dennyc

I think you are clever enough to know that the Safety Certificate comment related to the ground facilities. And you can only spend profits if you earn them. Losses of over a million in successive seasons will soon empty the coffers.

By the same token we would be in a better position if we had not incurred losses of over £3m in the past two accounting years. Those losses are clearly not of concern to some. How long can we sustain losses of that nature? And, Yes, we would still have had to spend a fortune on the East Stand and Pitch even if that previous income had not been available. Possibly funded by the Well Society leaving us even more exposed. Those upgrades were almost mandatory for Safety Certificate reasons and to avoid further SPFL sanctions because of the pitch. And Fir Park will continue to eat up funds as repairs are ongoing. And, if investment had been secured earlier, we could perhaps have also had funds to improve the playing squad rather than bringing in the low cost players you have openly stated are not good enough. There is scope for outside Investment, the Society and player sales. In fact proper application of any Investment could actually result in more profitable youth development, increased player sales and improved performance on the pitch.

For me this is the vital ingredient. I think everybody acknowledges that just like everybody else we are a selling Club. And there is nothing wrong with that. But unless the club is at the same time generating profits and/or has a constant stream of quality youth coming through, then the product on the pitch inevitably decreases. A trend we have seen for a good few seasons as income has been utilised for a wide range of infrastructure improvements rather than maintaining player quality. Not having a dig at the Directors here as most Clubs are experiencing similar decline. To a degree that has hidden our own issues. What the Board statement actually said before all this debate started was that to CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT THE CURRENT LEVEL some form of outside investment is required. If we are prepared to risk a drop in the level we play at, then we can continue as is. So why can't we strive to have a balance that incorporates outside investment on acceptable terms plus income from player sales plus a growing Well Society? Especially if that additional investment is used in part to fund a stronger and more productive youth programme. Then any on field performance above the level budgeted for results in growth and does not mean we just stand still at best. Also the big issue with bringing in value through player sales is that players will often deliberately let contracts run out. And there is nothing the Club can do about it. Take Lennon Miller. Thankfully he has extended and we all expect him to go for Turnbull like monies. But what if next January Motherwell are offered half of what they think he is worth. Do they turn the offer down or reluctantly accept it because we need the money? If they opt not do sell, could that upset the player in which case he might decide to run down his contract in the hope of a big sign on fee from a top club in due course? That situation is happening throughout the football world. My point is that overly relying on player sales is risky. And if those potential sales are the only realistic way of generating income then that risk is greatly increased. And sorry, but saying we have broken even over the past seven, ten or twenty years is meaningless. Turnbull and two cup finals in a season are history. What matters is how finances are working out in the present.

Do you know that for a fact? Not saying it is not his plan, but why are you so sure? Other than 'that is how it usually works'

How does he achieve that if the Society members say no to giving up their majority holding? Are you saying that McMahon has the power to hand the club over irrespective of what the members say.

Ah, so with 45 Clubs UK wide already purchased, we are all that is left? That is a really credible basis for such an astute businessman to become involved. What about worldwide? Much as I love Scotland there must be other countries that boast non fan owned Clubs available for purchase. You still have not told me why us, rather than them. How much profit did we make in the most recent set of Accounts? Or the previous set? As for McMahon, your comments are bordering on fixation. But at least they tie in to your conspiracy theory. ' From what you have heard'? Heard from who? I don't know whether Barmack is seeking majority control. Neither do you. Unless you do have that hard evidence I asked for. If he does, it will become evident soon. Then the Society Members have a decision to make. As is their legal right.

I think this is a valid comment regarding the way the Society has operated in the past. Little consultation and even less communication. But this is different and has a legal implication. The Society owns a majority share holding so by law they must surely have a say if the Club is to be sold. So whilst it may be that some Society Board Members would prefer to continue to make major decisions without referral to the Members, in this situation I don't think they can. And they have openly said the Members will have the final say. Again, that is totally different from previous decision making. New Board members have also given that assurance. As you are well aware these were only examples on non fan owned Clubs. You have avoided the real question. Why would anybody take on the challenges of buying a fan owned Club when other simpler, less challenging options are available? Clubs worldwide that could be bought without needing any fan buy in.

If investment is dependent upon Barmack securing a majority share holding then that will require to be confirmed when details of any offer is made public. So why waste time and money hiding that stipulation from the outset. I think any such demand would likely be a deal breaker as far as Society members are concerned. And without Society members approval no bid can succeed. There is no way round that. Steelboy’s Conspiracy theories aside. But nothing Barmack has said so far suggests that he is seeking a majority holding. All such talk has come from others, who do have the Club’s interests at heart but also have a passionate wish to retain fan control. Fair enough. But there is no evidence to support their view other than ‘investors are always looking for a financial return’ and ‘it is always the case that’. If there is any factual evidence that Barmack wants overall control, please share it so we can all be ‘in the know’. Given the challenge and obstacles that securing ownership of a fan owned football club present, why on earth would any experienced businessman go down that route as opposed to seeking control over the likes of Ross County or St Johnstone, whose owners are reportedly looking to step back? It makes no sense. Perhaps we should just take his comments at face value until we know otherwise.

