Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[capt_oats]

2 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Another speculative punt...

I think there must be a decent chance that Erik feels he was sold a pup by McMahon/the executive and Dickie/Feely on how the WS/fans would react and has decided to sod it. He threw in the half baked proposal as seeing it through is less embarrassing than abandoning - he can post a 'well played, I admire your fan ownership principles etc, I'll always look out for Motherwell now regardless' statement on the 22nd and be done with us.

There's obviously time for this to change but missing the submission deadline, not working closely with the club (Caldwell and Lindsay would surely have been made available) on the pitch, not correcting false info, not flying over to see the fans (or even having a zoom), pulling back from this forum, no longer tweeting, not adjusting things after direct talks with the Society etc are perhaps all small individual things but they add up to give a strong impression of someone who is not massively committed to a win.

Will be very interested to see if he does interviews - presumably the BBC and the papers would love to have him - or a presser.

Amusingly if it is the case EB has semi-chucked it, it really does leave the EB standing in the middle of nowhere to a hilarious extent.

Time will tell.

See, I thought something similar when I noticed Barmack hadn’t posted on Twitter since the “plan” was published and I don’t think I’ve noticed him lurking in the recent users section at the bottom of the page.

Truth is it’s avoiding The Streisand Effect.

If he attempts to engage it just draws more attention and scrutiny to his ludicrous plan and insane numbers.

Equally, every time Jim McMahon has been let loose with the website login he’s managed to make things worse.

It really is the case that they’re better just shutting the f**k up and hoping that people are indeed fucking idiots.

Edited July 10 by capt_oats

[McFadden]

Been reading on here for a long time so thought I’d finally join up as it was pleasing to see so many have sense and rejected this investment proposal. McMahon’s statements have been disrespectful towards our fans and it’s disgusted me. 
 

On another note, did anyone take out a standing order on their season ticket this season and not had the payment come out this month? I visited the ticket office on 31st May to set it up and made a first payment but nothing has came out since… 

[MurrayWell]

Real theme of this saga has been scrutiny and questions around the details of the "plan" will not be welcomed. 

Anyone I've seen supporting it, and that's not been many in fairness, have simply stopped engaging when fair and justifiable questions around how EB's investment plan will be implemented, and how essentially using up funds to do so will in any way benefit the club, have been asked. 

 

Noticed Andrew Wilson avoiding those types of questions, following his ode to McMahon. At the risk of just repeating myself, have these 'businessmen' read the thing? Are they actually aware of what they are promoting here? Keep hearing "we won't be able to compete without investment" as a panicked attempt to persuade people that is this somehow good.

1. Even if you think this is somehow a good idea, it's been stated several times "investment" won't go to playing squad.

2. This actively uses funds designed to protect the club for everyday running costs, which is not good.

3. Saying no to this doesn't mean we can't look for other investment. That's such a key point that is deliberately being avoided by those pushing the Wild Sheep Investment narrative. 

[Swello]

16 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

Real theme of this saga has been scrutiny and questions around the details of the "plan" will not be welcomed. 

Anyone I've seen supporting it, and that's not been many in fairness, have simply stopped engaging when fair and justifiable questions around how EB's investment plan will be implemented, and how essentially using up funds to do so will in any way benefit the club, have been asked. 

 

Noticed Andrew Wilson avoiding those types of questions, following his ode to McMahon. At the risk of just repeating myself, have these 'businessmen' read the thing? Are they actually aware of what they are promoting here? Keep hearing "we won't be able to compete without investment" as a panicked attempt to persuade people that is this somehow good.

1. Even if you think this is somehow a good idea, it's been stated several times "investment" won't go to playing squad.

2. This actively uses funds designed to protect the club for everyday running costs, which is not good.

3. Saying no to this doesn't mean we can't look for other investment. That's such a key point that is deliberately being avoided by those pushing the Wild Sheep Investment narrative. 

I noticed that Andrew Wilson got unusually tetchy on twitter because someone insinuated that it was only Jim's mates sticking up for the deal.

[Dosser1886]

12 minutes ago, Swello said:

I noticed that Andrew Wilson got unusually tetchy on twitter because someone insinuated that it was only Jim's mates sticking up for the deal.

As stated previously, Andrew Wilson is a fud.

[ropy]

I think Erik said that if he fails he would join the WS and support us from afar.  There is room on the WS board for a man with ideas that could be taken forward collaboratively.

