All Activity

How? Genuine question. Do you mean by asking people to raise subs or asking local businesses to invest? I just think there's too much uncertainty around everything at the moment. Surely if the well society are going to put a proposal together then members and fans should know. All I am seeing at the moment is tweets about how great fan ownership is and not a lot more. All there is is speculation at the moment. It would actually be good to know what the offer from the American investor was/is.

Playing as a wing back Nicholson put in more decent crosses than Gent did on the day. Defensively limited as you say but I do recall him winning a few balls in his own area first half and he stopped a certain goal late by tracking back in the second half. I was more worried about Bevis defensively than Nicholson. And teams always attack both our wide areas. Be it Gent, Sod or anyone else playing wing back. Sunday was no different. Not that I see Nicholson as the answer.

Are you not listening to me?? 😂

Agreed. Starting him as a defensive full back or deep lying midfielder to ping passes is the only real option. Whatever we do with him, he absolutely needs a player with pace/energy beside him.

Agree. Not mobile enough for that. Halliday need to be used to sit in the middle of the park add a bit of composure and spray passes around.

I get what you're saying but I think I slightly disagree with your last statement. I do think that the WS can raise funds more effectively than it has in the past and that the new board deserve their chance to prove they can provide a sustainable vision for fan ownership in its current guise. The issue is that it's been talked about for a long time without much of anything coming of it so far. Also, if we sell Miller for the expected value (most would think in the region of what, £3m+ for him if not more?) and also Bair for a decent wedge, I think we'll be able to achieve that increase as well, which will hopefully bring a sustained period of higher prize money to continue to invest in the first team whilst also swelling the reserves/coffers a bit.

If we're looking for someone to replicate what Gent did for us, Halliday's not the man.

Yeah possibly. Don't see him failing a medical though unless he's picked up a significant injury none of us know about.

Nicholson was quickly identified as the area for St Johnstone to attack; he's not a defender and it didn't surprise me that both goals came directly from that side of the pitch. Granted, the second one is a(nother) defensive howler but the initial move was down that side, too.

I really agree with you here. We can't ask for Motherwell to be top six on a regular basis and have a good cup run with the funds we currently have. If we want to progress we need more investment. I've seen it said online this season that this Motherwell team are the worst they've ever seen. If we want better players then the manager needs more money to spend. I just don't see how we can do that without outside investment

I would imagine so, yes; they could well be treated as two different contracts and require a medical at the start of each, though. They'll (probably?) have different structures, given one's a loan and the other is a potential permanent deal.

I reckon Halliday would do a job LWB. He can pass and cross the ball well and got a decent strike on him. Gent has been very good so will be tough to replace

I was too lazy to do that

I’m the same. Neither option really captures how i feel. I’m sort of neutral neither “satisfied” or “not satisfied”

I'd say that's more like "Uber Doomsday: Return of the Horsemen". But more seriously, I completely agree; I am absolutely against giving away majority control to anyone, despite what guarantees they provide or the levels of investment offered (unless it's truly transformational). But that's kind of my point though; we don't know if that's what is going to be tabled, or perhaps it has been and ongoing discussions mean that it hasn't? The gap can happen to us whoever is in control; granted, I don't think it's particularly likely given how well runTM we are, but shit can, and indeed does happen.

I don’t think we can survive at premier league level relying on being fan owned club, unless the WS can come up with some ingenious plan where it can raise significant funds on a guaranteed basis. So hopefully we can find an investor on suitable terms. I appreciate WS efforts at fund raising and every little helps but I just don’t think it will be enough to help us compete against other clubs who have more investment. Even our model of being a selling club is pretty dodgy as we could hit a dry spell with respect to having and sellable players.

I think that's a different situation tbh. Halliday has been playing for us since January. Foujat wasn't playing for Celtic before he was about to sign. Surely Halliday would have gone through a medical before he signed on for his loan spell?

This excerpt from the Herald article may clarify matters "Clubs tend to protect themselves by insisting the player must pass a medical on the day his contract begins, a clause that allowed Celtic to cancel the transfer of Jaroslaw Fojut last summer after the Pole sustained a knee injury."

Disagree with Casey being a bombscare feel far more confident when he's in cb compared to the the other then again that's not saying much.

For me, the real doomsday scenario is us handing control of the club to someone because they've offered to throw us a few quid and a suggestion of a documentary, only for them to change their mind and decide they don't want to cover said hole that needs plugged. At least as things are now, there's an element of transparency. If and when someone else takes majority control, they don't need to tell us anything if they don't want to, because it would be their club, not ours.

The Foujat case was different though. He was injured before he played for Celtic and that's why the PCA was ripped up. I don't see us putting Halliday through a medical when he's already played for us. I can't read the article. It's behind a pay wall for me.

Integrity and transparency. It'll never catch on.

I think if people/fans are going to want to compete for top-6, realistically there needs to be an increase (not necessarily an immediate one) in how much the club can put into the first team. The only way that's going to come is from one of, or a combination of the following: Selling Lennon Miller for £eleventy billion, Asking for the WS/its membership to raise more money to inject into the club periodically, Asking existing private shareholders to invest, Seeking outside investment Otherwise, we'll all need to accept a drop off in our ability to sign players of a calibre that we've become accustomed to and that it will impact on the product on the pitch and, potentially at least, our top-flight status.

Not only that, but we'd likely be viewed in a negative light by other clubs and players, which could affect future player business. I mean, imagine how we'd feel if he'd come in on loan under the same agreement to sign for next season and he'd been a revelation, running our midfield and looking amazing, only to get to the summer and say, "Actually, I've had a few better offers elsewhere now after my late-season showing, so I'm just gonna cancel this deal with you guys and bugger off." It works both ways. If we've made a commitment to the player, we need to honour it.

Exactly this. And the media did not mention a formal PCA either, as they did with Spittal and others. Time will tell I guess.