Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[KirkySuperSub]

2 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

You should still be allowed to click on it and read it AFAIK.

Since Elon took over, that doesn't work.

[camer0n_mcd]

20 minutes ago, KirkySuperSub said:

Since Elon took over, that doesn't work.

Edited Tuesday at 21:57 by camer0n_mcd

[Vietnam91]

If anyone wants a grounding, watch the hustings video from October 2023.

 

The hollow words not only by the two resigned members but one of the biggest critics over on Facebook. If you ever needed to see something to galvanise the fact that we got 6 of the right people on the board back then, this is it.

[rowsdower]

From the outside it looks like we had a few on the WS board who liked to be on it to get out the house and pick up a couple of perks, but then shat the bed when some folk with energy and competence joined and suddenly they were expected to do stuff, including such revolutionary concepts such as setting goals and being accountable.

I would like to formally revoke any benefit of the doubt I afforded McMahon during his tenure, absolute bellend.

Also, I see the news of our new strip got to Cincinnati

 

[Well Fan]

This whole thing is totally shambolic and is going to split this Club!

One man on the executive board is hell bent on facilitating this, with the assistance of a few. 

They control the narrative and as such, misinform the masses.

Not one of them has raised their head above the parapet. Instead, cowering behind legal processes and misinformation. 

"Let that sink in for a minute."

Let's realign collectively, new members, new boards and move on stronger as one. 

 

Club before executive board egos. 

Motherwell FC  est 1886.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:20 by Well Fan

[eliphas]

8 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

If anyone wants a grounding, watch the hustings video from October 2023.

 

The hollow words not only by the two resigned members but one of the biggest critics over on Facebook. If you ever needed to see something to galvanise the fact that we got 6 of the right people on the board back then, this is it.

 

As a WS member, I didn't even know that existed. Thanks for posting.

Edit: Thought it was a different video at first. I did know about that one. Too early clearly for me 

Edited Wednesday at 06:13 by eliphas

[capt_oats]

9 hours ago, camer0n_mcd said:

That's a great thread from Sean and it's a message that really needs to be out there.

There's actually a tweet missing and again, it seems that concerns from a WS board member were simply dismissed.

Which is wild (but unsurprising) considering what it was he was actually wanting to do. "Showcase how continued fan ownership could bring success"...can't be having that:

[dinnae-punt-it]

Genuine question, is there anyone on the Well Society board that have the business skills to run the club? The reason I ask is because at least Erik Barmack has a track record of managing companies. If The Well Society are serious about presenting an alternative, they need to have people with a track record of running businesses involved or it risks being a bit of a mess too.  It feels like a bit of a Scottish trait to criticise without having a viable alternative. I’ve not decided how I’ll vote yet, but most of the criticisms levelled at the Executive Board and Erik Barmack could also be levelled at The Well Society. This is where it feels a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas when it comes to asking 3500 to vote on stuff they don’t really understand. I know this is putting my head above the parapet, but I feel it is worth saying. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:47 by dinnae-punt-it

[StAndrew7]

13 minutes ago, dinnae-punt-it said:

Genuine question, is there anyone on the Well Society board that have the business skills to run the club? The reason I ask is because at least Erik Barmack has a track record of managing companies. If The Well Society are serious about presenting an alternative, they need to have people with a track record of running businesses involved or it risks being a bit of a mess too.  It feels like a bit of a Scottish trait to criticise without having a viable alternative. I’ve not decided how I’ll vote yet, but most of the criticisms lacked at the Executive Board and Erik Barmack could also be labelled at The Well Society. This is where it feels a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas when it comes to asking 3500 to vote on stuff they don’t really understand. I know this is putting my head above the parapet, but I feel it is worth saying. 

I'm not having a go at you here but this is exactly the kind of narrative which needs to be clarified:

The Well Society are nothing to do with the day to day running of the Club, nor should they be. Erik Barmack wouldn't be when he's Chairman, either. That will (rightly) be down to the CEO, Finance Director and the Executive Board. The WS' plan, as far as I understand it, is an alternative proposal to the investment as it currently stands; ways and means of increasing revenue, sponsorship and other income into the club. It's not the role of a majority shareholder to run the day-to-day of the Club. It's their job to provide strategic decision making, set the overall direction and let the suitably qualified and experienced people employed by the Club to do that.

Also, as far as I know/have heard, it has had appropriately skilled, experienced and committed people involved in its development.

I posted the text below over on Steelmenonline yesterday, I think the key point is the middle paragraph. We can't allow a narrative of this all being the WS' fault to remain; the Executive Board and Chairman have sat on this whole thing for years and done absolutely nothing about it. Investment/telling our story has been a pipe-dream of the Chairman's for the last 4/5 years and he's panicked when he's realised he's on his way out and tried to get something done.

