santheman
-
Posts
1,190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by santheman
-
-
22 hours ago, David said:
Interesting reading here for sure, and as much as it surprises me to be saying this, SteelBoy is on the money with a lot of what he's saying in my opinion.
In my experience, people with the financial clout to invest heavily in a football club aren't the type to accept a situation where they have to run their decisions and plans past a majority holding group made up, for the most part, of people who have nowhere near the same level of business experience as they do.
If they're putting a considerable amount of money into any venture, they'll expect to make at least that and more back on the other side. That's simply how it is. They're not coming and giving up time and money for nothing.
This suggests to me that they'll want majority control and will not be answerable to the Well Society. No serious investor would accept risking their capital in an industry that is difficult to profit from at the best of times without having majority control over how that entity is run and, more importantly, how their money is spent. The Well Society and any votes in the future would simply be seen as inconveniences and roadblocks to the real professionals doing their jobs. Which is maximising profit for the owner on their investment.
The most concerning thing for any football fan is that most owners who do not have an emotional attachment to the club they own often see it as just another business venture.
Venture is the key word there. Defined as "an undertaking involving chance or risk" or "a speculative business enterprise," which in most cases means that the investor takes a chance, and has an amount of money they're willing to lose before declaring the venture a loss. At that point, they cut it loose and let it sink.
It happens to companies every day. It's just that those companies ordinarily don't have fans.
I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong on that count and see a unicorn in the form of someone with a ton of cash and no real emotional attachment to the club happy to throw cash into the pot and basically cede overall control and direction to the Well Society. I don't see it happening, though.
As has been mentioned already, fan ownership gives us many things, but the most important is that it gives us our club.
If the Well Society loses majority control (if it happens), it will no longer be our club—it will be the new owners' club. At that point, we will be just customers.
Most of the noise surrounding this issue seems to be paving the way for a change in majority ownership. Again, this is just my opinion based on what I've experienced in the past.
Losing majority control of something like a football is a hard sell to fans. The only way to really accomplish that is to convince said fans via various PR means that there's not really any other option moving forward. Vague mentions of financial issues and a drip-style media campaign that gets fans used to the idea of giving up control.
Again, I'm not saying this is what is happening, but it looks a lot like it from the outside.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
tbf I haven't really read anywhere except on here that there's a targeted attempt to give up fan ownership. That's not to say that won't happen as negotiations progress and vested interests come to the fore.
All the social media stuff I've read is along the same lines, ie keep an open mind as to what any offer might materialise.
I think there's a cats chance in hell of the WS members giving up control unless it's a truly extraordinary offer and even then I think its unlikely going by the members I know I've been speaking to, only one person out of 20 odd said they would be prepared to vote away our majority, the rest not under any circumstances.
Not a very big sample granted.
-
4 hours ago, steelboy said:
Really?
If you look at the EPL Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal were the three bookies favourites and the last match between them was two Saturdays ago. Man City have an extremely easy run in for their final 7 games.
I don't remember too many Spanish Classicos in April or May either.
Difference is ALL their fixtures are known from the start of the season so pure chance if you had a Liverpool/Arsenal/ Man City winner takes all on the last day.
Ours can be manipulated to avoid that because of the split.
-
2 hours ago, Spiderpig said:
They are working out how to avoid the next ugly sisters game at Parkhead becoming a title decider Dave. It's only ever all about those two the other forty clubs in Scotland are irrelevant.
Only in Scotland.
Any other country it would be the showpiece winner takes all finale.
-
1
-
-
I think when you take into consideration that Kettlewell was working with a much reduced playing budget and we were paying salaries to 2 managers (possibly 3 if you believe rumours) then to end the season relatively safe from relegation, looking like breaking even financially and seeing another academy product potentially earning us some good money and the prospect of some outside investment then I'm happy with that.
Things could have been a lot worse.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, robsterwood said:
Similar fan base similar finances. Killie we re showing more ambition. Although they didn't need van veen. They also got great manager
Billy Bowie a director of Kilmarnock and his company who are one of Killies main sponsors personally funded Van Veens wages reputed to be 6k pw and their playing budget this season is considerably higher than ours so not a good comparison.
And yes they have a good manager who also doesn't come cheap.
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, wellfan said:
Two dud teams with something to play for today but neither turned up. No surprises there. A draw was a fair result in the end and neither team deserved to finish in the top 6.
8 league wins in 33. Crap.
We all thought the same today till we looked at the league tables and realised we're no different to all the teams round about us.
Hibs won 9
Mwell won 8
St J won 7
Ross Co won 6
Puts it into a bit of perspective
-
10 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
I've seen more than one well society board member tweet that they don't want to give the majority control up.
I know 2 of them and they're in the same boat as most of us.
Waiting to see what the offer is then making up their minds based on the facts and figures.