I intended holding on to my vote(s) until the second week to help seal the deal on the rejection, but I lasted to Tuesday.

[Busta Nut]

11 minutes ago, ropy said:

I think Erik said that if he fails he would join the WS and support us from afar.  There is room on the WS board for a man with ideas that could be taken forward collaboratively.

No thanks to him being on the board. He's a mentalist. 

[capt_oats]

30 minutes ago, Swello said:

I noticed that Andrew Wilson got unusually tetchy on twitter because someone insinuated that it was only Jim's mates sticking up for the deal.

Aye.

That thread had a weird energy as I don't think what was being suggested was in any way wide of the mark or out of line. The rationale of his defence also implied that he hasn't actually read the Barmack proposal as others went on to point out (which he didn't engage with although as @MurrayWell has mentioned that seems to be how this goes).

Him saying that the position of the current Executive is untenable was of note but McMahon's indicated he's stepping down anyway so...duh.

I suppose it's interesting if he's of the opinion that neither Dickie or Feeley can't stick around. I mean, it seems obvious given the state of play at the moment is very much this:

but still...

Edited July 10 by capt_oats

[ropy]

I would like to think that the Well Society will come out of this with more credibility, more members and higher subscriptions.

Perhaps the pain has been worth it. 

[Dan Electro]

4 hours ago, capt_oats said:

 

Which is kind of it in a nutshell and it's a theme that's been consistent through all McMahon's comms. This other stuff won't happen because it wasn't/isn't our intention.

I lived and worked in China for 4.5 years, and, every working day, at least once, i used the phrase:

I think there's been a misunderstanding.

However, McMahon and the others, are, essentially, culturally similar to the vast majority of our fanbase.

Not, culturally very difficult, and, geographically 10,000 km away.....

[Dan Electro]

3 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Not had an Overkill video linked for a day or two, boiz. Please rectify this. 

Shamelessly NSFW and contains explicit language.....

If the link doesn't work, I physically own the vinyl, and, the catalogue number is 12 FLAG 104. Clearly directed at someone.....

[Busta Nut]

Would this Barmack character pass the SFA ownership regs? I don't imagine they are too stringent anyway. 

[Swello]

35 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Him saying that the position of the current Executive is untenable was of note but McMahon's indicated he's stepping down anyway so...duh.

The thing I found pretty disingenuous (and consistent with so much of what we've heard from the "accept" side of this) - was he basically said if we don't accept this  deal, it's basically the WS's mess to clean up ("critics need to be ready to take over").  "We break it, you fix it" seems to be the attitude of many that want to see the deal go through and I can't get my head around that honestly.

[dezz]

48 minutes ago, ropy said:

I would like to think that the Well Society will come out of this with more credibility, more members and higher subscriptions.

Perhaps the pain has been worth it. 

4D chess from the Society IMO.

Barmack is actually a AI generated character (á la Reform UK) devised by @JayMFC to make folk realise the WS is the way forward.

Edited July 10 by dezz

[Vietnam91]

2 hours ago, Swello said:

I think if the WS board knew about the ensuing Hurricane of Pish (to steal a phrase from The Thick of It) - putting that question to the membership wouldn't have happened or would have been phrased very differently.

Perhaps, but Erik came to the table with an upper limit of £2m and tired to get as much he could for it and then some. He wanted much more on day 1 too. The WS loan of 868k he wanted forgiven entirely when we started speaking and was adamant it needed gone. The fact the club entertained, facilitated and subsequently justified is why we're where we are.

This does open up questions on thresholds to public votes and imposing them. The WS membership need to understand the board is there to sift through the details on our behalf and via a democratic process advance a view, it is not possible for them to share sensitive information to 3,000 adult members at a prospective level. It is the WS board meetings where those who also sit on the club board can advance their views and make an argument to persuade. If they find those opinions are still in the minority then that should still be respected when representing the WS at club board level.

Everyone rocking up at FP with a business plan does not earn the right to a vote, it has to be earned. The club knocked by six other entities that were interested. So precedent of a veto exists.

However, if the WS did deny the vote then we know the outraged on Twitter and Facebook would be demanding blood and their voices heard. Ironically, that same cohort who are nowhere near as vociferous today in their defence of Wild Sheep as they were only a week ago.

