All Activity

I take your point re gym membership but I think that is a totally different scenario. With gym membership you get the use of the facilities, equipment and a personal trainer to guide you along. So it costs the gym to have you as a member, for which they should be reimbursed. No question. And the more members the greater the cost. With the Society, how much does it cost them each week to retain a Member who has paid in a sizeable some over the years, but can no longer afford to contribute? The Society do have running costs but not tied directly to Member numbers as a gym, sports club etc. I do agree being an active Member should be reflected in some way though, in comparison to a non active Member.

The above has been a really useful debate. I hadnt fully considered the implications of stopping my direct debit as I was one of the original legacy members, so I would continue to have voting rights. I think a balance has to be struck somewhere between fairness to members who have contributed significantly and protecting the Society from any skullduggery. How about, all new members who contribute monthly will attain lifetime membership and voting rights once they reach the £300 legacy membership fee? That way, we move forward but are seen to do so in a fair and equitable manner.......

I can see the reasoning behind the proposed amendments, and Philip’s responses have helped clarify the membership status issue. Ultimately, a line does need to be drawn somewhere, and this seems like a fair and reasonable approach. We’ve got a great opportunity to move forward now and further add to the coffers.

I'm not a WS member and never will be but I fail to see what the issue is here, if you sign up for something you need to make the required financial contributions at whatever level you agree to maintain membership and benefits etc. If you don't you lose said membership and any benefits. If you take out a health club membership and then stop paying you can't really expect the club to say , don't worry just keep using our facilities etc, the WS is no different.

Not aimed at you but here my thoughts. I fully agree that something needs to be done to encourage people to invest regularly if they can afford it but I do have some issues with the proposals. Firstly rightly or wrongly the if you stop paying you lose the right to vote could be seen as a reprisal act on those who stopped paying last year after the (thankfully) rejected “investment” vote, which I hope it isn’t. Secondly as previously said some of the people losing their vote will have paid in more over the years than many of the initial one off payment people like myself who have since paid for season tickets (in my case for me and my daughter - £751 this year- and once she’s earning and can pay her own I will give to the society again as I do passionately believe in it). So as said above maybe a tapering of benefits is more appropriate ie loss of benefits over years 1&2 then loss of right to vote on board members in year 3 or 4 but leaving the right to vote on any major issues that effect the club if the total payments are in excess of £750 or membership has been 6 years or more. One potential way of getting people to pay regularly is by saying new members can get the benefits straight away but can only vote for board members after 1 full year’s membership and on major decisions effecting the club after a further 2 or 3 years. This final part would also hinder any potential future attempt to flood the society with new members to unduly influence a vote in some unforeseen circumstances.

I’ll certainly do that. Hardly needs much detail though. Decide on an amount and apply it. Fairly straightforward is it not? The Society maintains records of how much each member has contributed so it should be simple enough. As I said earlier. If you really want to distinguish between the two groups, simply remove from those that stop contributing some of the frills that attach to those that do contribute. Like training opportunities and hospitality draws. It really does come across like the Board are looking to punish those that stop contributing, even if for perfectly genuine financial reasons. Not a good look.

Please note the following from our consultation document, which is available in full here: How soon after stopping contributing will status be removed? If a member pauses or stops contributions, they will retain existing membership status for three months, giving them time to restart if needed. After that period, and if no contribution is resumed, membership status and associated voting rights will be removed except for legacy 1886-tier members, where applicable. I believe this to be fair and reasonable. If you are a Society member and believe there should be a change in policy to have a minimum amount to guarantee life membership then I'd be happy to look at a detailed proposal that could go to the membership in line with the process which we are going through currently. If you'd like to take forward do pop me across a DM.

Can you confirm the example I gave about Membership cancellation when contributions stop is accurate? And, if it is, that you consider that fair and reasonable. And you also avoided my suggestion of a minimum amount in total to guarantee life membership.

Being transferred is a bit different. I was talking more about the players that choose to move on rather than re-sign, like Hastie, McKinstry, McAlear etc.

Ah, OK - I just wasn't sure if I had missed something, as there was a lot to read. I was generally OK with the language in the harassment and bullying section, but I agree we don't want to be using that to avoid dissent. I also agree about members being stripped of membership. I don't see any reason that needs to happen.

@dennyc For those that joined on the original one-off payment system where members were advised that they would effectively be members for life on the basis of that payment. That is being honoured. This feels like the right thing to do and I believe in line with what was agreed all those years ago. For those that joined after the move to monthly contributions; we’re asking them to make a minimum contribution of £5 per month or £60 annually to maintain their membership of the Society. I would encourage you to vote ‘no’ if you do not agree with the proposed changes. I understand that the proposals will not be supported by all members. My hope would be that the Society and its members will continue to update and refine policies on a regular basis.

Welcome back Iain. Its been a long time but hope to see more of your posts as they're always worth reading.

Philip I think Brazilian has raised valid points. If my understanding is correct, someone who has contributed on a monthly basis will in time lose their Membership if personal circumstances change and they can no longer afford to continue payments. And please note the hardship many people are experiencing and which is likely to be made worse by the proposals currently before Parliament. As an example, will someone who has contributed £20 per month for 10 years (£2400 in total) be binned after 12 months non payment? But an original member who donated a much lesser lump sum (me) will retain Membership and all voting rights? Is that really what is being suggested as fair and reasonable? If that is what is being proposed then my vote will be 'No'. And every Member should follow suit as they could end up being the person dropped through no fault of their own. And regardless of how much they have contributed over the years. Who knows what is round the corner for any of us. By all means distinguish in some way between those contributing on an ongoing basis and those not, but removing Membership and voting rights is punitive. And it certainly is at odds with what agreed all those years ago. At the very least have a minimum level which when reached ( £300/£400?) guarantees Life Membership etc.

we've brought in McGhee and Fadinger who are both very decent quality players. If we continue to attract that calibre we'll be fine.