Everyone will have their own opinion and particular conspiracy theory.
-
6 minutes ago, twistandshout1983 said:
Interesting fact for football fans. Most people know that The Proclaimers are massive Hibs fans and that their fantastic song Sunshine On Leith is sung at games. But something a lot of you do not realise is that many years ago , brothers Craig and Charlie both worked as groundsmen for the club. They got the sack after players complained that the grass was too long and it ruined their passing game. The brothers blamed this on DIY store B and Q They went to Bathgate no mower, Linwood no mower, Irvine no mower, Lochaber no mower, Sutherland no mower, Lewis no mower, Skye no mower..........
Best post of the week mate.👍
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, stv said:
I think this international buisness man with years of experience will have sussed out the situation pretty soon and will have decided early enough that he wont get a controlling interest in a fan owned club just like that , so wont try. No matter what Steelboy or others can make up between themselves. Being positive doesn’t make a good story.
lnterested to hear if they thought Les Hutchison was in it for himself and just to make money at the start before he saved the club from ruin.
This.
He said that he had been looking at various clubs here and in England before settling on Motherwell so he could probably have had the choice of several clubs to invest in without the fan ownership model to contend with so if he'd simply wanted to buy a club outright there are plenty he could have chosen before us.
Only another few weeks before we know the facts and figures of his offer so it'll give us something to talk about over the close season
-
1 hour ago, steelboy said:
The info about wages is correct. We have spent a lot more than Kilmarnock which is a good thing.
That was shot down in flames at the time as comparing apples and oranges.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68790801
An insight to our potential investor
-
7 minutes ago, steelboy said:
The Turnbull money wasn't a fluke. We invested in our academy and got the reward. It's the same with Max Johnston, Allan Campbell, Chris Cadden, James Scott and Jake Hastie. We've had other players who we've had training compensation for who didn't even make the first team. It's at the core of the club.
I didn't say it was a fluke but without it we would be in a far worse position. There's no guarantee that we're going to produce a Turnbull every other season.
The fact that we have money in the bank and the WS and yet Kettlewell had to drastically cut the playing budget tells a story.
-
11 minutes ago, steelboy said:
7 continuous years in the top flight and £2 million in the black. It does work and it is sustainable.
So far and only because of the Turnbull money.
Next season you've got both Dundee clubs with owners seemingly happy to pump millions into their playing squads.
Hibs with 5m American investment.
Kilmarnock with Billy Bowie and his blank chequebook
Hearts hoovering up all the better players in our league with 15m sitting in the bank from their foundation and Budge and Co happy to keep putting money in.
Ross County with Uncle Roy's blank chequebook.
Aberdeen with a rich chairman putting his money where his mouth is (not that its helped this season of course)
St Johnstone with a potential American buyer with money to burn by the sounds of it.
Even St Mirren have Gilmour putting money in albeit in the form of soft loans.
Old Firm take care of themselves.
That leaves us and with no form of outside investment unless you class the WS as that.
Money doesn't always buy success of course but it makes it a damn sight easier.
Do we sit back and hope that the teams with more money than us manage to keep f*****g things up and we keep "punching above our weight" and continue to get lucky with bargain basement buys to stay in the top flight.
I'm still of the opinion that the WS retain control of the club but if we want to keep competing at this level in light of whats happening at other clubs we need to look at every option otherwise we might find ourselves in the never ending cycle of trying to avoid the dreaded bottom 2 places every season and the type of football that brings
-
4
-
-
15 minutes ago, weeyin said:
It's a tough call, but on balance I'd rather Dundee fixed their drainage and stayed up than Raith Rovers or Airdrie get promoted with their plastic.
With a possible vote to make grass pitches mandatory for our League it might take them a bit longer than they think🤔.
-
29 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
I agree but surely it's pretty well known that members can pay monthly contributions. I've been paying a monthly contribution since 2018.
Oh it's pretty well known but if you don't actively follow up on it on a regular basis then folks tend to forget about it which I think has happened. I make a monthly contribution but other than a couple of generic emails over the years I've never been asked directly if I would consider increasing my amount( which I would and have done)
If it was a charity you would be getting inundated with begging texts/emails but maybe the WS felt that they didn't want to keep going back to the same people all the time, I don't know.
Hopefully with all the recent publicity and investment talk and the need to increase WS funds more people who maybe paid the original £300 but didn't know about, or take up the offer of monthly contributions might consider it now.
-
They've definitely missed out on revenues by not targeting members who paid the original lump sums to become a member and who would have probably been happy to top that up with ongoing monthly contributions.
With the new board focused on income generation hopefully that's one of the things they can pursue.
-
8 minutes ago, wunderwell said:
I sent in some comments that I've been saying for a long time. To which I got I got a reply asking about volunteer work. So first of all through business and 3 kids etc, I have no time for that. I would like the WS to address the points I have raised though.
