All Activity

that ignores the fact , irrespective of league position nearly every year where we've not had a good cup run , semis at least, or transfer fees, the club incurs losses. Finishing in the top 4 also costs money because there are far more win bonuses to be paid. If new money is not forth coming or we don't get decent transfer fees each year the cost / budget to finish tenth a few cup games gets more expensive each year because operating costs and salary expectations increase each year. That budget for tenth and a few cup games also excludes the cost of punting a manager if we hit dire straights. I've said before the fan model is perfectly workable but without new money the level at which the club operates year on year gets harder to sustain when variable income streams do not materialise. Its basic economics. If revenue streams don't increase and costs do something has to give. Sure its not a worry as long as we get cup run money and transfer fees none of which are any way guaranteed. People can disagree but to me we do operate a bit on a a wing and a hope in terms of expected income.

Couldn't afford his wages and too many injuries in recent years

A player I think we could look to bring in on a free transfer is Ryan Jack Very unlikely we sign him tho

Great post. I would think that we have brought in more money from selling and moving on players over the last few years than most other clubs outside the old firm.

The player sales model debate is an interesting one. For me, it's not a precarious model by any means. And I'd suggest that it demonstrably works. We're in a situation where the club doesn't urgently need outside investment - it would just be preferable. Our model ensures that it's unlikely that the hypothetical gap outlined in the Well Society's consultation earlier in the year, and the hypothetical gap that is the very reason for courting external investment in the first place, will, based on the experience of fan-ownership to date, materialise. It never has under fan-ownership and, even if it did, the Well Society has enough funding to cover that gap as a one-off. The issue would be if something that has yet to happen didn't just happen one year, but two in quick succession. Of course, nothing is impossible in football. Over the same time period that fan-owned Motherwell has remained in the division, reached cup finals, and made Europe, clubs with bigger resources such as Hearts, Hibernian and Dundee United have all been relegated. So it's a duty of the club to at least recognise that hypothetical gap and see if there's a more productive way to eradicate it, other than relying on the Well Society to plug it if it happens once, and then to probably slash our playing budget if it happens again in quick succession (before the Society has built up the safety net again). But in terms of our model, David Turnbull always gets picked out as a seeming "anomaly" but in reality, he's the result of an effective player sales model. Since fan-ownership came into being, we have - purely off the top of my head, so there'll probably be others I miss - sold, for cash, guys like Louis Moult, Cedric Kipre, Kevin van Keen, Sondre Solholm Johansen, James Scott & Ben Heneghan. We could have, had we tied them down on contracts, added Chris Cadden, Allan Campbell, Jake Hastie, Dean Cornelius & Max Johnston to that list. However, the compensation for each still numbers in the hundreds of thousands meaning that, collectively, that's still well over £1m. We will probably sell Theo Bair on for a relatively decent fee in the summer, January, or next summer, while at the same time, Lennon Miller will almost certainly go for a price that you could perhaps list alongside the Turnbull fee. In terms of any investment meaning a change from that model and the ability to keep our best players, I would argue that is incredibly unlikely, if not impossible. The player sales model is only partly because of a financial need, it's also largely because of the club's stature in world football. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it was confirmed at the AGM by the club that no investment offer is transformational, meaning that there would be no change to the model. In fact, you could argue that, if any investor was keen on getting a return on their investment, the player sales model could become even more important in that situation. The only way in which our model ceases to be our model that I can see is if we ended up with an incredibly unlikely Colin & Christine Weir scenario where a diehard Motherwell fan wins the Euromillions and wants to just chuck cash at the club. But even in that situation, where you don't necessarily need to sell players, players would still be sold - because the best guys will always want to move on to play at perceived bigger clubs or in better leagues, regardless of how much cash you're able to throw at them. The player sales model at Fir Park has been in place, and worked successfully, before fan-ownership, has worked under fan-ownership, and will continue to work regardless of whether the club is owned by the fans, an external investor, or a hybrid of the two. Personally, I think it's both a successful model that we should be positive about, because we're good at it, and a model that will be integral to the club whether we like it or not anyway.

We don't need to sell our best player to survive. Not if we're budgeting accordingly, and we're budgeting for that 10th place finish at worst. Selling our best players should result in some financial leeway and a cushion of sorts, the way the Turnbull money did.

Thank you. You'd never think I did accounts to degree level... My head is just full of criminology just now.. Thanks again

I don't think the club is run badly but as I've said before. I'd like to see us be in the situation where we didn't need to sell our best players to survive and thats why I'm open to outside investment

It's not precarious if the club is run correctly. We budget for finishing 10th and a few cup games, and anything else above & beyond that goes into the "rainy day" fund. Be it player sales, extended cup runs, top six finishes, whatever. For example, we're sitting 8th at the moment, and let's say that finishing in 8th means getting £1.375 million instead of the £1.250 million the team finishing 10th gets. That's an extra hundred grand or so that we didn't account for, so it's a little bonus.

Simplest way I can see it - if I’m correct - is at the moment the society owns 71% of the current shares (for easy calculations let’s call it 100 shares total and the society owns 71 of those with private shareholders owning the other 29) so if they issued another 39 shares making the total shares 139 then the society’s 71 shares would then be approximately 51% of the club shares instead of 71% at the moment and the existing private shareholders shareholding’s would drop to 21%. The new investor would then be given the new 39 shares in return for their investment giving them approximately 28% ownership of the club. Edit: I hope my sums are correct but since I left school 43 years ago (and it’s a Friday night) please forgive me if there not and don’t be too harsh on my.

I wasn't at the AGM.. So excuse me if all of the AGM talk means very little to me. And I'm not thick.. But all of this is way over my head.. Probably because I'm just a fan who turns up on match day and donates to the well society Maybe someone could explain it in simple terms

It's a natural progression to point to them, given that they're the ones who we're negotiating exclusively with right now. It was stated by the Chairman at the AGM that any of the potential investors discussed (including the "Americans" in this instance) would be making their investment in new shares i.e. diluting the value of existing shareholders' shares in the club to whatever level is agreed. As far as I'm aware it's the cleanest way for any investment to take place, as it removes the need for buying/selling of existing shares.

He was talking about the Americans in his post as in I presume the proposed investor. Surely that won't have been discussed at the AGM

Nope, direct from the AGM in this instance.

This is a quote from me and others, based on my report back on what was said the AGM. Jim McMahon said that any new investments will be made by the issuing of new shares not the purchase of existing ones. Now, that may well change based on the discussions but that's as good a source as we have right now. @steelboy is correct in what he's saying.

I've read that issuing new shares was discussed at the club AGM.

No. He doesn't. He's just repeating stuff from "sources".

Nope, he signed an extension till summer 2026

It’s extended to summer if 2026. That was done in Nov of last year. Tried To paste picture but file too large. You can google to confirm.

So you don't actually know

is lennon millers contract extension not up in summer 2025, if so he will go this summer.

He did. He's here until the summer or 2026, most likely to be sold next January or the summer of 2025 I would imagine.

Can only repeat what everyone else has said. Vale up top with Bair. He is a striker so why is SK playing him deeper. Gent fires in low crosses all the time but never any takers. Or is it worth starting Moses in central role and give him say 55 mins?

Just seen this quote from Richard Foster on the BBC website talking about us missing out on the top six and thought the bit about Aberdeen could come back to bite him on the arse next week. "When you're having to rely on other teams to do you a favour, it's never great. Especially when we were having to rely on Aberdeen to win at home. It's never going to help us.“

No I thought it was you behind the goals