Goggles & Flippers

I'll happily accept that pair. So at present we've got: GK-----------Fraser------------ DF-------------------------------- MF-------J. Davies------------ WG--------------------Roddie- ST---------Casagolda--------

Based on Joewarksfanclub's Best Well team you've witnessed that's based on Off the Ball's Hamilton XI from today. With the help of this list below, anyone want to add some choice duds to make up a woeful line-up you have witnessed? List of Motherwell Players I'm going to opt for Andy Roddie (it was a toss up between him and Derek Townsley) and John Davies (Billy's bro) as the first two into the team.

Randolph Mio/Burley - McCart - Martin - McKinnon Jennings - Lambert - Law McFadden Coyne Cooper Ruddy Skippy McCormack Phil Kaiser Kirky Dougie (This may help rekindle memories)

Just another few of the shitehawks according to you, does it really matter who? Yet again, good bit of business, from them, may it continue.

Maybe because you'd be inclined to shift the goalposts and not declare everything if you were in a position to do so, doesn't mean those at the club feel the same. Its a big call to make to either countenance or promote behaviour such as that when as the senior management team and board members are personally liable for any legal redress, to what put an extra £25k in the coffers every year. Wisen up. As for the attendances issue. We have a core, elements of that core has diminished over the past few years as the general apathy with Scottish football has encroached. Many of my mates who held season tickets have put their £300 towards golf memberships, increased their sky package or just put it in their hippy. The issue we have and I don't think its Motherwell in general its the whole of Scottish football. Commercial departments focus too much on signage, corporate meals and boxes, sponsorship and program ads. Yes these are a significant revenue stream but I feel they are prioritised over bums on seats. 1,000 extra per match results in approximately £300k per season (or 4 first team players), I'm sure I've read before that Derek Weir suggested that this would take us from touch and go, to living comfortably. So what do we do about it? Well if you've lapsed you may get a letter through the post reminding you or a half hearted call. Mind you it's 1,000 calls to return the same money as 100 would from non-ticket related sales. We've not capitalised on our success' of late on the park, I think its safe to say we've got a decent 2,000 fans that could be cajoled if they were engaged, we've seen the population of Motherwell/Wishaw/New Stevenson/Bellshill increase with all the new homes, what's been done to encourage them to consider Motherwell. Every visit those with kids make to a soft play place, swimming pool, etc. costs a fair bit of money (I don't know what Rainforest Adventure is, maybe someone can advise). To market to Dad's in particular, hey you can take up to 2 kids to the football 20 times a year, get them out the house for 3-3.5 hours, combined with a benefits scheme that results in the one ticket they would have to buy would be effectively free (by visiting McD's once a month, Pizza Hut, every 3) is overlooked as too many don't know about it. As for those without kids, the club engaging with them rather than just assuming their loyalty will be enough is no longer acceptable.

I heard we're interested bidding for Andy Goram's internal monologue c. 2000, it will be grafted to Nielsen's subconscious.

You'll have to explain why having 18 teams opposed to 12 would result in fixtures being generated that don't result in us being sent on a 300 mile round trip the day after Christmas. I don't think a 18 team will ruin Scottish football, it'll certainly fuck it up for 5 years or so until the standard of the 6 promoted teams improve and the top 12 adjust their budgets and playing staff to take account of the loss of established visiting fan revenues and TV money. Keep the blue sky thinking going though, don't let me stifle your creativity.

Sorry Brazilian I can't help but feel I have to explain myself fully and in great detail whenever you raise an eyebrow. Legacy of our exchange in the WS thread perhaps? 10 years ago was the Administration era and no doubt as we were one of the first and the laws/penalties have changed since, we've avoided a great deal of upheaval that has and will hang round the neck of quite a few clubs (some we know about and some we will in the next few years). As a result of having our fingers burned I think we've been best placed over the past few years as we introduced our own austerity measures and that has served us well: Ownership - Not a bank/accountant who's aim is to raise short term capital with no thought to the long term, yes JB is looking for an exit, but we're hardly facing a boardroom civil war or impending doom Sustainability - We budget conservatively and by an large (despite any major sales of our young assets) we're much healthier than a great deal of our contemporaries and dare I say it, better placed and more able to deal with future financial worries (2 years ago if you said we'd lose 4 home matches a season vs Rangers and Hearts but gain two with Ross County and Dundee then it would rightly have alarm bells ringing). Hardly a "Staggering" statement unless you wish to taint it negatively. As for this thread, its not the amount of coverage its just the unfanciable nature of our perception.