Sending out a weekly newsletter is far from good enough in 2024.
https://www.foundationofhearts.org/
Cracking site with login facilities and we should be at the same level as this irrespective of supporters numbers.
Why do we not have the same or aim towards the same? Could we not appeal to the support perhaps we have some cracking web developers that could take this on?
To generate more monies to the WS you just can't stand outside with a bucket and send a weekly mailchimp.
A new website giving all that kind of info is near completion according to the WS along with new ideas on fundraising.
As I said earlier the new board are starting to make their presence felt.
-
One fly in the ointment could be the Dundee Rangers game being off this midweek which going by the weather forecast is a distinct possibility.
It would leave us in a bit of limbo for a few more days, especially if we beat Hibs and Aberdeen beat Dundee.
Hopefully it goes ahead and we know whether it's top or bottom 6 by 5pm on Saturday.
-
18 minutes ago, steelboy said:
I went to a Well Society meeting years about expanding to a 14 team league with a 6-8 split. At the beginning of the meeting virtually everyone in attendance was against the proposal. Two hours later due to bullshit, lies and spin from Leeann Dempster everyone in attendance apart from three people voted for it. With a straight face she told the meeting that the 12 team league set up with 1 relegation place and 1 playoff place that we have now had for 10 years would put the viability of the club at risk and that auditors would refuse to sign off on our accounts. Time has showed that she was lying through her teeth but in the meeting there was no way to argue against her.
The side in favour of American ownership has the backing of the individuals currently controlling the club and the PR resources they can muster. At the moment no one has stood up and made a case for the fan ownership and what it has achieved over the past seven years. If that continues it's pretty much guaranteed the members will give the club away.
It's no secret that the WS board would prefer to retain 51% of the shares but they're also not stupid enough to reject any offer of inward investment out of hand before hearing what it is.
That offer will eventually be put to the members and it will be up to us to decide what we vote for, not any one individual
The various WS board members will no doubt have their own individual views the same as us but I'm sure any recommendations they put forward will have the best interests of the club at heart.
I'd also expect some kind of open forums where people can ask questions and express their views prior to any vote.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, weeyin said:
I thought that too, but the last vote showed the members were very much of the the opposite view indicating they would be willing to give up an overall majority; and by quite some margin.
Nope
They voted in principle to listen to what the investor had to offer and not reject anything out of hand. The vote wasn't to give up the majority shareholding.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, wunderwell said:
I'm afraid that the WS has a bowling club mentality.
I once invested in a bowling club so I'm certain I know what a bowling club mentality is like.
They might have had in the past and rightly so but with the election of the new WS board members, what I know of them and what I've heard so far convinces me that we've now got good people on board and they have finally got their act together. One of the board members Jay has posted several insights on P&B to what has been happening behind the scenes so well worth a look. They're actual facts straight from the horses mouth and not some of the pish being spouted on here by a certain person.
All the rumours and conspiracy theories being banded about on here are just that, and NOTHING will happen without the agreement of the WS members who will all be privy to what final offer (if any) is on the table before being asked to vote on whether to accept it or not.
I doubt anything that doesn't guarantee the WS retaining 51% would succeed unless it was something absolutely spectacular akin to a Euromillions win.
I for one would laugh the "rumoured" 1.5m offer for 51% out of the park and so would anyone else in their right mind.
-
Another day another rumour.🙄
Let's wait until we see whatever's on offer in black and white eh?
-
13 minutes ago, steelboy said:
I've got a feeling if it's a deal which gives away the majority shareholding McMahon will be putting pressure on the Society board to stay neutral.
The fact it's apparently going to come down to a Yes/No decision before the Society gets any input at all is absurd. If this guy actually had good intentions he would be coming to the Society and directly asking what concerns we have rather than cutting us out.
He's already had some informal discussions with the Well Society board and I believe more are planned as things develop.
Jay gave an update over on P&B a few days ago.
Fired up another laptop and it appears fine on here - but I thought I better hurry on and post before I'm silenced on this too...
Nah, all joking aside - I've been lurking and reading the thread this week, lots of good points, and I know I've been tagged a few times. Don't want to go back and multi-quote everything, but I do want to respond to a couple of points.
Firstly, I believe @capt_oats had a few questions about the Well Society's role in the investment video - I'm going to just take the easy option here and just not answer those. It's something that the Society would respond to officially if someone sent in those questions directly by e-mail.
In terms of the current negotiations themselves, I'd just reiterate what it's in the Society statement - that the Well Society Board is not a part of those negotiations. I know there's a lot of comments and questions around why that is, and whether that's right or not, but again, I'm going to opt out from responding to that. Essentially, that's what the situation is - the Chairman & Executive Board have been discussing options with potential investors, and one of those has reached a point that all parties currently involved are happy to proceed to a next stage.
