Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/19/2024 in all areas

  1. There's a few details I think it's worth adding to this, particularly given some folks' concerns (on here and on P&B) re: asset stripping etc. The two bids that are furthest forward are: An American who "made his money in streaming" and now owns his own documentary company. His vision/strategy is to increase global exposure of the club and increase opportunities for further sponsorship, growing the fan-base and generating other revenue streams. An Aus/USA/Middle East group who are primarily looking to transform the recruitment side of the club and use more advanced data analytics, machine learning etc. to bring in players across the age-groups of the club to create a culture, style of playing etc. and sell them on for profit. Both parties have spoken with both the Club and Well Society Boards and at least one did it in person from what I picked up, although both may well have. Neither of the bids are philanthropic; they will be looking to make a return on their investment via their own business plans and strategy The investment will be made by buying shares, not in loans (like Hutchinson) or other guarantees that can be secured against the club; however these might be a special category of share that allows them to take some % of profits etc. (I missed the name of these) The share purchases will not be instant, nor will the investment be "transformational" straight away; one bid is proposing the WS go down to "around 50%" and another is wanting a controlling stake, but the % was not mentioned One of the groups would be looking to appoint their own CEO; "someone who played for Benfica and is running an Australian club" was mentioned (based on a quick Google, I believe that's this chap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaz_Patafta) Transfer fees recouped for players will remain within the club (I'm not sure how that will work with the second investor I mentioned; perhaps through their specific type of shares they'll be able to share profit rather than taking away directly from transfer fees) One of the reasons for the urgency/speed around this is that one of the parties wants to be involved in planning for next season; both are looking for exclusive negotiating positions There is still a long way to go with negotiations, analysis of club finances by parties, addition of potential clauses etc. still need to take place which will then result in a final offer The interested parties might come back based on the results of any vote of the WS membership and accept that a 51/49 split with WS retaining ownership could work for them and that would be part of their heads of terms/initial agreement with the club There is potential to negotiate with investors clauses etc. in the final proposal(s) that would allow the Well Society first refusal on any investor's shareholding, in the event they wish to sell their stake in the club so the club would return to being fan owned, should the Society have the necessary funds to purchase the shareholding Equally, a "No" from the WS re: the red line on majority fan ownership could will be enough for the two current front runners to back out In total there were 4/5 "serious" groups (of 8 who expressed interest) looking to invest in the club; I asked how those were progressing and the simple answer was "not as quickly as these two". At least on of the other parties are investing in other areas of sport (a golf team in LA was mentioned) and the board are trying to get to things developed without having to use a corporate finance consultant as far as possible. Another is an American who Derek Weir had spoken with, who was interested in developing an academy system in the US for developing players but not much more was said on that one. The Chairman did state last night that if this is something which does progress forward, he would absolutely propose bringing in experts in corporate finance to ensure nothing is missed in the minutiae that could come back to bite us. Also, we have interviewed 3 or 4 candidates for CEO by both Club and WS Boards. The issue we have is that with potential investment and at least one group looking to appoint their own, it's a difficult spot to be in. Normally this kind of appointment and negotiations for investment would, ideally, be years apart. So we run the risk of appointing a CEO who brings their own structures and ideas, to then potentially have them removed by any investor. The Well Society have asked for the opportunity to provide a strategy/plan that means they'll be more able to continue funding the club and any shortfalls and create a business / fundraising plan of their own for the club, along the lines of the investors. I also want to point out that Derek Weir stated that was his preferred option; that the Well Society is able to provide the funding required for the club to continue before difficult decisions (i.e. slashing playing budgets etc.) need to be made. Ultimately, the Society needs to be in a position in October to tell the accounts auditors that they have the funds available to support the club for 18 months; if not, that triggers a warning to the SPFL regarding our financial situation. Also, to be absolutely clear, the Board are in no way making recommendations to shareholders or the Society to go or not go for the investment from either party. That will be decided when bids are submitted and shareholders and WS members have their vote. They are exploring all their options to ensure the financial safeguarding of the club, which is their job as Directors. As I said above, that also includes the WS continuing in its current role and increasing its input to the club. Time, however, is of the essence. I would expect WS members to be polled/asked to vote in the coming days. Exactly how that will be put across is key and it'd be interesting to see what is sent out (I'm not a WS member, I have private shares in the club).
