slate. The new 'Well Society Board seem to have some impetus. Id like to see them appoint a CEO and together with the CEO look at all areas of the club with a view to seeing what needs improvement. Once thats done we can sit down and look at what investors match upnwith the way we see the club progressing going forward. It should be on our terms as owners, rather than dictated by the investors. I'm not suggesting he wants the CEO role. He could have had it if he wanted it. I think he just wants a seat at the table. Be on the board, sit in the box and feel important. Whatever I think though is kind of irrelevant. The fact is we have been without a CEO for over a year and the people in charge of hiring a replacement have not done so. Instead concentrating on other matters. Questions have to be asked why we have been rudderless for so long. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, well fan for life said: I mean it probably would have been better if we didn't piss money up the wall on a video to do this but I get your point. Did McMahon not fund that video himself or have I misunderstood that ? The criticism of the video is interesting. Not saying it is not warranted in some respects. However MacMahon or Weir made it clear they opted for this approach rather than the more laborious / expensive approach of employing a specialist investment company. Which is what one would do if they were actively seeking to put the club up for sale. Something I am not sure they could even do with the Well Society being the majority shareholder. So they probably had very few options open to them to make it as public as possible that MFC would benefit from outside investment. As to the vote. I suspect it will be close. But I agree with a previous comment that fan ownership being seen as some sort of sacred or unchallengeable solution is as daft as saying we should accept the 1st serious approach regardless the terms etc. I would welcome outside investment if it was going to make a difference and there were enough safeguards in place to protect the club, the infrastructure and the long terms interests of the supporters. If that is not available then we need to do everything we can to get behind the Well Society proposals. That means all of us that can afford to need to dig a little deeper into our pockets. Not easy when many are struggling to make ends meet. In fact you could legitimately argue this could be one of the worst times to ask fans to contribute more. I expect that the current custodians of the club are fully aware of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, welldaft said: However MacMahon or Weir made it clear they opted for this approach rather than the more laborious / expensive approach of employing a specialist investment company. Which is what one would do if they were actively seeking to put the club up for sale. They can't sell what they don't own so the second approach would have been a non-starter. 5 minutes ago, welldaft said: As to the vote. I suspect it will be close. But I agree with a previous comment that fan ownership being seen as some sort of sacred or unchallengeable solution is as daft as saying we should accept the 1st serious approach regardless the terms etc. I don't think the Well Society should bend over for any investment group. We should be seeking the full value of the shares we worked hard to acquire and the full value of loans that were put into the club. On those terms i would consider ending fan ownership, knowing the society exists and has the funding in place should the investors turn out to be charlatans. 9 minutes ago, welldaft said: That means all of us that can afford to need to dig a little deeper into our pockets. Not easy when many are struggling to make ends meet. In fact you could legitimately argue this could be one of the worst times to ask fans to contribute more. I expect that the current custodians of the club are fully aware of this. The club should be self sustaining on revenues from tickets, the league, player sales and sponsorship. And if it isn't then all we are doing is living out of someone else's pocket. And if we rack up millions in debt to what end? So we can do what Dundee United have done, splashed cash and it has all gone wrong and now they essentially live only due to the goodwill of their owners. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 48 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: They can't sell what they don't own so the second approach would have been a non-starter. I don't think the Well Society should bend over for any investment group. We should be seeking the full value of the shares we worked hard to acquire and the full value of loans that were put into the club. On those terms i would consider ending fan ownership, knowing the society exists and has the funding in place should the investors turn out to be charlatans. The club should be self sustaining on revenues from tickets, the league, player sales and sponsorship. And if it isn't then all we are doing is living out of someone else's pocket. And if we rack up millions in debt to what end? So we can do what Dundee United have done, splashed cash and it has all gone wrong and now they essentially live only due to the goodwill of their owners. Pretty much what I said. Apart from the self sustaining bit. It would appear if we were to become self sustaining (as we effectively are at the moment) then we will inevitably drop into the championship. Very few clubs in the top flight are self sustaining and that is the core issue. We are struggling to compete. The custodians of the club have a duty to try and ensure we stay a premiership club and they and most fans recognise that to do that we could really do with outside investment. The Chairman and CEO made that perfectly clear as the rationale behind this money raising effort. Not at any cost however. So you say let’s fall into the Championship