Did the eloquent one with the Johnny Bravo haircut not get the memo about wearing trackies?

I don't know why during the intensive festive period of 4 games within a short period, when the emphasis is on family getting together and spending time together (no on a motorway), combine that with a bit of a financial dip next season when Hearts drop out the league and are replaced by either Accies or Falkirk, why the powers that be don't use a bit of nonse. I don't know why the league at fixture setting time set the clubs into 3 groups of 4 to schedule 3 games around this period based on geographic location. I'd finesse Texan's suggestion from above slightly. At present you're looking at: ICT Ross County Aberdeen Dundee Utd Well Partick Killie St Mirren Celtic Hibs Hearts St Johnstone I'd advocate Celtic being in the Hibs/Hearts group and us replacing them in the Glasgow/Ayrshire one as they have a fan base from all over the country and can wreck stadiums regardless of where they are. New Year is Derby Day, it doesn't need to be as I think you'd generally get a higher attendance for any fixture as more people are off work. However the four teams in each group would give you the fixtures for Boxing Day, New Year, 28th/29th There may be some movement over the years as teams drop out and come up, you would imagine in 2 years time Celtic would be in the same group as the promoted currants which would result in us switching to the Edinburgh one or if Ross County were to drop, then St Johnstone would switch into their group. If fans could accept that over that period there was a good chance you would tend to see the same teams wither it be home or away, would that upset many on here?

Just seen the front cover of the Motherwell Times where Paul Lawrie thought he'd have a dig at our away support, despite being at Old Trafford, next day his PR company no doubt got in touch and told him to be nice. This prompted me to think of the wider perception of or club, predominantly in the media. I accept we have probably the 7th/8th largest home attendance in the league where we've pretty much been the best of the rest for 4 out the past 6 years. I also accept that the radio jocks, TV presenters and tabloid hacks tend to appeal and pander to their audience, despite that and the best efforts of our award winning Media department. Is it just me or do we seem to get a rough deal? It seems they can't wait to get on to talk about the 10 years of languishing/now doing good/we'll forget about how awful they've been Aberdeen, with glee. The unbridled wankfest that was Dundee Utd's kids up until before Christmas which has now stalled no doubt had a few wishing they hadn't asked Santa for tangerine coloured tissues. OK, I may be biased and no doubt the fans of Killie, Hibs and ICT may think the same. But we have this family friendly club, most players say they like the atmosphere, our ownership and sustainability issues seem to have been resolved 10 years ago and certainly last year, were playing some really attractive stuff. If this general opinion is shared, might be a good idea for a thread to discuss why and any ideas how we can get universally favoured, however it may be simply to increase out home attendance.

I know you think it wouldn't work, but I'd really like to see a modern puma template using our 50's colours with the black socks (even if there are embellishments here and there, that's just part and parcel of modern strips)

My bad OTF, I thought it was 10% not 5%

I'd add Brazilian at present an average Well Society member with a season ticket will have: Paid £300 for their initial membership Pay £300 for a seat in the East Stand Pay £50 per annum to the Well Society And get £30 off their season ticket So discounting joining the society that fan would pay £320 per annum What you are championing is the annual WS sub goes in its entirety to the WS. So that fan would pay: Paid £300 for their initial membership Pay £300 for a seat in the East Stand Pay £50 per annum to the Well Society split into 12 monthly payments And get £0 off their season ticket Meaning that fan pays £350 per annum and the society benefits to a greater amount.

Some seem to be failing to remember that for the WS to be set up they needed £250,000, the only way to achieve that in as quick a time as possible was pay up front, otherwise we'd be reaching that total by monthly subs around now. The club had to incentivise joining in a time of success and no impending doom, a good number of members joined based on this (I agree it wasn't the defining reason but it certainly was the icing on the cake), to remove it completely will alienate people significantly the higher rate members.