    15 points
  2. Turns out a professional football manager knew more about coaching players than random punters on a message board.
    11 points
  3. This is a really good question & one that's sparked my return from a long hiatus on here (although anyone who also peruses P&B will notice I started posting there a couple of weeks ago after years away too). As a member of the Well Society Board who has been elected & re-elected by Society members, I personally think there's an element of responsibility there in terms of safeguarding fan-ownership. It seems logical to assume that, if Society members have voted for you, they want you to try & grow the Society, champion the benefits of fan-ownership, and presumably subscribe to one of the key reasons used for fan-ownership in the first place - preventing the club from falling into the wrong hands. In terms of growing the Society, I feel like there is now a majority of like-minded individuals on the Board following the recent elections (that, in all honesty, previously just didn't exist to the same extent) who recognise the need for drastic improvements across the Society, ensuring greater transparency, far better communications, and a raft of other aspects. That work is very much underway and I think it's certain that the Society will see growth in membership & income in the coming months & beyond as a direct result - the ceiling of that is, of course, very much up for debate. But, genuinely, it's the most positive I've felt about fan-ownership this side of the pandemic. So, for me, the answers to the original question like this are really important - because if it is, in fact, the case that a majority of Well Society members would rather end fan-ownership, then that's something we would need to be guided by and, essentially, carry out - and it's something we will likely have to actually ask members sooner rather than later, to ensure that we're doing what they want us to do. For the avoidance of doubt, no investment happens in the football club without, firstly, the Well Society Board being involved in the discussions with interested parties and, secondly, a ballot of all Society members - with a majority needing to agree to the offer. In terms of the actual question itself, I think it's worth highlighting the, potentially never-ending, caveats that mean it's not anywhere near as simple a question as "would you swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". The level of investment itself, who is providing that investment, their intentions for the club, and a whole host of other aspects are incredibly important there too. It's also worth remembering that fan-ownership isn't just some trinket that's been put in a cupboard in the Phil O'Donnell Stand somewhere, it's the result of years and years of time, effort, and money from an endless list of individuals, so I dare say there's a need to actually consider what scrapping all that work is worth to people. Put it this way - I don't think in today's world it's ever going to be as simple as folk just wanting to "swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". What else would they sacrifice for that and where are the red lines? Would folk take a few extra quid to ensure that we're potentially finishing 6th or 7th each year, in exchange for a club that loses its entire community-based ethos? Would folk take five years of European adventures, in exchange for investment that is only part of a five year plan, with investors set to pack up & leave soon after leaving the club in the lurch? Would folk take dodgy money from unknown sources to make us the 3rd force in Scottish football until the investors got bored, in exchange for the eradication of our own youth academy? Would folk take all of those sacrifices - the loss of the club's identify, no long-term plan, no youth academy - for a club that could still end up in the Championship regardless of investment like Dundee Utd? All hypothetical scenarios but all very real possibilities. As I mentioned before, protecting the club from falling into the "wrong hands" has long been a reason given for fan-ownership, and I think this is possibly a very real example of a scenario where people need to be very careful what they wish for.
    8 points
  4. Every Celtic player is better than our equivalent. To compete in the game we have to make up with that with sheer workrate - which we did. This however leaves you vulnerable in the latter stages of the game when stamina and mental fatigue become factors. That's what happened today, it's what's happened many times in the past. If it was mentality we wouldn't be holding out to 94th or 97th minute or indeed getting a late draw at Celtic Park earlier in the season. People just need to get a grip. Obviously it's gutting to lose like this but we don't need the finger pointing and vitriol. How about maybe, just maybe, giving the team a slap on the back for competing against a team who's wages bill for their subs today is more than our entire club budget.
