Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[redstarcvedza]

25 minutes ago, Gianfranco said:

The boy Williams for Spain has clearly been watching the bold Gboly. 

Making DiLorenzo look like Ralston

[MurrayWell]

All these announcements are great, although I just don't think we've had enough time to thank Ross Tierney for that moment in Paisley, what a shame. 

Also seeing some of the usual reply guys on twitter still ain't happy. Have said it before but I think there are folk within our fanbase who get a kick outta being negative, live for a moan. I also predict that a large number of that crowd would think the current investment proposal, that basically gives the club away for buttons, is a good thing. Just a theory.

[capt_oats]

1 minute ago, MurrayWell said:

All these announcements are great, although I just don't think we've had enough time to thank Ross Tierney for that moment in Paisley, what a shame. 

Also seeing some of the usual reply guys on twitter still ain't happy. Have said it before but I think there are folk within our fanbase who get a kick outta being negative, live for a moan. I also predict that a large number of that crowd would think the current investment proposal, that basically gives the club away for buttons, is a good thing. Just a theory.

Genuinely one of the worst c***s on Motherwell Twitter.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

44 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

I think it's more likely that Dave's just got a new number. #4 and #6 are still available?

I hope so. He has his limitations but I'd have him starting over most of the others.

[Vietnam91]

3 hours ago, Wellwatcher said:

Before the Club statement was made I was convinced that the Wild Sheeo offer was a poor one but I am confused now and hope @Vietnam91 and others can help

• If Fir Park is protected does this mean the £4m valuation, along with the exclusion of transfers, is realistic?
• Is it a condition of the offer that no single entity can own >49%.? Would this prevent Wild Sheep from approaching private shareholders to sell their shares to them?
• If we are confident on the sale of Bair and Miller etc. would the money raised from this allow the WS to buy back after year 2?
• A criticism of Wild Sheep is the lack of a business plan, does anybody have a copy of the John Boyle or Les Hutchison business plans?
• Burrows was very clear that Motherwell was fan owned and not fan run and shouldn't be consulted about everything and used the colour of curtains as his "funny" example. Could somebody tell me how this would change if the staus quo remians? 

I can only answer to what I know, what my gut tells me fuelled by context I've tried to ascertain before forming my views. There may be flaws in my reasoning but I would hope as much effort some may put into picking apart the reasoning of fellow fans is extended to details and the implications of any offers of investment.

I appreciate from previous posts you have a heathy scepticism of the ability of the WS to deliver and that is fair, few can dispute there have been a few peaks of activity followed by long periods of perceived stagnation. I was firmly in your camp prior to October 2023. I'd suggest the only difference is I am currently optimistic what the right board, encouraged by its membership and with a club working in tandem with them, can achieve.

So onto your questions:

Valuation - I think there could be a case made for the club being sold for £1 and another for £12m, comes down to how numbers are framed by the buyer and seller, their motivations, goals, expectations, financial constraints, appetite for risk, plans and optimism. I personally think the Equity of £4m and EV £7.7 figures have been reverse engineered and a very decent case could be made for a higher valuation of the club. I think that was done to facilitate the stated upper limit of the investor. You asked if it was realistic, if the owner doesn't want to sell then they could set a value of £20m. Would they realise that, I doubt it but would they want to?

Contract Conditions - I can't speak to this, only the WS can as the FULL details of the offer have only been shared with the 9 (now 7) of them. They have been elected to do the due diligence and scrutinise this for us, many WS members won't have the inclination or desire to. During that process they voted 6-3 to retain fan ownership and reject THIS offer of investment. Every contract can be altered and provisions changed over time, in our own recent history Declan Gallagher can testify to that. There is a serious danger many WS members when seeing the model changed will not want to contribute any more. An agreement that mandates £200k a year from the WS while simultaneously writing off part of a benign loan suggests there is a strong chance of a default (I'd argue an engineered one). Only the WS have seen what would happen in that event. 

Someone may be restricted to owning 49% of shares in a bulletproof contract. However I think it is impossible to impose any restriction on an alignment with another shareholder where their combined shareholding exceeds 50% with voting rights proxied or given for a boardroom presence.

