Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Vietnam91]

2 hours ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

I think it was @Vietnam91who made the analogy that it just becomes like voluntarily paying more for your season ticket.

Simply put a £10 per month subscription is a 30% levy on your season ticket cost (if you're in the Hunter). £520 a season starts to move us towards OF territory. For what exactly? Put perfectly above .... working class people, many with limited means to fund a millionaire's plaything and grow its value all to his benefit. Does anyone seriously think if we get to year six the equity value cited today of just under £4m will be the same? Like everything associated with Erik it's sprinkled with the pixie dust of high optimism. Anything the WS highlight is covered in a layer of pessimism. It would be comical if it wasn't so overt and transparent.

We bought out one rich guy only to need the help of another that we then paid off, to be run by a third who's disdain for fan ownership is palpable to find him crowbarring in a 4th rich guy that we'll foot the bill for at some point because we'll still be wanting a club to be part of our community in 10 years and beyond.

Does everyone forget the mantra rhymed out by Leeann back in 2011? We won't be held by the whims of an individual.

As present many join and contribute because they get the building the reserve thing. Remove that and any payments to the WS are essentially nothing more than another revenue stream like programmes, pitchside advertising and pies.

This scheme banks on gullibility, heads being turned citing flashy names with a good sprinkle of hope. I told him way back not to treat us like hicks and then I see that club announcement where he assumed we were hicks. This scheme is so egregious it boils my piss only which is only matched by the sycophants in our support making excuses for it.

Edited Thursday at 00:55 by Vietnam91

[Handsome_Devil]

7 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

This scheme banks on gullibility, heads being turned citing flashy names with a good sprinkle of hope. I told him way back not to treat us like hicks and then I see that club announcement where he assumed we were hicks. This scheme is so egregious it boils my piss only which is only matched by the sycophants in our support making excuses for it.

I've taken a few hours to digest the reports from last night and it's still hard to fathom.

I appreciate people can only report on what they heard but was any of the following covered:

Why is Feely still Society chair when he supports ending fan ownership?

Why is Dickie still on the club board with his Society mandate?

What's the rationale of the Society board for indulging the executive in this farce and not just replacing them? 

Edited Thursday at 06:25 by Handsome_Devil

[MurrayWell]

I look forward to the club's "happy retirement" tweet in 12 years. 

Edited Thursday at 07:34 by MurrayWell

[Cedrics Mighty Well Army]

Jings! It's going to be hard not laugh at Farty Whistle's keeper at the end of this month.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

51 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

I look forward to the club's "happy retirement" tweet in 12 years. 

Kettlewell must absolutely tan the paracetamol if this gives him a headache.

[capt_oats]

5 minutes ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

Kettlewell must absolutely tan the paracetamol if this gives him a headache.

In fairness Burns is QTing an old Tweet at a point where SOD hadn't been announced as having extended nor Koutroumbis having been signed.

That said, I'm sure it was the mildest of headaches. 

[Vietnam91]

Heard Koutroumbis is out for a good while so probably the reason behind it.

[Ron Aldo]

9 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Heard Koutroumbis is out for a good while so probably the reason behind it.

[Swello]

10 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

As present many join and contribute because they get the building the reserve thing. Remove that and any payments to the WS are essentially nothing more than another revenue stream like programmes, pitchside advertising and pies.

I think this is a simple message that the WS should be highlighting in the run up to the vote. 

The WS simply can't be a major investor and safety net at the same time - and in a situation where enough people cancel their DD's, it can't be either.

[Busta Nut]

2 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I've taken a few hours to digest the reports from last night and it's still hard to fathom.

I appreciate people can only report on what they heard but was any of the following covered:

Why is Feely still Society chair when he supports ending fan ownership?

Why is Dickie still on the club board with his Society mandate?

What's the rationale of the Society board for indulging the executive in this farce and not just replacing them? 

I wasn't with Feeley the whole time ( it was done in wee pockets with board members all chatting to groups) But towards the end I was. I had a few pokes at him for voting against the WS but I don't think these things were directly asked. I think it all fits into @StAndrew7's Civil war comments anaw.

Get this voted down. Deal with it after. 

[Swello]

11 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

I wasn't with Feeley the whole time ( it was done in wee pockets with board members all chatting to groups) But towards the end I was. I had a few pokes at him for voting against the WS but I don't think these things were directly asked. I think it all fits into @StAndrew7's Civil war comments anaw.

Get this voted down. Deal with it after. 

Totally this - if we don't want all this stuff to leave a bad legacy amongst supporters - it should be dealt with properly after the vote, not some personal vandetta during it.

WS members get to elect our board - and I would imagine that will be the time we get to take a view on how things have been done - and the WS will be looking at the makeup of the club board in due course, which is also fine by me.

I would take my lead from how the remaining members of the WS board have conducted themselves so far.