    7 points
  5. Personal view is he's the best manager we've had since McCall, which makes him the best in the last 10 years. Rate him above Barralough, McGhee, Robinson, Alexander and Hammell. Given we've reduced the spending, squad size and he's lost less than 1/3 of games, has a decent enough win record , has us 8th in the league. Plus seems to be a normal guy who cares, speaks well I'd put him close to McCall -who for the majority of time was excellent. He's made plenty of mistakes but appears to learn and move players on quickly. Add to that expect him to improve as he learns and grows. I'm really happy to have him.
    6 points
  6. 100% agree. As someone who pays monthly & gives up a lot of time to the Well Society (Wednesday is the only evening this week there's not been some sort of Society meeting!), I personally wouldn't necessarily be interested in giving either if the Society was no longer the majority shareholder - that's just a personal view obviously. I have contributed that money & energy to date either because we were working towards fan-ownership, or because fan-ownership is in play. If you don't have either of those reasons to contribute financially, there can be no expectation that folk will contribute financially. Again, agreed 100%. There are those of us on the Well Society Board who completely recognise that attracting external investment while still maintaining fan-ownership is far from radical. In fact, as I've mentioned before, the video that kicked this all off was specifically about attracting exactly that kind of investment - spelt out by Leann Crichton inviting investors to join the Well Society members who own the club, rather than replace them. No offence taken! I don't think it's necessarily about the Society being happy to share certain information - the vast majority of this kind of information should be accessible and transparent. A fan ownership organisation has to be more honest & more transparent than an ordinary football club, and that's something myself & one or two others on the board had been trying to push forward for some years without much success. However, that said, when the approach taken to recording & updating the information is simply not good enough from an administrative point of view, I think it probably throws up a few barriers when folk ask to access that information. There's a couple of reasons for that, but the main one for me is that the Society, quite some time ago, put a lot of effort into identifying a new CRM system that would allow us not just to easily maintain & update membership information but would, hopefully further down the line, allow members themselves to access that information, to see how much they'd contributed, their membership level etc, without having to ask. The club, however, was more interested in pursuing a system that would serve both organisations, as well as the Community Trust - a sensible, welcome approach, but a approach that, after several years, has never resulted in anything worthwhile. I think the reality now is that the Society needs to return to that original plan which, along with all the other work being done in the communications workstream, will undoubtedly lead to far more information with greater transparency being accessible. In that regard, I'd ask both members & non-members just to hang fire for a few months & then judge the Society's output in terms of communication & the ability to access information. If it's still shit, then the work we're currently undertaken hasn't been good enough - but I'm actually buzzing about the folk we've gotten involved in that, so I'm very confident about vastly improving things over the coming months. All this kind of information is also directly feeding into the strategy that the Society Board is now putting together. Negotiations between the club and the investors mentioned at the AGM will continue following the consultation, but we as a Society Board have to behave as though we're going to be the majority shareholder come the summer - investors can pull out, due diligence can raise serious red flags, members could vote against investment options (something made even more likely now given 35% have indicated they'd vote against regardless of offer). We're meeting with some very impressive, dynamic people in both the business & football world to feed into that strategy, we're looking at serious proposals that would allow the club itself to generate more income alongside the Well Society (to show that the assumption that the Society alone should be expected to foot the hypothetical financial gap is not necessarily accurate), and we're preparing the kind of information you're speaking about to ensure that Well Society members can not only be sure that the Society is a reasonable enough default option, but that it's actually the best option on the table.
    6 points
  7. And Brendan is raging. Dribbling on about VAR and referee decisions. Even better! After the way he was all smug and condescending about us rightly being aggrieved about the decisions in the 2017 League Cup Final and the game at Fir Park the following Wednesday I will never, ever tire of seeing this arsehole being gutted and getting a taste of his own medicine. Choke on it Rodgers.
    6 points
  8. Why not just enjoy our first league win against Rangers in over twenty years? That’s three posts you’ve made since FT and every one about me. Come on man, there’s more important things to talk about tonight surely?