The WS should remain as it is for me, essentially raising rainy day money up to a certain point (let's for argument say that's the magic £750k number, or round it up to £1m); once it reaches that total, anything over and above that raised can then go to the club as additional funds or as a soft loan etc. to add to transfer funds, or to cover loan costs and so on. Also, there's no reason that the WS can't start to use its membership more; there's thousands of people there; many of whom will have very good business acumen/skills and experience in areas which can support the Society with its targets and mission. It doesn't necessarily take a full time team to achieve that, with the right people in the right places. I do think that some sort of overall Secretary/Executive type role would be beneficial, to keep things ticking over and monitoring progress; although the existing governance structure would point to that being the Chairperson(s) of the WS Board.

I think there's been a bit of a mashing together of roles and responsibilities over the last few weeks/months and I think it's a narrative that's been driven forward by the Outgoing Chairman; the WS and its Board/Members aren't responsible for the day-to-day operations of the club and its ability to raise monies through investment, sponsorship or otherwise, nor should they be.

The fact that the Exec Board didn't appoint a CEO for well over a year shows that the ball was very much dropped; the kind of leadership the Club could have had over the last 18-24 months with someone in place would have changed our current situation drastically; we can't ignore that. Although, for the record, I think that Brian Caldwell is the right man for the job; i can remember one or two of the previous shortlist not exactly inspiring confidence.

It feels very much like a rewriting of the way the club has been allowed to drift unguided over the last 3 or 4 years (go and take a look at @Vietnam91 latest post to see the kind of Outgoing Chairman we have).

Edited Wednesday at 09:54 by StAndrew7

[capt_oats]

12 minutes ago, dinnae-punt-it said:

Genuine question, is there anyone on the Well Society board that have the business skills to run the club? The reason I ask is because at least Erik Barmack has a track record of managing companies. If The Well Society are serious about presenting an alternative, they need to have people with a track record of running businesses involved or it risks being a bit of a mess too.  It feels like a bit of a Scottish trait to criticise without having a viable alternative. I’ve not decided how I’ll vote yet, but most of the criticisms levelled at the Executive Board and Erik Barmack could also be levelled at The Well Society. This is where it feels a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas when it comes to asking 3500 to vote on stuff they don’t really understand. I know this is putting my head above the parapet, but I feel it is worth saying. 

I was away to reply but @StAndrew7's response above is miles better than anything I'd have written. So essentially, what they said.

What I would add is that there have now been spaces opened up on the WS board so there is the opportunity for someone who fits the profile you're talking about to be added to the mix - if they see fit.

It can't really be emphasised enough that the new WS board have barely had the chance to do anything as they've been backed into a corner by the Executive Board and seem to have been trying to constantly put out fires created exclusively by McMahon as he's tried to torch the entire thing and railroad this through.

[CoF]

 

14 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

It feels very much like a rewriting of the way the club has been allowed to drift unguided over the last 3 or 4 years (go and take a look at @Vietnam91 latest post to see the kind of Outgoing Chairman we have).

I’d still argue it’s the responsibility of  previous incarnations of the society board to tackle drift and underperformance of the executive board, no? It’s akin to a manager of an underperforming employee shrugging their shoulders and claiming it’s not their fault, when they have direct responsibility for that persons performance. 

I’m saying this as a society member who believes in fan ownership and is enthused by the new society board.  They’re obviously not to blame, and should be given time to put their stamp on things. 

[StAndrew7]

11 minutes ago, CoF said:

 

I’d still argue it’s the responsibility of  previous incarnations of the society board to tackle drift and underperformance of the executive board, no? It’s akin to a manager of an underperforming employee shrugging their shoulders and claiming it’s not their fault, when they have direct responsibility for that persons performance. 

I’m saying this as a society member who believes in fan ownership and is enthused by the new society board.  They’re obviously not to blame, and should be given time to put their stamp on things. 

I think that's totally fair, but bearing in mind a lot of the previous board(s) haven't really done much of anything other than keep things ticking along and giving their Auld Pal Jim money when it was required, you can understand why they wouldn't really be up for rocking the boat. You could probably argue the same re: drifting/lack of guidance over 3 or 4 years is exactly the same for the Society.

Edit: I think as well, when you look at the results we've posted over that period, things have clearly been going reasonably well from a financial standpoint. There's obviously been the poor comms at times as well as other fairly amateurish mistakes/dropping of the ball.

I think the last 3/4 weeks has really started to show how things haven't been working and it's taken the new WS Board and the investment debacle to bring it to light.

Edited Wednesday at 10:29 by StAndrew7

[Swello]

I think the fact that the newer WS board members are having to constantly apologise for the sins of the past while the long term members responsible have had the brass neck to vote on the exec board to kill fan ownership is fucking infuriating TBH.

Let's hear a similar communication to Sean's from Dickie or Feeley (who is still in place as our sole rep as far as I know) and explain what they did to increase funding or other initiatives over the long years they were there (the years that have made people form a particular opinion of the WS) - and why they have acted like they did.