and so be it. The problem then is like Falkirk, Dunfermline and Partick etc you have even less revenue and are stuck in the lowers leagues for years potentially. A vicious circle. And the the very fans who say I would rather that actually decide not to renew season tickets or attend games because they never really meant it and watching Motherwell lose in the lower leagues is not as much fun after all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 37 minutes ago, welldaft said: Very few clubs in the top flight are self sustaining and that is the core issue. We are struggling to compete. The custodians of the club have a duty to try and ensure we stay a premiership club and they and most fans recognise that to do that we could really do with outside investment. The Chairman and CEO made that perfectly clear as the rationale behind this money raising effort. Not at any cost however. Sure but there's a world of difference between not being self-sustaining with a benefactor or an investor looking for a return. You could probably knock this into a nice flow chart somehow but obviously this means taking money out the club on a regular basis or the overall value of the club rising so they can sell at a profit (to someone who thinks it'll make them money from the square one options above). If they're aiming for dividends, it's wildly optimistic to think anyone will transform the model we already have selling folk beyond it's current cyclical nature and total fantasy to think they'll establish us at a 'higher level' because the prize money in no way matches the cash needed. Alternatively they increase revenues off the pitch. This is possible but do we seriously think an outsider will be able to do so that much better than us, ie to take out hundreds of thousands on top of the hundreds of thousands needed to bridge the funding gap? I don't. If they're aiming for growth, they need to hope/ensure we're one of all the boats lifted by a rising tide - a change in Scotland's football structure, television/media rights, expanded Euro competitions etc. But this has little to do with them really... should this happen, would we be happy to be in this situation again with limited control over the next owner in exchange for a few hundred grand a year to bridge a gap we have so far done ourselves despite the Society phoning it in? Nah. I appreciate everyone loves to dream about riches but as soon as you start asking not what we get and they're willing to pay but what they get and we're willing to pay, it suddenly becomes very unappealing (at least for me!). And that's before we consider the risks of what happens if it all goes wrong. So sure, if we find someone with more money than sense who wants to buy our US media rights or someone who'll take a slice of the transfer profits in exchange for being able to invest in slightly better gambles then great, go for it. But the more I think about it, the more ridiculous I find the whole idea and conclude we're much better upping the game in the Society and taking some calculated investment risks of our own. Edited February 28 by Handsome_Devil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Here are the only ways I see this play out We sell the club, cos noone wants to give us money and have no control. We have a decent few years until someone gets bored/realises their plans won't make them money. At this point we either have a future equivalent of the "well worth saving" campaign and see where that leaves us or worst case scenario we lose the club. Or we continue as we are. See where that takes us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 See we are back to 1 attempt on goal = goal. Softest defence in the league. We were concentrating on attackers when we needed defenders and decent goalie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allroy for Prez Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Kettlewell needs fucking launched. Absolutely beyond a joke. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I'll be honest, I see Kelly getting stick for that but It was Casey's fault. He let that guy waltz past him and he had to get off his line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 10 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: I'll be honest, I see Kelly getting stick for that but It was Casey's fault. He let that guy waltz past him and he had to get off his line. Kelly is well behind Casey and miller in the blame game there. It sums up our season, a nothing game where we utterly shoot ourselves in the foot. We weren't even under pressure there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Kelly did well to block the first shot. We can't have 4 defenders standing around looking at the boy making the late run to get to the rebound. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Hearing in the commentary that Kettlewell has never won at Livi as a manager. Do you think his continual banging on about the pitch maybe rubs off on the players? Just a thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Looks like we can play all evening and not score. Add to the fact Aberdeen are shite and this getting rather worrying now. Back down to 10th as it stands 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I was happy to let Kettlewell see out the next few months afore getting annoyed if he got an extension, but we should have punted him ages ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: I was happy to let Kettlewell see out the next few months afore getting annoyed if he got an extension, but we should have punted him ages ago. I am swithering tbh. Supported him all season. But his line up and recent subs have been surprising. We outplayed Celtic 1st half Sat. So let’s leave Vale and Gent on the bench. Two of our better and most potent performers of late. Go figure Edited February 28 by welldaft 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.