    6 points
  9. EVERY CUNT *MUST* BE OK!!!
    6 points
  10. Not corporate finance at its highest level. Business qualification before retirement 20+years ago Admin and Statistics in Manufacturing. Shop Floor to end customer at the lowest economic cost to all involved in the supply chain and other major projects. Quite proud in my day to be called the "Gatekeeper" Continued to use these skills with the voluntary organisation including the much maligned on here Bowling Club. Wasn't my plan to take the impetus just preparing myself with as many facts as I could use to make a decision on how to vote on the future of a Club I have supported for 70+ years.
    6 points
  11. Thought we were great first half,bair and Vale worked their socks off,could have been 2 up first half,2nd half you knew celtic couldn't be as bad and brought quality and fresh legs on,we don't have that depth of squad and that's a huge difference when opposition players are tiring mentally and physically,on second half performance celtic deserved 3 points,hacked off with what looked a draw till 90 plus mins,cant say the players are not working like fuck for club,so we move on to livi on a difficult pitch.
    6 points
  12. With respect, we also dont need to agree with your assessment that EVERYTHING has been shite. I see a young manager struggling for results under difficult circumstances. Making mistakes along the way, but slowly improving things and a squad all bursting a gut for him because they clearly believe in him. You see someone who is either incompetent or not good enough and who will never improve or get better. Thats fair enough. But its way too early to call which is right.
    5 points
  13. And who would this mythical manager be then ? I know you always dismiss this with 'it's not my job to find the next manager but we shoulddn't be accepting this blah blah blah.....' but why not try facing facts for a change. Four teams in the bottom six have changed managers this season. Two of these teams (at least) have budgets that dwarf ours. How much better off than us are they right now ? Do you need me to tell you or can you work it out for yourself ? That's four teams that have scoured the country and probably beyond to find a better manager and not one of them has actually made any difference. Are you going to tell us next that our interim CEO should have a magic manager finding lamp, and if he doesn't then he's just an amateur thats out of his depth. You really are fucking tedious.
    5 points
  14. At his age, he's probably got folk who come in to do that.
    5 points
  15. As has been mentioned, the director in question moved job role several months ago so, as much as folk are entirely free to link the resignation with perceived "financial trouble", it was always going to happen regardless due to time constraints etc. In terms of the CEO, I think there's a lot of valid criticism to be levelled at the club for the lack of movement in that area previously & certainly around lack of communication. However, at the moment, we are simply in a situation where there will be no CEO as long as the majority shareholding in the club is up for negotiation. Any potential new majority shareholder would want to either appoint their own people or have a very strong input into any appointment, so despite a recruitment process having already been carried out & suitable candidates identified, there'll be no movement there for the time being. The club theoretically could offer the job to one of those suitable candidates tomorrow if the majority shareholding was no longer a part of any negotiations. That's not me trying to sway anyone's vote one way or another, it's simply the reality of the situation - and something I think that was mentioned at the AGM too. As for the Society saying they can raise £600k a year, I'm not sure I've seen anybody say this? The Society is saying it can grow & generate more income than it currently is. The financial situation of the club hasn't changed - where we are now is where we've been for years, we have a model that is essentially based on bringing through young players & selling them on, while also hoping we can finish higher than 10th & get a few cup ties. Because of that model, since fan-ownership we've made a net profit of £2.2m. If that model was to fail for a season, the Society already has the funds to plug the gap that would arise but fully supports looking for external investment to ensure that, if that model failed a second time before the coffers were rebuilt, the gap wouldn't be an issue. That's essentially the whole situation in a nutshell. The idea that the Society or indeed anyone even needs to put £600k in a year just isn't accurate. We have a particular model based around a strong youth academy & selling players for profit - a model that could be in place even if we didn't have fan-ownership - and this is about adding extra protection to maintain the level we can budget for should there be a couple of terrible seasons. Some think that should be achieved by actively looking to move on from fan-ownership, some think that could be achieved by considering options that include moving on from fan-ownership, and some think that can be achieved by maintaining fan-ownership while also looking for external investment that aligns with that (which was, in all fairness, the pitch in the video where potential investors are invited by Leann Crichton to join the 3,700 odd members of the Well Society rather than replace them). In what seems to have become quite an emotive debate all in, there's not really a wrong answer there - just differing opinions of what's possible & different perspectives of how important fan-ownership is to each individual 'Well fan.