From what I could gather last night and I'm going to be a little critical here, the current benefit based system results in the society giving the club around £40k a year to cover the shortfall the club makes in giving money off season tickets primarily. That pretty much takes into account most/all of the renewal subscriptions.I have been aware for quite some time the annual payment by society members goes to the club for supplying the benefits, hence I never paid it. the main point I take like you is that the Society benefits in no way what so ever from these payments made by fans, the additional point last night was that , it is going to start costing the club to provide these benefits on the current fees, LD pointed out the significant cost to the club is the ST discount amongst others The society in essence wasn't meant to benefit the pot other than nominally from these annual subs, they were designed at the outset to offset some of the loss the club would make in offering the benefits (the main goal being a large membership base making up the £1.5m from their joining fee's). I don't see why you would withhold your sub out of principal, surely if the club get it then it then that is the ultimate goal of supporting the team? However as I understand it, for example, 500 of the current members use their 10% off season ticket entitlement then the club bills the society for 500 x £30 (based on those 500 all sitting in the East for simplicity). If you don't take up that benefit then that cash would stay in the society? No? Consequently the £407k raised so far will only grow from increasing the membership base as things stand. , agreed, but not consequently as such , just that this has always been the case , as the annual subs are purely to pay the club for providing benefits, no money remains in the society from those subs' PS were all members not emailed(not called) to consider increasing to next level, I thought it was standard mailing, don't agree with it, like yourself, as I believe the increments are too high, always have I was sure the member who spoke up said he had been called, I'll hang my head in shame if I'm proven wrong. A second proposal was given where if the system was changed to having no benefits however you would gain essentially one annual lottery ticket for every £300 or so you had contributed (The Amber £5k members would get 15) for a major prize (a car was given as an example) then £75k a year could be raised and kept within the society and no doubt growing the pot. Quite a bit of details built up to this point, significant work carried out by the society in year to date, listing memberships gains and work completed etc. but yes it was proposed that, as founding members, would we consider moving away from the annual sub for benefits, to a monthly direct debit payments scheme, to pay an equivalent amount, but the rewards effectively being changed to for example a annual raffle, payments suggested, were roughly speaking a division of 12 of the annual sub: Change annual fees to direct debit: £4.17 steel £12.50 claret £41.67 amber Gives £75k per annum income from current membership base Option to pay more would be encouraged for those that could, please bare in mind that this was proposed after details was given about other clubs who are now going for fan control, and the models the now have Derek or Leeann seemed to suggest that they had investigated DD before the launch and it was deemed after legal and financial advice not possible. One board member suggested that a potential loophole in the legislation due to our status could be exploited to allow it going forward. I think this need an unequivocal definative answer that won't come back to bite us in the future. That £75k figure seemed to be based on the current subscriptions plus subs from the 25% of people who indicated they would join from the questionnaire if it was made easier in terms of paying up their joining fee over time. There didn't seem to be any account for any of the prizes to be purchased for the annual draw (£10k for a car and £5 in ancillary prizes?). For me was flawed and inappropriate to present with the aim to vote.£75k was from current members opting in to monthly payments scheme, this significant change alone would vastly improve the standing of the society at this money all goes straight into society wealth, unlike the current annual payments the change to Direct debits also opens up , the option that any future members get to pay joining fee that way, then switch to lower payments , or indeed explore payments options tha t take longer term, where full membership doesn't apply until a target amount was reached for each member, this would also mean that like founding members , the newer members would then start contributing to funds monthly after completing membership total cost, these numbers are of course forecast , based on survey responses of those that said the would join if payments was easier (25%) and another percentage chunk said likely join, this would mean the monthly divison of annual subs would rise to £180k per annum in future years, optimistic maybe, but many agreed that the principle of society payments going into society funds is the way it should be To be fair I did say "seemed" as I can't recall it being detailed. What I can recall is being told the society gives £40k to the club to cover the benefits it offers (the club as I understand doesn't make money on this) and it was explained that this was unsustainable. It is for that reason I assumed the £75k in subs was from an increased membership because based on the above maths there is £35k of a discrepancy (I took that to be the growing of the membership base). No doubt those such as yourself how default on your annual subs are partly responsible for this. It was laid out the current system was unsustainable, then we were asked to vote if we'd like to keep that or this option 2. I'm reminded of the Eddie Izzard "Cake or Death" sketch. I don't know what they were hoping to achieve but all it did was make me shake my head at how amateur it came across. in no way was it said to be unsustainable, but it was calculated at current growth it would be 2040 to reach £1.5million, and as a society no one could say if that time frame would support the club when required, this is the main point I disagree with you on, we were only asked to vote on whether the society board should take these proposals forward to discussion with the larger group of members, it was hardly comical in how amateur it was, although I suppose if you picture something like the benny hill tune in your head it would have enhanced the event, I'm grateful that the amateurs ( with their specific skills) do this, as I and others didn't volunteer, this is the point that always annoys me at these events however, the majority in the room voted to allow the board to go to the member base, but as always individual voices forced another 45 minutes discussion and a third ways as you allude to below I'm at fault here, the unsustainable feature related to the status quo where the society reimbursed the club for the society benefits that the club lost out on - I should have made that more clear in my original post. I was not referring to the growth of the pot (which you rightly point out is sustainable, but very slow). The amateur elements I referenced were the reliance on 15 month old accounts, the fact that the person concerned with delivering them didn't know the number of current members off the top of their head without referring to notes (I would have hoped that number would roll off the tongue) and the presentation where here is option 1 that we are doing now, its unsustainable. Here is option 2 that will grow the pot by £75k a year, can we vote for those in support of option 1 please? I understand its not best to pursue new members when the structure of the scheme is under investigation to change it however I think exploring cost effective ways to pay for a membership should have been fully examined before looking to change the structure. this statement surprises me, that you consider nothing has been done to explore this, Suppose I have been around these meetings and maybe heard comment that wasn't at every session, but its clear that new ways of payment are to be implemented if the members agree, but the glaring point on the back of that is that it will take too long and the annual payments are being lost to the society The annual payments were never meant to go to the society, as discussed in paragraph one, it was meant to offset the loss the club would incur by offering those benefits to gain members. It's evident that the £5k Amber members who were there didn't seem too impressed, they pursued their investment with the benefits making a major part in the decision making process at the time. It was muted that discussions could be entered with the club where these could be maintained. So if the Steel's move to the pot growing option then we could have a different system in place depending on your input amount. It's been covered before in other threads if we grew out home attendance by 1,200 a game approximately then we would pretty much break even in an average season. Yet again anything associated with this club tends to go for the easy option in pumping those already involved for more money (an example was given where a member was called and asked to increase his membership level) rather than go to increase membership from the harder people who have drifted however have affection and an affinity for Motherwell.Probably for another thread, as this changes nothing about the goals of the society, sure it would slow down the draw on funds, if the club board didn't spend the additional income hosting a magic show in Vegas that they would deserve I take it you are implying that to increase our home attendances by 1,200 is pie in the sky? I hope the patronising tone is by chance and not calculated as it does the debate no service. If we follow our current season ticket marketing strategy then I agree, however proactive targeting of lapsed and fair weather fans could achieve this if resourced and supported in the right way. However you will notice the second part of the paragraph talked about increased Well Society membership and therefore quite right to refer to in this thread. There are people out there who would join if it was made possible with easy to bite payments which I think was overlooked. Simple way to sort it, tickbox at the bottom of your DD mandate, "Do you wish to qualify for benefits package or have your subscription go fully to the Well Society?" I for one signed up to a scheme to buy the club with benefits. I love the club but I don't have bottomless pockets and my generosity only goes so far. It is a business after all.>and that's the crux, every member will consider their own situation, I'd say that most couldn't name the benefits, majority if they could name one would be ST discount, and a significant amount would rather the society grew quicker than save what £20-25 on a book You are ignoring that the quickest way to grow the pot is to get people to join, not grow it by £75k+ per year from subs. Nothing was discussed if removing the benefits would limit that uptake going forward. I'd implore the board to spend their time getting another 900 members from those who already go every week and we're on £800k, 600 lapsed Well fans is another £250k and we're over £1m and on our way. they have spent significant time and effort and in one year gained 120 new members half of which were kids, so no significant boost to the fund, they went and asked those in the support to give them an idea on why they hadn't joined, 887 non-members gave them measured feedback, which meant changing terms, they explored options and looked at best return, changing new member payments terms and switching redirecting on-going payments into society funds was seen as best option, I personally think a couple of minor tweaks would suffice like, using some of the on-going funding to provide rewards would be preferable, but for the life of me , I cannot fathom out why 6 or 7 voices stalled the communication with the wider membership, making the board add an option that could have been added if majority wanted it A number of options should have been presented with detail on what happened at present. Pro's and Con's for each could have been discussed and then voted upon. Come to an AGM with hard and fast ideas to vote on, not something to go away with and work on further then go back to the membership and ask them to vote again, that should be investigated and worked through in depth before bringing it to that meeting. The existing model for me was OK, just needed tweaking so the club and society weren't worse off than they were before it came into being (by which the club covers all its costs associated with benefits and the Society doesn't need to dip into the £407k pot to cover any annual shortfall due to benefits).

