Vietnam91 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 3 minutes ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said: I think Hearts released Alexander and replaced him with McLaughlin if that counts... 1 season apart. Jack Hamilton in-between. Maybe a open mic night in the Louden Tavern? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Harry Paton really testing his "Kettlewell’s favourite" position by appearing to turn up to pre-season absolutely pished. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Aldo Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Did Siegrist not meet some Australian burd and said that he'd be looking tk move there to be with her? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al B Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 I know the whole fucking place is on fire at the moment, but thank God someone's taking the time to let us know that Sam Nicholson doesn't own a bag. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Al B said: I know the whole fucking place is on fire at the moment, but thank God someone's taking the time to let us know that Sam Nicholson doesn't own a bag. First thing Jim McMahon planned to buy with the £300k investment tae, such a shame. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 15 minutes ago, Ron Aldo said: Did Siegrist not meet some Australian burd and said that he'd be looking tk move there to be with her? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedrics Mighty Well Army Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 31 minutes ago, Ron Aldo said: Did Siegrist not meet some Australian burd and said that he'd be looking tk move there to be with her? The golden beaches of Oz or a relegation-battle in the Scottish winter at ML1? He can sh*g her here - just put the leccy blanket on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 hour ago, Al B said: I know the whole fucking place is on fire at the moment, but thank God someone's taking the time to let us know that Sam Nicholson doesn't own a bag. For all the place seems to be a binfire just now thanks entirely to the nonsense McMahon and his minions have brought to our doorstep the actual football department seems to be ticking along fine enough - we’re out there doing things, making signings and that. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 We should tell Kelly he's technically still our player and make him sit on the bench for this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyReindeer Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 42 minutes ago, Cedrics Mighty Well Army said: The golden beaches of Oz or a relegation-battle in the Scottish winter at ML1? He can sh*g her here - just put the leccy blanket on. I see your rampant misogyny earned you a downvote for this. Whatever you do, don’t go saying that Stephen O’Donnell and Calum Slattery are in a secret relationship or you’ll never hear the end of it!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 I fully endorse the WS 50+% but what is more important, majority ownership or casting vote in the boardroom, if it gets agreed that EB gets the latter why would it matter if his ownership was closer to 30%? Sorry for dragging us back into it on this day of shirt numbers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standupforthemotherwell Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 The majority shareholder can appoint or remove directors so having the extra vote is worthless as the WS on 51% could decide to remove anyone not aligned with their views. Good for the fans but not for anyone wanting unopposed control. Clearly something which they need to be doing with certain individuals on the current board where they have minimal actual representation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ropy said: what is more important, majority ownership or casting vote in the boardroom, if it gets agreed that EB gets the latter why would it matter if his ownership was closer to 30% One should follow the other. That fact that the 71% owner *doesn't* have the casting vote now (and the majority of votes) is the actual scandal on this. Wouldn't happen in a normal business. Edited June 18 by Swello 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) As it's a quiet news day after 40 pages in a week..... This is a spreadsheet I drew up months ago for the WS and posted for 20 minutes on here before deciding against it. No issues now however. It tries to mitigate the "impending doom" narrative that sadly is peddled too often. It outlines two of the factors that have been used to justify an immediate need for investment. If we have a poor season, two contribute to a club financial shortfall; League place and Cup performance. The third factor, transfer activity, isn’t shown but I guess that must have been demonstrated in the past by posters who have an eye for that sort of thing. Caveated by, in terms of determining underdog or favourite status it’s easier to do so when the opposition is is in a lower rated league or in the case of the Scottish Cup, when facing another Premier team you have half a season of form. The League cup is harder to gauge at the first knockout usually only takes place with 4/5 league games played. Some may disagree here and there but don’t envisage the numbers moving massively. Overall it shows a consistent underperformance in cup competitions over the years and only skewed to be more positive since the introduction of the league cup groups with 4 games against lower league opposition. We win 2 out of every 3 games we are the favourite. (If you take out the early 15 wins since the group stage introduction it’s down to winning 5 out of 8). We only win 1 in 6 when underdogs (Approx 20 of those 32 ties were against teams with a significant financial advantage). It does show that the closest we have got to peril where 2 of the 3 factors align was 2014/15, 11th place playoff, knocked out the LC by Accies and SC by Dundee United. We did get Euro money from Stjarnan to mitigate. Edited June 18 by Vietnam91 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Swello said: One should follow the other. That fact that the 71% owner *doesn't* have the casting vote now (and the majority of votes) is the actual scandal on this. Wouldn't happen in a normal business. It doesn't but I suspect - again a guess - we've stumbled into bother because we wrote down a model based on German (and possibly other European) clubs where you have an executive board which is largely based on their functions with a supervisory board overseeing them, holding them to account etc. They themselves are held accountable to the members. Which is lovely and this certainly was my model of choice because I'm not convinced we can find what...15 people with the skills, time and desire to fill both boards. However, much like you can't just look at the continent and say 'let's appoint a sporting director' because attitudes and practices are different, apparently you can't just lift that model and it expect it to work so we'll need a plan B...but there are also all kinds of pitfalls here, it is not an overnight fix. It clearly needs to be thought out and worked on...all the more reason to scrap the vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 The club are clearly using this week to bury the lead... by the looks of today's #content Andy Halliday is indeed still number 11. @crazylegsjoe for Head of Strategic Number Allocation and end this fucking madness. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 13 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: It doesn't but I suspect - again a guess - we've stumbled into bother because we wrote down a model based on German (and possibly other European) clubs where you have an executive board which is largely based on their functions with a supervisory board overseeing them, holding them to account etc. They themselves are held accountable to the members. Which is lovely and this certainly was my model of choice because I'm not convinced we can find what...15 people with the skills, time and desire to fill both boards. However, much like you can't just look at the continent and say 'let's appoint a sporting director' because attitudes and practices are different, apparently you can't just lift that model and it expect it to work so we'll need a plan B...but there are also all kinds of pitfalls here, it is not an overnight fix. It clearly needs to be thought out and worked on...all the more reason to scrap the vote. WS board has 2 definite (and 1 TBC vacancies) to be filled. The other 6 have committed in the short term The club board will be made up at least three of the WS board of 9, the CEO and FD are already on it, so three more places to fill. The reality is 6 people needed or 3 if Wild Sheep gets approved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Derek Watson has posted an update over on Steelmen Online - Quote Hi folks, Apologies for the delay in response, it's a busy period at the moment as I'm sure you'd all expect, and this is the first time I've had the chance to log back into this forum. Thanks for your patience. As you'll be aware following the club statement on Thursday, there should be further communication coming from the Executive Board very soon. On your specific valuation point, though we don't have the snappy, definitive answer you might be looking for, I hope this response details the thinking of the Society Board and shows why this deal is not in the best interests of the fans or the club. We don't think it is wise to state our valuation of the club for two reasons. Firstly, given that we remain open to investment, should it be beneficial to the long-term security of the club, 'naming our price' could potentially limit other offers should Well Society members reject this proposal, as we recommend they do. Secondly, the club is not for sale. We can say as the elected representatives of the many Motherwell fans who own their club, that we do not want to sell it. That echoes the words of the Chairman at the latest AGM who stressed that the club is not for sale; that's not just the opinion of the Society Board. Putting a price on something you don't want to sell would send the wrong signal. That said, that does not mean we cannot disagree with the club's valuation. Looking at the Chairman's rationale on the club website, we see a host of problems. The outgoing chairman's rationale states a £3.7m debt was taken into account in the valuation. The nature of the debt does not appear to have been taken into account. Half of the Well Society loan (£434k) would be written off under the deal. It is questionable whether the other £434k would ever be returned if this deal went through. The Scottish Government loan is an interest-free loan repayable over 20 years which has been used to fund long-term infrastructure projects that will save the club significant maintenance costs over the term of the loan. The outgoing chairman states that "net assets is only a valid basis to look at the deal if the assets can be sold. Ours can’t be." The club has assets in the playing squad who could potentially be valued at more than the executive board's valuation of the club. We are unclear why the outgoing chairman makes the following assertion. "We have operated at around breakeven over the period since we moved into fan ownership." The club has recorded a combined profit of about £2.5million since we moved into fan ownership. Recent losses have come after major one-off spending on facilities, eg a £1.2million pitch plus building work in the East (John Hunter), a new PA system and much improved CCTV systems. The Hibs comparison, which we referenced in the initial Society statement, is a highly relevant, very recent and illustrative example that highlights why we believe the executive board is under-selling the club. Last week Hibs reported a further sale of shares from existing shareholders which followed on from the Black Knights investment. This values the club at £26m. See a report in the Edinburgh Evening News from last week. https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-investment-figure-revealed-as-shareholders-pump-in-extra-cash-4663394 Over the past decade, Motherwell have received greater SPFL prize money than Hibs and our transfer income compares well with Hibs. Hibs have made a combined £3.7m loss over the five most recent recorded seasons. Motherwell have made a combined profit of more than £2.5m under fan ownership. Hibernian's outstanding loans stood at £4.9million in their most recent accounts, greater than Motherwell's. Hibs turnover on average over the past six years is about double that of Motherwell's. Yet the valuation of the respective boards is 6.5 times greater/lesser. I'm aware that this is a pretty lengthy response but I hope that it answers some of what you were looking for. We'll be in a position to give you a lot more fairly soon and I'm confident that 'Well fans will see the potential in those proposals. Finally, not quite a Steelboy question, but a few people have asked if it's a case of A or B, so just to clarify that point. If the vote is no, the Society will continue to seek to put into practice its own plans for the future and continue to seek alternative investment opportunities that align with our values and long-term. I know I keep banging on about it being a busy time, but I've been really enthused and inspired by the work the refreshed board have been doing since the turn of the year (this would have been happening regardless of any other proposals), in terms of developing plans for the future of the Society and the club. We have consulted with a range of experts and we will look to share more information on this in our forthcoming communication to members. If this proposal is rejected, simply put - the Society will work closely with the Chief Executive, refreshed Executive Board, and new Chairman on our shared vision for the club. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 31 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said: WS board has 2 definite (and 1 TBC vacancies) to be filled. The other 6 have committed in the short term The club board will be made up at least three of the WS board of 9, the CEO and FD are already on it, so three more places to fill. The reality is 6 people needed or 3 if Wild Sheep gets approved. Time will tell but from the moans about governance last year, I never liked doubling up... I think it's a farce - or can easily become a farce - for accountability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 26 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: Derek Watson has posted an update over on Steelmen Online - Fair but I don't like the ifs on the vote...it's a stupid and needless risk, get the house sorted before voting on anything. 5 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.