    5 points
  16. Alexander was absolutely done with us long before he eventually left. I’ve said this many times had we not snatched the late draw at Livingston and scraped top six and then somehow Europe then he would have been gone at the end of that season, perhaps before. And what keeps being overlooked is that HE wanted to go. It was him that approached Burrows to instigate the “mutual consent” after the Sligo debacle, not the other way around. He wasn’t sacked and he wasn’t “hounded out” he left because he wanted to go. And I’d have Stuart Kettlewell as manager over Alexander any day of the week.
    5 points
  17. I totally understand folk who think that fan-ownership isn't working. I would disagree with that but I understand it's a totally acceptable opinion to have - particularly as we all have different ideas of what "working" actually means. I think part of that is actually to do with communications, transparency etc that hasn't been good enough from both the Society and the club in previous years in terms of actually showing people that it's "working", but I also think a big part of that is very simple: there's essentially a big spectrum where, at one end, there's "aiming for short-term success no matter the risks" and, at the other end, there's "safeguarding the existence of the club forever, no matter what level that's at." Every Motherwell fan will fall on that spectrum somewhere, and I don't think there's any wrong answers - people just have different reasons for supporting the club, get different things from going to games, and have different priorities when it comes to their expectations. Personally, I fall quite far along towards that idea that, as long as I have a club to support for the rest of my life, I will be content - even if that means flirting with or even experiencing relegation. I have probably been shunted even further towards that end of the spectrum as a result of discussions I've had around investment. That absolutely does not have to be the same for everyone, and I imagine a lot of people are somewhere in the middle a lot of the time. Fan-ownership ensures that existence though. While the Well Society has the majority shareholding in the club, the club exists. It may be that, as American investors in particular saturate the European football market, we find ourselves tumbling out of the top flight at some point in the future, as other clubs risk their own long-term futures by chasing that short-term success. There would be difficult decisions to make in that scenario, and a lot of disappointment and heartache, but the future of the club wouldn't be in doubt. At the other of the spectrum, investment for short-term gain doesn't even necessarily guarantee that short-term gain. Dundee Utd are the absolute perfect example of that so, even if you do choose that route, relegation is far from off the cards. And even if you do receive the few years of keeping up with others in the division, the long-term future of the club ceases to be protected and any decisions about what happens to the club, what it's future looks like, and even who then subsequently takes up the reins further down the line are taken out of the hands of Motherwell supporters. Again, I don't think there's necessarily a "right answer". Folk want different things from supporting the club. There's my answer and it may be different from other people's, and that's fine. But what's most important is that, with fan-ownership currently in place, if we get to a point where a majority of Well Society members are at that "short-term success" end of the spectrum, then that's what will occur - which, in itself, is almost a good example of a benefit of fan-ownership working and giving the supporters control of the club's direction.
    5 points
  18. Welcome back Jay. In response to Denny C, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I dont agree that we have given fan ownership a good go. I think we have played with it a bit and the intentions were good, but without any real vision as to where it was going or how to get there. Thats no real criticism of those involved as we were pretty much the first to do it so there was no manual and we were pretty much making it up as we went along. For me the fan ownership thing is what has sustained my interest over the last few years which have been pretty grim on the playing front. For me Motherwell as a town and the surrounding area doesnt have anything to bind it together anymore in the way that say, the steelworks did. The club is the last thing standing so, for me, the future of the club and its place in the community is paramount. We can poo poo a lot of the initiatives that have taken place in the past and minimise their impact on the football side of our business, but local buy in from the community is so important to everything that we do. Our youth academy and bringing through young local players is and always has been the best way of us bridging the quality gap. We need to get back to that as well. It feels like since covid we have lost our way and a bit of that identity. If we have fresh voices on the Well Society Board willing to address these things and grow the Society/Club, they have my backing. Thats not to say outside investment isnt important and shouldnt be welcomed. But it shouldnt be at the expense of who/what we are. That might sound like a romantic notion, and maybe it is. But personally I dont see any reason we cant find someone out there with a bit of cash that is a bit of a philanthropist and would be willing to support that ethos. As for where I see us? Ensuring our top flight status, the odd cup run, a few more finals with the possibility of maybe actually winning one and the odd foray into Europe is where we have been my entire life. Anything that maintains that without selling us down the river has my backing.