From what I could gather last night and I'm going to be a little critical here, the current benefit based system results in the society giving the club around £40k a year to cover the shortfall the club makes in giving money off season tickets primarily. That pretty much takes into account most/all of the renewal subscriptions. Consequently the £407k raised so far will only grow from increasing the membership base as things stand. A second proposal was given where if the system was changed to having no benefits however you would gain essentially one annual lottery ticket for every £300 or so you had contributed (The Amber £5k members would get 15) for a major prize (a car was given as an example) then £75k a year could be raised and kept within the society and no doubt growing the pot. That £75k figure seemed to be based on the current subscriptions plus subs from the 25% of people who indicated they would join from the questionnaire if it was made easier in terms of paying up their joining fee over time. There didn't seem to be any account for any of the prizes to be purchased for the annual draw (£10k for a car and £5 in ancillary prizes?). For me was flawed and inappropriate to present with the aim to vote. It was laid out the current system was unsustainable, then we were asked to vote if we'd like to keep that or this option 2. I'm reminded of the Eddie Izzard "Cake or Death" sketch. I don't know what they were hoping to achieve but all it did was make me shake my head at how amateur it came across. I understand its not best to pursue new members when the structure of the scheme is under investigation to change it however I think exploring cost effective ways to pay for a membership should have been fully examined before looking to change the structure. It's been covered before in other threads if we grew out home attendance by 1,200 a game approximately then we would pretty much break even in an average season. Yet again anything associated with this club tends to go for the easy option in pumping those already involved for more money (an example was given where a member was called and asked to increase his membership level) rather than go to increase membership from the harder people who have drifted however have affection and an affinity for Motherwell. I for one signed up to a scheme to buy the club with benefits. I love the club but I don't have bottomless pockets and my generosity only goes so far. It is a business after all. I'd implore the board to spend their time getting another 900 members from those who already go every week and we're on £800k, 600 lapsed Well fans is another £250k and we're over £1m and on our way.