 

[Handsome_Devil]

17 minutes ago, CoF said:

 

I’d still argue it’s the responsibility of  previous incarnations of the society board to tackle drift and underperformance of the executive board, no? It’s akin to a manager of an underperforming employee shrugging their shoulders and claiming it’s not their fault, when they have direct responsibility for that persons performance. 

I’m saying this as a society member who believes in fan ownership and is enthused by the new society board.  They’re obviously not to blame, and should be given time to put their stamp on things. 

That is entirely fair but it's where our appalling governance post the 'Alan will do it' era has left us severely fucked.

I don't really see how the Society board could/can effectively hold anyone to account when two members of a relatively small executive board are the Society co-chairs and long-standing board members. We're currently in the situation where Dickie has resigned his Society board position because he wanted to end fan ownership yet stays in the executive board as one of the Society nominees there.

So aye, I completely agree but we're getting into something which is complicated and needs time to fix...maybe everyone will have plenty time on their hands if we hand the club to Eric next month mind.

[ML4]

1 hour ago, dinnae-punt-it said:

Genuine question, is there anyone on the Well Society board that have the business skills to run the club? The reason I ask is because at least Erik Barmack has a track record of managing companies. If The Well Society are serious about presenting an alternative, they need to have people with a track record of running businesses involved or it risks being a bit of a mess too.  It feels like a bit of a Scottish trait to criticise without having a viable alternative. I’ve not decided how I’ll vote yet, but most of the criticisms levelled at the Executive Board and Erik Barmack could also be levelled at The Well Society. This is where it feels a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas when it comes to asking 3500 to vote on stuff they don’t really understand. I know this is putting my head above the parapet, but I feel it is worth saying. 

Like others have already said, it is down to the people running the club day-to-day to have that acumen. The role of the club and then Society board should be to set direction and hold them to it.

This line of questioning is being used to undermine fan ownership. Screw the nut and realise that the club has been well run under fan ownership when Alan and co were left to it. As soon as it was left to Jim, we went without a chief executive and then his negative mate did it part time for a bit. So no wonder it feels like the club is drifting.

Edited Wednesday at 10:50 by ML4

[YassinMoutaouakil]

"Marvin Johnson"

[MurrayWell]

1 minute ago, Handsome_Devil said:

That is entirely fair but it's where our appalling governance post the 'Alan will do it' era has left us severely fucked.

I think that's a huge part of it, folk who just either canny be arsed or only want the title rather than actually doing any work. The governance has been a joke.

Not having a go at anyone either, folk can only go on information that's been shared, but I think it could be argued and ultimately proven, with this ownership debacle a recent example, that the current executive board may not have the business acumen that they'd have folk believe.

This absolute rush job has so many red flags. Again if folk want to go for it then that's up to them, but I hope everyone really thinks about the potential long-term ramifications for the club if we enter into this. The narrative around it just doesn't make sense either, we're literally beating teams of similar sizes to players at the moment, all the while folk seem to be under the illusion that we're struggling as a business.

Some of the more alarming things I've seen posted online (not on here) is someone reckoning the extra £300k a year would help us 'consistently become the third force, then we take it from there' or words to that effect. Even if you're looking at this through a 'extra money coming in each year' lense and disregarding everything else that would be involved (ie what we'd be giving up), Aberdeen paid more than £500k for Miovski. So even if all of that cash went to playing squad, which you'd imagine it wouldn't, we'd be nowhere near competing with the big city clubs like Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen. 

The current executive board seem happy for people to follow this narrative. For clarity, I don't include Brian Caldwell in this criticism, he's just in the door and ultimately I think he'll be really good for the club and for fan ownership engagement, based on praise folk have already given him. 

[Vietnam91]

Serious question …. would a part time volunteer:

Let Max Johnston go out on loan in the last year of his contract?

Entertain a scheme like we have tabled?

Allow prospective investor to have a provision to mitigate their costs while the club and society spend a lot of money so far in legal fees and to administer the vote?

Allow people to spin 50.1% as fan ownership while overlooking that owner needs to secure 5 board votes out of 8 to carry any motion?

Advised at the 2024 AGM as they had every year there was a 750k funding gap in a 10th place, no cup runs, no player sales season, while knowing at that stage for 18 months that Sky were adding in £5m per year from August meaning 10th place gets an extra 250k in prize money?

Not involve a 5 year 8-figure deal with premier sports in any projections?

If the answer is no, then part time volunteers are the way forward.

Edited Wednesday at 12:23 by Vietnam91

[Cedrics Mighty Well Army]

When are the fixtures out? Today? Tomorrow?

Second game = Sevco @ Hampden. (Tories are placing bets on it. Allegedly.)

[camer0n_mcd]

3 minutes ago, Cedrics Mighty Well Army said:

When are the fixtures out? Today? Tomorrow?

Second game = Sevco @ Hampden. (Tories are placing bets on it. Allegedly.)

Tomorrow at 9 o'clock