    5 points
  19. I was at Hampden when Israel were adjudged to have scored a perfectly good goal after a cross was deflected off the arm of an Israeli player into the path of the goal scorer. At the time it was explained in great detail that in such circumstances a foul must not be given. The only time a foul should be given for such an accidental handling of the ball by an attacker is if it is the goal scorer that handles. The Law is perfectly clear and so I then had to accept that Ross County were correctly awarded that goal at Fir Park. SK confirmed on Saturday that is also the reason he was given for that goal standing. So what really pisses me off about Saturday is that two qualified officials (at least) ignored the Laws of the game in order to refuse the goal. Either that or they did not know the Laws. Which is worse? Add to that the silence from the Authorities regards a huge error made by their employees. Saturday was not a situation where there should have been any doubt or discussion as to whether a valid goal had been scored. Final part of my rant. Not from our game, but that exact situation was covered in Sky's Ref Watch today and again my understanding of the hand ball law was confirmed. McLean and Collum made an arse of it and at the very least that should be acknowledged by those in charge. But it won't be. I hope Motherwell go public on their discussions with Crawford Allan or whoever has the balls to address the issue.
    4 points
  20. Launch that fucking VAR. as I’ve said repeatedly they’re now moving to actively seeking ways to “disallow” goals. Its killing the game and I bet I’m not the only person that’s nearly had enough.
    4 points
  21. Aberdeen have totally lost their way since Fergie left, putting them in the same category as Prince Andrew and The Black Eyed Peas.
    4 points
  22. It'll come to you; just keep taking the tablets.
    4 points
  23. Thanks to Philip and Jay yesterday. I attended the morning Zoom meeting. Its fair to say that the Society had stagnated in recent years. It seems the recent elections have rejuvenated the Board and there's now a wind of change. blowing. I have new found confidence that the Society Board can come up with a workable proposal but it will need members' backing and assistance.
    4 points
  24. It has been brilliant and love fact old firm never lose a game fairly, always hard done by. Brings back memories of growing up in Hamilton. "So..if rangers played Celtic who would you support?". No one....I am a well fan. "Aye but if you had to pick a team".....,no one....I am a well fan. "Aye...but who who would you want to win?......NO ONE!!!!! I AM A WELL FAN!!!!!!!!! 😜😜
    4 points
  25. I’m delighted that Kettlewell is the one that gets the biggest of monkey’s off our backs and secures his place in Motherwell history. In some respects, today didn’t come as a huge surprise to me as Kettlewell has shown time and time again that he can set up a team to compete with Rangers and Celtic and today he got his just rewards. The fact we’ve done it against an ‘in-form’ and slightly cocky Rangers makes it all the sweeter. He’s not had his challenges to seek this season and having battled his way through the budget constraints, the injuries, the loan-recalls and the off-field uncertainty, I get the impression that he could go on to do well at a higher level. Whilst he came in for understandable criticism between Oct-Dec, the players never looked like chucking it. I think that speaks volumes for his credentials and I think that run itself will stand him in good stead for the future. In the meantime, he and his players have delivered the result I’ve wanted more than any other over the last 20 years.
    4 points
  26. Fantastic result. Just wanted to point out that Lennon Miller has played in 6 out of our 7 wins despite being out for a long spell. Coincidence? Don't think so.
    4 points
  27. Correct, and were two of Rangers defeats not to Celtic ? (might be wrong but that's what I've got in my heed). I first started watching 'well in 72 ish and got my first ST in the 75/76 season (I think). First three games against the old firm were a 1-1 draw and 3-2 win against Celtic and a 3-1 win against Rangers. Would absolutely love to see these days come back but the way the game is geared now, i don't think we ever will. Every change tht's been made in my lifetime to make Scottish football more competitive has given bigger and bigger advantages to the Glasgow Uglies. I'd rather see them f*** off out of our leage and leave the rest of us to get on with a competitive league regardless of whatever level the world views us at.