The league table now shows us in 5th which is getting us to our true levelling off point, however the worrying thing is every other team in the top 5 have pummelled at least once this season. Early December and I've yet to witness anything resembling entertainment at FP.

Aye your spelling and thought process, not really helped that the quote you included didn't have any spelling mistakes, granted there was a lack of apostrophe in "its" and "maths" was incorrectly capitalised. You really aren't doing yourself or your argument any favours.

I'd be happy if people could attend football matches, watch in a safe yet enjoyable way and leave without feeling any way threatened. I'm happy that our club is making a mature and sensible decision regarding this in the circumstances, Celtic's behaviour is photographically documented along with their rap sheet in Amsterdam and antics in Milan ..... along with ours last week in Hamilton. While you pontificate about the best course of action, if you were stood in front of the South in a high viz would you have ejected someone in the middle of that? Unfortunately the cops made a big mistake not clamping down on this mob after they terrorised Tynecastle. It's all about weighing up the situation, of course the police could have kettled them after the final whistle. With respect to this, you've got to realise which battles to fight and which ones to leave when you're fighting a war. (in our case its sustainability and survival, I don't know if you've noticed Scottish football is on its arse) I see your Maths is as good as your spelling.

What an idiotic post. Pumped out both cups, form resulting in our saleable assets not being so attractive come the January window, a good number of people missing matches and now not buying half season tickets and you want to ban 6,500 at £22 odd quid a pop. I would say that the most you could get to come is 100-200 more based on taking the moral high ground, not to mention they'd no doubt boycott us (a la Rugby Park) for a significant time. It's all well to stand on a soap box and very easy to wag a finger when you don't know the financials or basics of running a sustainable business, especially one that faces major cloth cutting. The club followed our desire to vote against Rangers (quite rightly based on all the facts), the proviso was that through Steelmen Forever that fanbase would have to help with the shortfall with things like buy a brick and other initiatives. By making a hoo-ha out of this Accies, SPFL/SFA and the authorities could go to town on us. The club have done the right thing by keeping it on the downlow as it satisfies both clubs management rather than baying to the red mist/green brigades.

Las Thought Nielsen should be sent to the goalkeeping naughty step for the third goal.

Collapse .... Predicted. 3rd goal was socking goalkeeping, for me Hollis can't come back quick enough.

weeyin is totally on the money here. When Ojamaa signed, he was electric for 8 games because nobody knew how to handle or play against him. When his influence dried up I remember thinking, son you have to reinvent yourself every 10 games or so to keep them guessing. I think we're in a position where the current set up is stagnant mainly due to a number of players under-performing. Whither that's down to being played out of position or unfavourable tactics/instructions to suit their own specific game. The only things I can identify are criticisms from our first pre-season friendly, the midfield in terms of creativity, ball winning and covering back was lambasted. That continued on through the European games and pretty much most of the season. Only thing that has masked the shortcomings was the inability of some of our opposition in the same areas of the park. My mantra with McCall from day 1 is he is more concerned with limiting damage than inflicting it. Still won't punt him, just ask him to explain why he is so slow to change style, formations, subs etc.

I'll put that comment down to the fact I hope 1991 was the year you were concieved