Player Sales - In theory it could yes. The manager upon losing a player of that value would probably want most if not all of it to fill the sizeable hole they leave in the squad, a lot of his job security depends on it. I think its certain Theo is away this summer, I think it unlikely many proceeds of his sale will be around in the summer of 2026. Lennon is different and if we realise our hoped for income, it could very well be part of a buy back due to timing, his opportune time to leave is next summer. Prudence would dictate this income is not guaranteed (injury or contract ran down). Rightfully the WS would have consider the potential to pay an investor £660k to cover their contributions and 10% penalty for invoking while already contributed £400k over the past two seasons themselves from their reserve. The WS would be in peril only a few months later when audited to prove the ability to sustain the club beyond until the summer of 2028.

Business Plans - I would assume John Boyle had one used to fuel his "3rd force" plans but like Les Hutchison, I can't speak to it, but I'd rally hope so. But it does speak to the double standard that the WS MUST publish theirs as many will use that to influence their voting preference. As it turns out through a desire for accountability and transparency Derek Watson advised yesterday it's release is imminent. The WS role is that of stewards, while building a strategic reserve for the sole benefit of the club, which they've pretty much done. Their success in achieving that depends on where you are at present, I've seen more than a few focusing pre formed prejudices on the people involved than the task to be tackled.

Lack of a business plan from Wild Sheep is way down the list of questions with this offer, that being a defining issue to determine voting intention by some should only be used with as much additional context as possible. For me enough Rubicon's were crossed in the Heads of Terms there's nothing a business plan can do to bring me back.

Fan Owned, Not Fan Run - I find this term is used to silence accountability and demean the input of laymen. It's been used to hobble the WS by design over the past 7 years and mitigate their status as owner. You've got to give credit where it's due to the outgoing chairman, it has worked perfectly. The running of the club is lead by the CEO and actioned his departments. I suspect that will continue under the strategic direction of the club board which will actually become less autocratic and more reflective of genuine consensus. What I do expect will change will be 3 separate entities, cross pollinated with personnel working in congress to the betterment of the business and first team.

Hope it helps and others can fill in any gaps.

Edited June 20 by Vietnam91

[Wellwatcher]

21 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

I can only answer to what I know, what my gut tells me fuelled by context I've tried to ascertain before forming my views. There may be flaws in my reasoning but I would hope as much effort some may put into picking apart the reasoning of fellow fans is extended to details and the implications of any offers of investment.

I appreciate from previous posts you have a heathy scepticism of the ability of the WS to deliver and that is fair, few can dispute there have been a few peaks of activity followed by long periods of perceived stagnation. I was firmly in your camp prior to October 2023. I'd suggest the only difference is I am currently optimistic what the right board, encouraged by its membership and with a club working in tandem with them, can achieve.

So onto your questions:

Valuation - I think there could be a case made for the club being sold for £1 and another for £12m, comes down to how numbers are framed by the buyer and seller, their motivations, goals, expectations, financial constraints, appetite for risk, plans and optimism. I personally think the Equity of £4m and EV £7.7 figures have been reverse engineered and a very decent case could be made for a higher valuation of the club. I think that was done to facilitate the stated upper limit of the investor. You asked if it was realistic, if the owner doesn't want to sell then they could set a value of £20m. Would they realise that, I doubt it but would they want to?

Contract Conditions - I can't speak to this, only the WS can as the FULL details of the offer have only been shared with the 9 (now 7) of them. They have been elected to do the due diligence and scrutinise this for us, many WS members won't have the inclination or desire to. During that process they voted 6-3 to retain fan ownership and reject THIS offer of investment. Every contract can be altered and provisions changed over time, in our own recent history Declan Gallagher can testify to that. There is a serious danger many WS members when seeing the model changed will not want to contribute any more. An agreement that mandates £200k a year from the WS while simultaneously writing off part of a benign loan suggests there is a strong chance of a default (I'd argue an engineered one). Only the WS have seen what would happen in that event. 

Someone may be restricted to owning 49% of shares in a bulletproof contract. However I think it is impossible to impose deny an alignment with another shareholder where their combined shareholding exceeds 50% with voting rights proxied or given for a boardroom presence.