    4 points
  28. Aberdeen have literally spent millions of pounds and have 6 wins this season. We have the 5th best record in the league in terms of loses. In fact we've only lost once against anyone outside the Top 3 in the last 18 matches. But you keep dismissing draws that we've got away from home against teams like Celtic, Aberdeen and Hibs. as if these results don't count or are an actual negative. We have 11 defeats in 28 currently. The last time we finished 3rd we had 12 defeats in 30. In terms of defeats we have not been excessivily losing - we usually lose around 16-17 matches a season.
    4 points
  29. This is becoming harder for you to sell with each passing week wellfan. 3 points off top six with a better goal difference than the teams around us suggests that the board got it right to stick with him. Changing the manager has not really worked for RC, St Johnstone or Aberdeen. Maybe you need to drop this now? Great result tonight after a strong performance at the weekend. It is all heading in the right direction.
    4 points
  30. Tremendous defending at the back post by who, oh I, O'Donnell.
    4 points
  31. That'll be the guy who crossed for Spittals shot that got deflected.
    4 points
  32. We did. Manager offered his opinion upon questioning at AGM on the subject. Club recognise the issue & programmes are tailored to suit, fitness, preparation, matchday & recovery as advised by their medical team. It’s just unfortunate given most are non impact injury.
    4 points
  33. Rangers and Celtic are much better than us. Hence we don't beat them much. It's why no one else has won the league since 1985 and the entire history of Scottish football has been dominated by them. However I do remember some like pumping Rangers in the playoff 6-1 or the semi final win with Moult's wonder goal or a bunch of draws in recent times at Fir Park, Celtic Park and Ibrox or the semi final win on the way to the '91 win or Tommy Coyne scoring a header in a gale in the Scottish Cup or a bunch of other times. Maybe you should remember some of the good times as well. And of all the posters here I don't think I'm one that can be accused of being a happy clapper. I just think Motherwell fans should be fair, have realistic views and maybe have the self awareness of recognising where we are in the game. Putting in a good effort against a team with x 25 our resources and losing out narrowly ain't the worst thing in the world.
    4 points
  34. The club did not get rid of Alexander he approached the board after one of the worst results in the clubs history and asked to be released . I think u should take a break from the forum as u seem to take everything personal
    4 points
  35. I think that whatever Comms staff we do have should keep an eye on social media. Its common practice in most organisations. Now by that I don't mean responding to every comment. Only those which are factually wrong and creating unnecessary discussion or anger for example. It would take what - perhaps 10 minutes a day. If a fan owned club wants to relate to the fans then it should keep its finger on the pulse. Social media is a two way thing. If the Club wants to use social media effectively for output then it should be aware of what the fans are saying, in the form of input. This particular issue has been chewed over for months, taken up hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts, and I'm just surprised that no-one at the club was aware of it. My second point is that this is a fan owned club and we should be kept informed. Now again, that comes with a caveat. We don't need to know every minute detail of the Club's business. However, the length of the manager's contract is a very basic issue, which we should have known about. I just wonder what would have happened if SK's contract hadn't been raised at the AGM. We would have arrived at late May, having finished anywhere between say 11th and 7th. There would have been discussion about SK's position with nothing being announced. That would have rumbled on into the summer with fans wondering if he was working without a contract. Just not good enough. Big changes are coming our way, whether you or I like them or not, and fan engagement will be crucial to their success. The fans have to be kept on board.
    4 points
  36. For me, it's not the fact that players and the manager have extension clauses written into their contracts that can be and have been triggered, it's that the extensions haven't been communicated once triggered. No wonder fans are continually annoyed by the club. It's happened with SOD and Kettlewell, and probably others, and will likely happen with Obika now as well. I think it's reasonable to say that fans shouldn't have to wait until AGMs for this basic information to be communicated to them.
    4 points
  37. I gotta say for a guy with 42 posts it's extremely unfair for you to insinuate he should be banned or we shouldn't "allow" (😄) him to post here. I disagree with a lot of what he says, including this instance, but I also agree with much of what he has had to say about our torrid season, Kettlewell's abysmal record, the small mind mentality vs the OF and the pish on Twitter about "welcome to our wee club", among other things. Just because he can be very negative and sometimes quite dramatic doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to post his views, and he's been doing it a lot longer than you have.