"I strongly disagree with the changes for adult members". Perfectly fine. "I strongly disagree with the changes for adult members, you bunch of twats". Probably not fine And... I've just deleted the paragraph I was typing about membership rights because Philip has just explained it so much better than I ever could.

Hello folks Thank you @Kmcalpin for starting off the discussion and drawing attention to the Society Consultation. Worth noting that voting will close at noon this Thursday. All Well Society members will receive a final reminder email tomorrow with a voting link. Whether you agree with the changes or not please do make the effort to vote. We are keen to ensure as many members as possible have their say. All eight of the proposal have been developed in consultation with our members. This process commenced in January 2024 through a series of member workshops which were open to all. We worked through communications, governance and membership. Earlier this year we conducted a four week consultation covering the changes to the membership benefits, adult membership definition, change to the Rules of Association and supporting policies, the introduction of a new funding policy and the members' code of conduct. We then had a further two week consultation for the major votes policy change. We made changes as a result of the feedback received on a number of aspects and pulled together responses to frequently asked questions. If I can pick up on @Brazilian's point on the proposed changes to adult membership definition specifically. Those who joined the Society before 21 May 2015 and as a result made a significant one-off contribution of £300 or more but are no longer contributing to the Society currently will retain membership at the 1886 tier as part of the proposal. The new 1886 membership tier includes a community share in the Well Society, a vote on Well Society matters, discounted Well Society event entry, access to the new mobile app and access to the members education course. The reason for that date specifically is a communication sent by the then board of The Well Society which moved Society policy to seek monthly pledges rather than one-off payments: To help achieve long-term financial stability for Motherwell FC and its vision of becoming the best community club in Scotland, we are asking all members to pledge money to the Well Society each month. Last month we sent an email to members seeking approval for a revised membership structure. We have received an overwhelming endorsement of the proposals and thank everyone who responded. The policy now is to seek ongoing monthly pledges by direct debit, similar to the Foundation of Hearts, replacing the system of initial membership payments and annual renewal fees. You can pay £10 a month, £20, £30 or as much as you are able. Your contributions will still be recognised in the form of benefits, based on an incremental scale. Most importantly, though, you will be investing in a sustainable financial future for your club, providing it with working capital as it moves towards a self-sufficient future with the help of Les Hutchison. It is true to say that the proposal for those who joined the Well Society after this date when the new policy commenced and are no longer making a minimum contribution of £5 per month or £60 annual will lose their membership status and voting rights. Thanks again folks. Philip

Hi weeyin , what is one person’s dissent is easily construed as bullying or harassment, but I get your point , but since the code of conduct isn’t published in its final form, there’s only a vote on introducing it that’s probably my concern, around it the initial draft was woefully off and offering some tweaks isn’t exactly confidence building but tbh I’m more concerned that adult members are going to be stripped of membership,

To be fair none of killies signings are ones I am bothered about, Tiffoney is decent but the rest nah

Slattery, Stamatelopoulous and Balmer cost more than St Mirren and Killie have spent in recent years combined.

To be fair there isn't one player that Killie have signed that I would take for us,livingston are another that are getting there signings done early and again I wouldn't have taking any of them for us.ive no idea about fadinger but I think mcghee will be a good signing for us and for me is probably the best of the lot that have swapped between premier league clubs.

I see language about harassment and bullying, but nothing about dissent. Is there a particular policy amendment where that is described?

Killie have signed about five players to date I think. We've signed no one. Wasn't expecting us to to be fair given our manager situation

St mirren and Killie will also be relying on the usual frees and loans,killies signings have been poor so far and liam donnolly going to st mirren isn't a great signing for them either.

Be not been active much around here but glad to see there is still some names I recognise and some subjects that are very important being discussed I’m dismayed that the new society board are trying to strip away the one member one vote rights that were very hotly debated over many sessions when the society was formed and when subsequently tweaked Vote subject #4 on adult membership definitions , will if voted in, ruin the society model for many If any adult member, who could have made significant contributions to making the society work, sees a change in circumstances and can no longer contribute for a period of time (1year) the change strips them of their membership, with no consideration or value given to their contribution that made the society into club owners it makes a mockery of the years of selling ‘join to Own Motherwell’ as it’s taking away that membership share in the society that makes adult members an owner, (timeshare memories anyone) it might possibly be measured as misselling as by paying up the adult membership to become a share holder in the society , they are now proposing, you will no longer be a member and have no share so no vote if you don’t pay annual fees, I can see some will possibly think that’s ok , but the society was founded by members money solicited to buy that one share one vote, if circumstances changed for members , all that was to be lost were the society ‘benefits’ and it was always agreed the membership share would be retained, allowing a member to hopefully resume contributions when circumstances changed for them. please read through the proposal and please Stop the change to adult membership definition change . I’m also very uncomfortable with the proposal to silence dissent, for a member led organisation, it seems like a step too far. please do vote , these changes are getting pushed through with little debate or discussion and on feedback from only a small fraction of the society membership

Lennon Miller will be in big trouble in three years time then.