Player Sales - In theory it could yes. The manager upon losing a player of that value would probably want most if not all of it to fill the sizeable hole they leave in the squad, a lot of his job security depends on it. I think its certain Theo is away this summer, I think it unlikely many proceeds of his sale will be around in the summer of 2026. Lennon is different and if we realise our hoped for income, it could very well be part of a buy back due to timing, his opportune time to leave is next summer. Prudence would dictate this income is not guaranteed (injury or contract ran down). Rightfully the WS would have consider the potential to pay an investor £660k to cover their contributions and 10% penalty for invoking while already contributed £400k over the past two seasons themselves from their reserve. The WS would be in peril only a few months later when audited to prove the ability to sustain the club beyond until the summer of 2028.

Business Plans - I would assume John Boyle had one use to fuel his "3rd force" plans but like Les Hutchison, I can't speak to it, but I'd rally hope so. But it does speak to the double standard that the WS MUST publish theirs as many will use that to influence their voting preference. As it turns out through a desire for accountability and transparency Derek Watson advised yesterday it's release is imminent. The WS role is that of stewards, while building a strategic reserve for the sole benefit of the club, which they've pretty much done. Their success in achieving that depends on where you are at present, I've seen more than a few focusing pre formed prejudices on the people involved than the task to be tackled.

Lack of a business plan from Wild Sheep is way down the list of questions with this offer, that being a defining issue to determine voting intention by some should only be used with as much additional context as possible. For me enough Rubicon's were crossed in the Heads of Terms there's nothing a business plan can do to bring me back.

Fan Owned, Not Fan Run - I find this term is used to silence accountability and demean the input of laymen. It's been used to hobble the WS by design over the past 7 years and mitigate their status as owner. You've got to give credit where it's due to the outgoing chairman, it has worked perfectly. The running of the club is lead by the CEO and actioned his departments. I suspect that will continue under the strategic direction of the club board which will actually become less autocratic and more reflective of genuine consensus. What I do expect will change will be 3 separate entities, cross pollinated with personnel working in congress to the betterment of the business and first team.

Hope it helps and others can fill in any gaps.

Thanks for the reply I appreciate you taking the time to do it.  I am keeping an open mind on the offer until the WS shows their hand and provides what is hopefully a viable alternative. Keeping things as they are wont work so lets hear both sides.

I note on the MFC website Tom Feely is now the Chair of the WS.

I am concerned about the polarising effect this is having on the WS membership. Contrary views are healthy but similar to the WS board I envisage a drop in membership levels after this. 

[rowsdower]

I'm surprised that there's so much support for this investment from the lay person, when the financials are public. I.e., who thinks 300k a year is going to move the needle?

[fat_tony]

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

Genuinely one of the worst c***s on Motherwell Twitter.

I'm delighted to see I already have them blocked. At this stage, my blocklist is basically tech-bros, Tories and moany Motherwell fans.

[Vietnam91]

5 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

I note on the MFC website Tom Feely is now the Chair of the WS.

Yeah? Don't see it, including after a refresh

[rowsdower]

3 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

Thanks for the reply I appreciate you taking the time to do it.  I am keeping an open mind on the offer until the WS shows their hand and provides what is hopefully a viable alternative. Keeping things as they are wont work so lets hear both sides.

For the sake of discussion, what do you mean by the status quo not working? What is your vision of sucess for the club under either proposal?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm genuinely interested in what people see as success, and what their expectations are of the club. I'll put my own in a separate post.

[capt_oats]

15 minutes ago, fat_tony said:

I'm delighted to see I already have them blocked. At this stage, my blocklist is basically tech-bros, Tories and moany Motherwell fans.

Aye, I have them muted as well but took a peek to see which terrible opinion had been hidden. 

Said it often but my mute list on Twitter has more Motherwell fans than any other demographic.

[Wellwatcher]

17 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Yeah? Don't see it, including after a refresh

 

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Is Feely upfront or in goals?

[chopface]

9 hours ago, Al B said:

I duno if Covid/Lockdown has been a factor, or the amount of "journeyman" type players that move clubs regularly, but I'm noticing in the last 4/5 years my knowledge and awareness of other teams players other than the bigger names, has absolutely fallen through the floor.

These last few boys that we've signed or been linked with, that everyone's saying "he was decent/shite with x/y/z", and I've got absolutely no clue who they are.