That said, it's not the case that the Society is kept entirely in the dark. I think it was confirmed at the club AGM that the Society had met with both interested parties at the time. We have also received some updates on progress and some key aspects of discussions, which I would imagine have allowed each of us as individuals to at least start to form some initial thoughts on whether the deal would be good/bad/indifferent for the club and whether members would be likely to think the deal was good/bad/indifferent for the club, but there's no collective position and we haven't had any discussions around reaching one. Basically, it wouldn't be right to do that until we were in receipt of any finalised agreement that the Chairman & Executive Board had reached with an investor and we were able to fully understand what that could mean for the club and for the Well Society.
If we reach that point, Well Society members would be balloted and, in order to make a fully informed decision, would be provided with as much detail as possible. I think it's worth flagging that any potential investor will have been told from the off that their offer would need to be cleared by Well Society members, so it will not come as any surprise that extensive details of any offer should need to be released to members. If any potential investor had a problem with that, I'd suggest they'd have been better looking into a club that wasn't fan-owned - so I don't foresee a problem in making sure members are informed when it comes to a vote.
I think @StAndrew7 has raised a question about whether Society members are club shareholders or not. The answer is no - the Well Society is the shareholder and Well Society members are exactly that, members. So it's up to the Well Society as the majority shareholder how it would vote in any shareholder vote - and it is the democratic and moral position that the Well Society's vote would be guided by its members.
Just on that too - firstly, there's no guarantees we reach a point where there's a shareholding vote or Well Society member ballot, we all know how negotiations work and things might just not reach that point. However, there's also a discussion to be had by the Well Society Board itself around how it conveys its views on any potential offer. There's obviously no automatic assumption that anybody will care what the Society Board itself thinks is positive or negative but the discussion still needs to be had around the communications that accompany any ballot, whether that's remaining neutral, providing a recommendation one way or another, providing arguments for or against, or whatever.
The last thing I'd just highlight is that, while the negotiations carry on between the Chairman & Executive Board and the potential investor, the Well Society is just cracking on with the work it needs to do as majority shareholder. No-one would expect the Society just to sit on its thumbs assuming transformational investment is on the way, instead we continue to approach things with October's refreshed Board, and the fresh approach and enthusiasm that has resulted, by ploughing on with a lot of work to ensure that fan-ownership is even stronger in the future, regardless of what happens here.
Contrary to what some people seem to enjoy suggesting on Twitter, fan-ownership demonstrably works, the previous years have shown us that quite conclusively. However, it absolutely can - and needs - to be better. The workstreams that the Society has formed have already hit the ground round with some fantastic work underway in comms, governance, events, fundraising and membership. As the comms workstream lead, I'm buzzing about the standard of contributor we've got on board (at the risk of complimenting a P&B stalwart too much
) and we've already done some fantastic work around identifying what needs to improve - a comms strategy will be finalised in the next week or two, and a return to a standalone Well Society website, that provides members with all the actual information they want and need, is already underway.
And as a whole, the Well Society Board continues to put together its own strategy and plan, for both the Society and the football club, that it is hoped members can put their faith in should the Society remain as majority shareholder. So I think at our end, we're just cracking on feeling quite positive about what we're doing - the Well Society will grow, members will find that the information and experience they've been deprived or found difficult to access beforehand is soon accessible, fan-ownership will continue to work, and I'm personally very enthusiastic that the new CEO comes into the club with a wealth of experience around income generation, following a recruitment process that the Well Society Board was heavily involved in.
So aye, not actually sure if any of that is particularly useful as such. Basically, the Chairman & Executive Board will continue to discuss things with the potential investor, while the Well Society continues the work we'd identified needed done prior to the investment video even going out - work that we're really positive about and work that we think will see growth in the Society, increased income generation in the club, and a platform to take the already-working fan-ownership model at Fir Park, and make it better. Of course, the perfect addition to that is positive investment that works for both the football club and the Well Society, and so if that is what comes from these negotiations, then that will be a further thing to be positive about.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, wellsince75 said:
Im not sure its about form. It's more teams have sussed him out and attack the obvious weakness..
He's a very good shot stopper but poor with crosses, particularly in the 3-6 yard line.
It's poor management that knowing our captain can't deal with crosses we've not added centre halves Feels like an age since we had likes Aldred, Hartley or Gallagher who all gave much better protection.Very true but for all we know maybe he tried to sign another centre half in January but it was just that none were available, we'll probably never know.
My memory isn't as good as it was but I don't remember him being particularly shite at crosses in his first season with us but maybe he was?
2024/25 Ins & Outs Discussion
in Club Chat
Posted
Wouldn't be surprised to see him roll up at Killie.
McInnes's type of player.