Barmack said quite clearly that he did not want to disempower the Society. In fact he was all for supporting it and helping it grow, working in a partnership. Without providing any evidence, the Scotsman journalist is essentially calling him a liar. The whole tone of the article could almost convince me it was written by Steelboy, or at the very least he had input. Perhaps we now know his ‘in the know’ source. At the end of the day Members will decide whether or not to accept any investment offer. So the Society is in a position of strength. If Barmack suddenly declares he wants majority control, then that vote will likely go against him. And what can he do if the Society does reject his offer? Let’s wait until we see the full terms of any offer. Then the fans will decide. Steelboy and McCafferty are trying to stir up unrest without any real evidence to support their allegations. Throw enough shit and some will stick appears to be the plan. If there is any basis in their fears then all will become clear in due course.

I think that response reveals more about you than it does about Barmack.

“Our perspective is we never want to make an investment that disempowers the Well Society and the connection the fan-owned group has with the club. There's a bunch of different ways to construct deals that can accomplish the objectives of a fan ownership model, alongside outside investors. “ What do you think he meant with that response? How does taking a majority holding tie in with not wishing to disempower the WS?

Decent Interview with valid questions asked and addressed. And he is now on record as not wishing to oust the Society. Further details to come but encouraging.

Les H did encourage Society sign ups by saying he would reduce the sum owed to him by the equivalent of any new funds collected by the Society. £1 for £1. What we were not told at the time was that Society funds would be used to repay the remaining balance of his debt at an agreed date. Effectively, for a period of time, all monthly payments to the Society were passed to him. My view is that fans who hand over hard earned cash are entitled to know what those funds will be used for. Not to the Nth degree by all means. To support the Club is one one thing and I'm all for that, but to support other causes (however worthy) is another thing. If I want to contribute to the Community Trust or any other charity I will do that separately. I'm certainly not questioning the merit, good work or value of the Trust. My biggest concern is that funds were to be loaned to the Club and not just donated. The Society would act as Bankers. Any Loans to the Club were to be shown as such on MFC/Society Accounts with the intention that at 'some time in future convenient to MFC' they would be repaid from income. This was essentially an exercise to ensure that if MFC failed, then legal priority would be given to repaying the Society ahead of Ordinary Shareholders and Creditors. Common sense. If that agreement had been adhered to, then the value of the Society would currently be well in excess of £2m. And available for a rebuild if need be. If the way the the Society is to support the Club has changed/is to change then fair enough. But at the very least Members should be aware of what the arrangement is. Through discussions I believe attempts are being made to return to the original model, driven by recent appointees. But if I am to continue to contribute then I need to be convinced that we are once more operating as originally agreed, particularly as those who oversaw the 'donations' still have influence.

Of course the Society exists to fund the Club in times of need. But, just like a Bank overdraft, those funds were originally intended to be repaid to the Society from the likes of transfer income or end of season performance payments. In that way Society funds would continue to escalate and be protected in a worst case scenario. To rebuild a new Club if need be. That is how the Society was sold to fans. Without Members knowledge that model was changed. First of all to repay Les Hutchison and subsequently funds were handed to the Club with no intention of those monies being repaid. So the current balance is way below where it should be given the total funds received from fans over the time the Society has existed. Recent appointees to the Society Board are hoping to see the original model followed in future and so see balances increase. Funds were also intended to be provided purely for the core business of the football Club. Although the Community Trust is a fantastic initiative I would question whether the Society should be utilising fans’ donations for that or any initiative which is not essential to Motherwell FC.

Selling talent is a key part of every Club, and always will be. I don’t think anyone believes otherwise. . But as u say other income streams must also be maximised. My concern is that for a while the sale of players appears to have been identified by the current Board as the only way to operate in the black, or close to it. With Society monies made available for projects the Club cannot fund. The Society is a good thing and hopefully will continue to grow but I wonder, if it had not existed, would McMahon etc been forced to come up with other ways to balance the books. By continually selling off our best players and their youth replacements, the quality on the pitch reduces…..as is evident on a year by year comparison…and so performance income reduces and the Club becomes less attractive to sponsors, new fans, tv etc. We then become even more dependent upon player sales and if they don’t happen we continue our quality decline. How long can that downward spiral continue? It’s fair to say that other Clubs are experiencing similar problems but they have an advantage over us in that they do have outside sources of income. Some that are even prepared to cover sizeable losses. Somebody helpfully provided a list earlier in this thread. I guess it might all come down to what level we wish to see Motherwell compete at. I hope we can find a balance that supports both outside investment and the Society as major shareholder. If not, I worry about where we are heading.