    4 points
  38. You have gone all guns blazing here without knowing the circumstances. Does it occur to you that the club using the phrase "personal reasons" might suggest it might not be for football reasons? It might be but equally there may be a family issue that has developed which is none of our business. This might have been a mistake by the club but to go all out and criticise the club automatically without any knowledge of the situation (knowledge that we're not entitled to), seems like looking for an excuse to have a go...
    4 points
  39. That’s a bit brutal . There are some players worth keeping around to help the overall squad . Likes of Paton , Kelly , S’OD and Mubagi have all added value .
    3 points
  40. Fans basically know fuck all about football. Supporting a team is 95% emotion 5% rational constructive thought. Wherever there is emotion there is irrational thought . It was the same when Vale signed, fans couldn't wait to put his Wiki stats up and moan like fuck that he was useless.
    3 points
  41. Absolutely! All these folk who say that beating one of the OF doesn’t matter and that’ it’s just another three points etc. Come on! Tell me that that doesn’t feel ten million times better than a win against Livi or Ross County!
    3 points
  42. Wasent planning on having a drink tonight but theres absolutely no way thats happening, What a result ❤️💛 we have became a real thorn in the old firms side this season
    3 points
  43. £333,000 a year for 6 years for the controlling interest of the club. Utterly ridiculous. If this is true and McMahon and Weir are genuinely pushing for it then serious questions need to be asked.
    3 points
  44. First of all welcome. Great first post. I've been banging on about this very issue for several years now and whatever strategy the Society adopts, increasing member income is a must. When the Society was first launched in 2011 there were several ways in which members could pay to attain certain levels of membership such as Steel, Amber etc. Many such as myself paid in lump sums and we thought thats it. Others began to pay in modest monthly amounts. The marketing strategy was never updated and some members, like me, stopped paying and others fell by the wayside for several reasons. Payment/membership methods just evolved without any systematic or methodical approach or publicity. By default, monthly subscriptions became the norm. We were never really informed about this change or encouraged to set up monthly DDs. This has improved, a bit, of late I have to say. What is required now is to completely relaunch the subscription options and publicise them to all and sundry. Contact all memebrs, so that we all know. What about junior members who have now become adults? Season ticket holders who are not members? Good point. Some are inherently opposed to the Society and will not change; thats life. Some were extremely cautious and suspicious at the outset and thought they'd lose their hard earned money to a seemingly hare brained scheme. Thats the 2 reasons I know about. In addition, there will be a host of other reasons. Some research might not go amiss here - brief interviews on match days? Much work needs to be done to increase membership subscriptions. A starting point will be to update all records, although thats easier said than done. Although important, member subscriptions will not be sufficient to raise necessary funds. What about connecting to local businesses? There are bound to be many self employed members or owners of small businesses. What about advertising their services? Providing that they were competitive pricewise, I'm sure members would rather give their custom to other Well fans would they not? Just a few thoughts from a rank and file perspective.
    3 points
  45. Unfashionable as it might be, I'm going for O'Donnell. Set up a goal, prevented one with his defensive header in the six yard box late in the second half, set up Spittal's chance in the first half. I've been a huge critic of his in the past, and this is not me saying give him a new contract. But give him credit where it's due, he was good tonight...
    3 points
  46. Must say Vale has had a bigger impact on SPL than KVV so far . proving to be a very decent addition p
    3 points
  47. Early 00s does that include europa league qualifiers,champions league qualifier,league Cup finalists,Scottish Cup finalists and still never been relegated with a club that shops In poundland and has ave 5000 through its gates,give yerself a shake man,and beating the old firm doesn't keep you in the league,ask the clubs chairman who've been relegated what they'd prefer,beating old firm now and again or staying,yer brains frazzled.
    3 points
  48. No Status Quo option? I just hope that doesn't lead to relegation and we go Down Down!!...... sorry folks 😜😜
    3 points
×
×
  • Create New...