I'm going to have to start consciously paying attention more. Either that or get a job as a Scottish football pundit.

If you get a job as a pundit you'll presumably know even less than you do now, that's how it works isn't it?

[David1979]

24 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

Thanks for the reply I appreciate you taking the time to do it.  I am keeping an open mind on the offer until the WS shows their hand and provides what is hopefully a viable alternative. Keeping things as they are wont work so lets hear both sides.

By "both sides," do you mean the Society and Erik Barmack? Are we to assume that the club Chairman and the newly-appointed CEO aren't being held accountable for this? Or is making a video and accepting an offer for £300,000 a year considered "job done" for them?

No, we should be demanding more from our esteemed chairman and also scrutinising what the new CEO has planned. I understand he's just started, but why aren't we pressing him for a comprehensive plan on how he intends to take the club forward?

It seems the options are being presented as either "sell to a charlatan who has admitted he knows next to nothing about how he'll take the club forward and wants to buy in on the cheap" or "the Well Society board, comprised of volunteers, needs to come up with ideas on how to finance a Premier League football club."

29 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

I note on the MFC website Tom Feely is now the Chair of the WS.

I am concerned about the polarising effect this is having on the WS membership. Contrary views are healthy but similar to the WS board I envisage a drop in membership levels after this. 

Tom Feely should have joined Douglas Dickie in resigning, given his position on accepting Barmack's offer and expressing his personal views at the club board level rather than representing the organisation that secured him that seat. The notion of him being Chairman of the Well Society board is utterly laughable.

[rowsdower]

For me, there are some factors that we cannot control outside of an investment I'm the tens of millions (or maybe hundreds of millions). If the idea of success is challenging at the top of the league and winning cups, then it's a pipe dream that we can attract the investment and expertise to achieve that on a regular basis.

We aren't going to compete with 2 clubs that get 50k plus in the door each home game and have either an established history that drives that support, or are associated with an entity that had that. We are going to max out at under 10k in even the best scenarios, because we can't clone fans or hand out better paying jobs. Attracting interest in Motherwell from people outside of Scotland is a limited endeavor, and that buzz will die off. Getting most of Motherwell to support Motherwell is impossible enough.

The same goes for the city clubs, they pay multiples of what we do, for players that don't even get a game, and they still finish in the bottom six often.

For us to compete with Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen over the long term, we'd need to quadruple our wage bill, and hope we get every signing right. Then we would need to hope that we have the right manager to make them play well together, and that other teams don't improve too.

If the expectation is that we cement our place in the top flight, then you have to say that we have managed that with our current model. No amount of money is going to guarantee that since it's a sporting competition, and all but 3 of the clubs that finished above us have been relegated (some more than once) in the time we've been in the top flight.

I want a club to support that represents my home town and competes at the highest level in Scotland. I accept that through the nature of our game that we may get relegated at some point, but that's not something money is going to fix. I want my club to be well run, and to make the most of the resources it has, whether that's improving commercial revenue, bringing more fans through the gates, or trading players well. I don't think we need to give up control of our club to bring in someone to do that. We can do a better job of employing the right people and investing in the right things without actually selling the club.

Some of the stuff EB proposed (outside of weird match relocations) is stuff we should be doing anyway. Do we really need an outside investor to get a CRM up and running?

 

[ropy]

27 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Yeah? Don't see it, including after a refresh

Was he not co-chair and his co has gone 

[Wellwatcher]

22 minutes ago, rowsdower said:

For the sake of discussion, what do you mean by the status quo not working? What is your vision of sucess for the club under either proposal?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm genuinely interested in what people see as success, and what their expectations are of the club. I'll put my own in a separate post.

I think that the fact that the WS itself has identified 5 workstreams - communications, events, fundraising. governance and membership to improve the workings of the WS tells you that things need to be changed. Communications - how thw WS comunicates with its members and governance are particularly important to improve how the WS and Executive board are run.

[Wellwatcher]

21 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

 

https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/club/well-society/well-society-board/

[Vietnam91]

Just now, Wellwatcher said:

https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/club/well-society/well-society-board/

Apologies, I would have assumed the chair of the majority shareholder would have merited an announcement rather than slipped in under the radar.

The King is dead, long live the King!