Exactly this. And also, despite income from youth players moving elsewhere, we still incurred losses some years. I repeat, it is a highly risky strategy. Relying on a Turnbull like sale every other year as a minimum. We would survive possibly were those sales not to happen, but at what level?

I'm not saying investing in youth should not be part of our strategy. But relying on sufficient player sales from that source is too risky. It is too tempting for young players to walk away when their contracts expire, or before they reach full contract age. Those sales should be a bonus and not a "get out of jail" card. Amongst other things, external investment on the correct terms could help us develop a stronger youth programme. That way we have the best of both worlds. So that is a bit more than a 12 month cycle. Bottom line is that we cannot continue as is. It does not work and leaves us exposed.

Ok. so not a complete run of losses. Just the four loss making seasons out of seven and that includes the most recent two years which represent the biggest losses. A trend which should cause concern, and would in most Businesses. So my question about sustainability is still valid. How many £3m players can we unearth and profit on given current transfer rules? Strip that Turnbull fee out and the seven year Net Profit more than disappears. And in that timeframe we have also ingathered funds from a fair number of Development/Agreed Fees which failed to offset operating losses. The strategy of relying on such sales to survive is just asking for trouble.

There is definitely strength in numbers and members donations being locked in is also a positive. But the Club and others have been given Society funds on a permanent..not loan....basis. Contrary to what we were promised would happen when the Society was established. So Society funds are lower than they should be given total donations collected. A figure in excess of £1.25m is gone forever. The people who allowed that to happen are still on the Society Board. More recent appointees are looking to have better control over Society assets but it remains to be seen whether they will succeed. I genuinely wish them well and early signs are promising. Given how Society funds have been managed up to now, the limited scope for increasing monthly income given our fan numbers and the fact the Club has failed to at least break even for a number of years .........for how long do you think the Society can continue to sustain the Club before funds run out? Having to demonstrate the ability to financially cover an 18 month period to appease the football authorities also comes into play. I believe external investment is essential to ensure the future of our Club at the present level. Respect them or not, it is clear the current Club Board shares that view. And on that basis I think they are acting in the Club's best interest. But we need to find the correct balance, which retains the Society as the major shareholder, does not make us overly reliant on the goodwill of any outside investor and protects Club assets. Not an easy task. Until we are presented with the facts of any investment offer we need to keep an open mind. It would also help if meantime the Society would spell out exactly how our funds will be utilised in future. Are we returning to the original model and so longer being utilised as a piggy bank to be raided for whatever purposes certain people see fit.

Why is it such a big deal for you that he supposedly paid for the video? I can imagine your comments had he used Club funds bearing in mind our financial situation? Do you think we don't need external investment? I suppose it all adds to your conspiracy theory though. If you have concrete evidence that McMahon is not acting in what he believes to be the best interest of Motherwell FC, then share it. And I'm pretty sure the request for investment was not limited to America. Did you have the same issues when a former Director personally funded a players wage deal?

When he came on at Dundee SOD did everything that Devine didn't. Suddenly the midfield had an option moving forward out wide other than Gent and Dundee were stretched all across the park. As a result Spittal started to contribute more, Bair had space to run into and Gent was not double marked. And Kettlewell deserves credit for making that change, despite the concern about SOD carrying an injury. His performances throughout the season have more than earned SOD another year.

Disgraceful. Clearly the pitch is currently unplayable. But hey, why don't you guys buy tickets and set off anyway and we will tell you whether the game is on or off as you pass Perth. Fans are the lifeblood of the sport and get treated like crap. All because the powers that be did not want to be accused of bias by insisting Rangers and Dundee play midweek before an OF game. But then it is the Clubs that allow the cretins on the SPL Board to run the show. Nothing changes.

It will not matter whether we agree or not. The game will be played wherever and whenever the authorities decide it will be played. Same as kick off times for tv, cup ties etc. Fan convenience and player welfare are not considerations sadly.

And we have sold you as many tickets as possible, for which no refund will be available. Surely this is a time when PATG is the solution.

I think the tail has been wagging the dog ever since Hutchison insisted the established model be altered. Only the recent additions to the Society Board gave me hope that order might be restored. And I believe Jay and his colleagues are working to that end. But, sadly, nothing I have read recently suggests to me that anything meaningful has changed.