I'll admit I've never got on the Twitter bus and find it so hard to navigate with side conversations sprouting off from a six tweet post. However the Andrew Wilson stuff is interesting. In all his time on the club board, if he can ascertain he never heard McMahon on or off the record utter a disparaging term or questioned the ability, effectiveness or motives of the WS board then fair play. I doubt it, but fair play.

There has to be a realisation that the WS were sidelined not due inaction or inability but through design. For years having a WS board comprised of people not willing to rock the boat, many co-opted and not elected and the only times they were motivated to do anything was to roadblock progression and transparency.

In one of my first posts I thanked Jay & Derek for diligently putting things into place, armed logic and doing the right thing have ensured we are where we are today. Without these would be very different times.

Relying on "Motherwell men" is a far cry from the reality of elevating "yes men".

[Squonk]

6 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

Would this Barmack character pass the SFA ownership regs? I don't imagine they are too stringent anyway. 

'Glib and shameless liar' Dave King was deemed suitable, so Barmack wouldn't have a problem.

Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe would sail through the SFA's less than rigorous 'fit and proper' test.

[Handsome_Devil]

19 minutes ago, Swello said:

The thing I found pretty disingenuous (and consistent with so much of what we've heard from the "accept" side of this) - was he basically said if we don't accept this  deal, it's basically the WS's mess to clean up ("critics need to be ready to take over").  "We break it, you fix it" seems to be the attitude of many that want to see the deal go through and I can't get my head around that honestly.

I actually find that one of the few reasonable points made - not in a snide way, it's simply fact that to run properly we'll need 8-12 on the Society board, six for the executive along with the the two club guys, various specialists and various volunteers willing to do donkey work. That's a lot for a fanbase our size.

They obviously don't need dozens of names by July 23 but it does need thought through. And while I've no doubt we'll get them now, with all the enthusiasm of hopefully winning the vote, that's a number we need to maintain indefinitely.

Perhaps defining the roles would help - some energetic youth driving us is wonderful but the older or retired providing oversight and consultation is not without value just because of the recent behaviour of three from that category!

Much has been made of the Society members or broader support stepping up financially at various times, for me that's never been the (biggest) problem - collectively we need to step up with time and effort. Edit to add easy for me to say from hundreds of miles away...

We're going to need to step up fundraising, totally revisit governance of the club, society and the relationship between the two, find and engage strategic partnerships, set expectations and targets for Caldwell to do the daily business and god knows what else on top.

Currently everyone is fired up and full of adrenaline for war mode...I suspect there'll come a time when pre-July 23 was considered easy.

And as much as I'm firmly on the side of reject, I do hope everyone is aware there's no status quo and some consequences of winning.

Edited July 10 by Handsome_Devil

['WellDel]

10 minutes ago, Squonk said:

Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe would sail through the SFA's less than rigorous 'fit and proper' test.

That sounds like a far more dynamic and trustworthy bunch of lads. I'd put an 'X' in their box over Barmack and the current lot.

 

Edited July 10 by 'WellDel

[Dan Electro]

29 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I actually find that one of the few reasonable points made - not in a snide way, it's simply fact that to run properly we'll need 8-12 on the Society board, six for the executive along with the the two club guys, various specialists and various volunteers willing to do donkey work. That's a lot for a fanbase our size.

They obviously don't need dozens of names by July 23 but it does need thought through. And while I've no doubt we'll get them now, with all the enthusiasm of hopefully winning the vote, that's a number we need to maintain indefinitely.

Perhaps defining the roles would help - some energetic youth driving us is wonderful but the older or retired providing oversight and consultation is not without value just because of the recent behaviour of three from that category!

 

When the WS was launched, I didn't sign up, for a variety of reasons. Pompous wankers on Steelmen Online was one of them. [Inserts deeply ashamed emoji]

As 

has proven to, so far, to have succeeded, should we win, I'll definitely join. 

As mentioned upthread, I'm coming towards the end of my full time working career. In terms of footballing nations, have lived and worked in seven, including Switzerland, China and Singapore outside the British Isles.

Have an interesting idea to grow our brand in Asia, which I've mooted to a couple on here. For July  22nd/23rd onwards, of course.

So, the good guys absolutely have to win in order to onboard me.

 

Edited July 10 by Dan Electro
January to July

[capt_oats]

Mental that we're going to sell him for £1m next.

But here we are...