Edited Thursday at 09:24 by Swello
I didn't know "vandetta" was a P&B autocorrect

[Wellwatcher]

Are they having any more WS surgeries?

[Vietnam91]

4 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

Are they having any more WS surgeries?

By zoom, you can request a time and a date.

[Busta Nut]

Also will take any questions by email

[Handsome_Devil]

35 minutes ago, Swello said:

Totally this - if we don't want all this stuff to leave a bad legacy amongst supporters - it should be dealt with properly after the vote, not some personal vandetta during it.

WS members get to elect our board - and I would imagine that will be the time we get to take a view on how things have been done - and the WS will be looking at the makeup of the club board in due course, which is also fine by me.

 

I would take my lead from how the remaining members of the WS board have conducted themselves so far.

Aye, I'm not looking to start a witch-hunt (yet :-)) but leaving people in office where rightly or wrongly they will still have influence when in any normal governance situation they'd be gone, doesn't sit right with me. Our lack of dull, boring, paranoid, regulation is partly why we're in this mess so trusting now that there will be no underhand stuff seems risky.

The Society board have obviously decided to do it this way, and I'm entirely happy to back them on that despite my own reservations...I'm just curious as to their logic having weighed the pros and cons.

[ropy]

When all of this goes away and McMahon eventually steps down are there obvious candidates for a future chairman position? (Is Dickie expecting the call?).

[steelmen]

6 minutes ago, ropy said:

When all of this goes away and McMahon eventually steps down are there obvious candidates for a future chairman position? (Is Dickie expecting the call?).

Eric Barmack.... 

[Handsome_Devil]

4 minutes ago, ropy said:

When all of this goes away and McMahon eventually steps down are there obvious candidates for a future chairman position? (Is Dickie expecting the call?).

From what I was told, he seemed the likely man, yes. I suspect he can forget that invite now mind.

I've absolutely no idea who will do it or fill the other spots on the executive for that matter. I assume the Society will have some vague ideas already but the broad structure of how we want the governance to look needs to be confirmed before going into the details of specific names. As a total shot in the dark hunch, I wonder if the strategic partner who will supposedly come on in October might be one of them but we will see.

I think the Society board will be easier to restock now after this episode has shaken things up a bit - there's certainly a handful of folk on here who give the impression they'd be strong additions in terms of analysis and vision but whether they would feel they have sufficient expertise in the concrete fields needed obviously a different matter. But overall I don't see that bit being a problem.

[camer0n_mcd]

#NumberPolis

 

[StAndrew7]

39 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Aye, I'm not looking to start a witch-hunt (yet :-)) but leaving people in office where rightly or wrongly they will still have influence when in any normal governance situation they'd be gone, doesn't sit right with me. Our lack of dull, boring, paranoid, regulation is partly why we're in this mess so trusting now that there will be no underhand stuff seems risky.

The Society board have obviously decided to do it this way, and I'm entirely happy to back them on that despite my own reservations...I'm just curious as to their logic having weighed the pros and cons.

I think this goes back to my comments yesterday as @Busta Nut has mentioned already; there is a real need to avoid this turning into an all out civil war/messy fight for the club.

I think letting this run its course essentially sorts this all out without the need to go that far, either way:

1) Barmack (and the Executive Board)'s proposal is rejected and nothing moves forward. The Executive Board have hoist themselves on their own petard and have no choice but to tender their resignations, without the need to call for an Extraordinary General Meeting. The Well Society then appoint a new Chairman, Exec Board representatives and progress with their plan.

2) Barmack's proposal is voted through; the current WS Board resigns en-mass, aside from Tom Feely. The organisation needs to rebuild itself and those in support of EB's proposal have to step up to the mark. The Executive Board will be restructured, with Erik as Chairman, his two additional members and then two new WS representatives.

Now; I think this is all dependent on either of these options being voted through with a healthy majority in favour of either; a pyrrhic victory for either side causes problems and divisions within the fans and Club. This is also ignoring how the remaining private shareholders vote. I know it's a smaller percentage, and about 4 or 5 people hold around 15-20% of the 26% or so that's left, but there's still a presence there which represents a significant number of individual fans, some of whom aren't Society members.

For example, a 52/48 split in either direction in the Society vote would lead to some pretty unhappy groups of fans. It could also lead to, for argument's sake, an outgoing chairman trying to cling to power "because it's clear some people want change" or something, despite having lost the vote.

That's when things get messy, and you'd be looking at an EGM being called to remove him and the Exec Board members who aren't employees who backed it.

Also, if I were Barmack, if he wins with a split fan base (so say the Society vote is split closely) and a significant number of private shareholders oppose him; I wouldn't want to take effective control of a Club where he'll be greeted by jeers, boos and protests every time he comes over and visits.

Edited Thursday at 10:44 by StAndrew7