joewarkfanclub
-
Posts
3,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
70
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by joewarkfanclub
-
-
8 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
Who says the investment from outside sources is 1.5 million?
Who says it isnt?
-
Feed the Bair.
The scouts are watching!
A couple more for the highlights reel would be (a few more) grand!
-
We got less than £1m for last seasons Premiership top scorer on 28 goals.
There are lots of variable factors but Theo has scored 13 goals and prior to this season had a total of 8 senior goals.
I take my hat off to the big chap for the improvement he has shown this season and it would be great to keep him as I think he can still improve, but anyone that thinks that we wont move him on if money like that comes in, or that he wouldnt want to move up a level isnt being realisitic.
Particularly those that would argue that fan ownership isnt working and we need to drop our pants at £1.5m investment from outside sources.......
-
I think the documentary side of things has potential as a revenue stream and possibly the streaming of our games more globally, as thats what Barmack knows. But how that fits with tv deals negotiated by the League, SFA, UEFA etc remains to be seen.
The player trading also has possibilities, but we would need to be a whole lit better at it than we are now for both Barmack AND Motherwell to make more money out of it.
An academy in the States with access to a larger pool of talent with the outlook of moving them onto the Premiership could work, but again Id be concerned about how this would impact local talent getting into the team, as thats pretty much been my favourite thing over the last 10 years.
Watching the likes of Cadden, Campbell, Turnbell, Hastie, Johnstone and Miller all coming through has been a joy.
-
3 hours ago, Jay said:
The player sales model debate is an interesting one. For me, it's not a precarious model by any means. And I'd suggest that it demonstrably works.
We're in a situation where the club doesn't urgently need outside investment - it would just be preferable. Our model ensures that it's unlikely that the hypothetical gap outlined in the Well Society's consultation earlier in the year, and the hypothetical gap that is the very reason for courting external investment in the first place, will, based on the experience of fan-ownership to date, materialise. It never has under fan-ownership and, even if it did, the Well Society has enough funding to cover that gap as a one-off. The issue would be if something that has yet to happen didn't just happen one year, but two in quick succession.
Of course, nothing is impossible in football. Over the same time period that fan-owned Motherwell has remained in the division, reached cup finals, and made Europe, clubs with bigger resources such as Hearts, Hibernian and Dundee United have all been relegated. So it's a duty of the club to at least recognise that hypothetical gap and see if there's a more productive way to eradicate it, other than relying on the Well Society to plug it if it happens once, and then to probably slash our playing budget if it happens again in quick succession (before the Society has built up the safety net again).
But in terms of our model, David Turnbull always gets picked out as a seeming "anomaly" but in reality, he's the result of an effective player sales model. Since fan-ownership came into being, we have - purely off the top of my head, so there'll probably be others I miss - sold, for cash, guys like Louis Moult, Cedric Kipre, Kevin van Keen, Sondre Solholm Johansen, James Scott & Ben Heneghan.
We could have, had we tied them down on contracts, added Chris Cadden, Allan Campbell, Jake Hastie, Dean Cornelius & Max Johnston to that list. However, the compensation for each still numbers in the hundreds of thousands meaning that, collectively, that's still well over £1m.
We will probably sell Theo Bair on for a relatively decent fee in the summer, January, or next summer, while at the same time, Lennon Miller will almost certainly go for a price that you could perhaps list alongside the Turnbull fee.
In terms of any investment meaning a change from that model and the ability to keep our best players, I would argue that is incredibly unlikely, if not impossible. The player sales model is only partly because of a financial need, it's also largely because of the club's stature in world football. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it was confirmed at the AGM by the club that no investment offer is transformational, meaning that there would be no change to the model. In fact, you could argue that, if any investor was keen on getting a return on their investment, the player sales model could become even more important in that situation.
The only way in which our model ceases to be our model that I can see is if we ended up with an incredibly unlikely Colin & Christine Weir scenario where a diehard Motherwell fan wins the Euromillions and wants to just chuck cash at the club. But even in that situation, where you don't necessarily need to sell players, players would still be sold - because the best guys will always want to move on to play at perceived bigger clubs or in better leagues, regardless of how much cash you're able to throw at them.
The player sales model at Fir Park has been in place, and worked successfully, before fan-ownership, has worked under fan-ownership, and will continue to work regardless of whether the club is owned by the fans, an external investor, or a hybrid of the two. Personally, I think it's both a successful model that we should be positive about, because we're good at it, and a model that will be integral to the club whether we like it or not anyway.
Thanks for this Jay.
Important we get some general information and opinion from members of the Society Board.
-
There is a huge difference between increasing revenue streams and taking on outside investment.
The club will have to increase its revenue streams regardless of whether it stays under fan ownership or sells its majority shareholding to a private investor.
If we sell, the initial money will be welcome, but it doesnt seem like its going to be transformational, and its benefit could be short lived.
We still need to live within our means, otherwise we end up owing money to the investor like Dundee, Dundee United or any of the other clubs going down this route.
Thats fine as long as the investor is happy with that situation. The minute they are not you are back in a "John Boyle" situation or worse.
I look at the potential investment more like a Dragons Den situation, where the worth to the club could be through the particular skillset and expertise that Bamack could bring, rather than how deep his pockets are, which really is irelevant.
Its worth noting also, that we have just appointed a new CEO. Id be interested to hear what his ideas are about increasing revenue streams alongside the Society.
It could be that a mixed model with Society/Club/Barmack working together is the way forward.
-
4 hours ago, wellsince75 said:
your 'just do that' reminds me of the best tactics I ever know as a Well fan.
Get the ball to Cooper
Get the ball to Faddy
Get the ball to Turnbull
Just do that - happy days.Sometimes its best not to over complicate things! 😆😆😆
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, dennyc said:
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'
I dont know anything for a fact.
Only the investor and the club know what the deal is (or should).
But some of our fans seem to think that outside investment is some sort of no risk Nirvana where we never have to pay any money back and we can instantly spend more money on players.
Given how negative many are being about fan ownership, I think its important that someone highlights the risks on the other side of the fence.
I do want to re-iterate though, that I wont make my own mind up one way or the other until I see the detail of the deal.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, wellgirl said:
As other people have said - where are the Well society going to find other money from? Unless there are cash reserves somewhere. I know it's possible that they could ask for extra donations from members. My whole issue with fan ownership is that there simply aren't enough members to make it work. No more than that - and I'm a member.
By exploring other revenue streams not currently being tapped.
No different than the investor who is looking for control of the club.
The money he intends to invest wont be free. He wants it back with interest. So he will have to find ways of getting more money into the club. Otherwise he and we dont make any more money.
The advantage he has at the moment is that he comes from a corporate background and clearly has experience in that field.
That doesnt mean to say that there arent smart peoplenon the WS Board noe though with ideas of their own.
-
2 hours ago, wellfan said:
Maybe, but why should it have taken until now for the Society to up its game? Why wasn't the Society actively examining and proposing meaningful ways to increase the membership and raise further inward investment? Why has it taken until now for the Society to confirm that 3800 members don't correlate with 3800 active monthly direct debits? Has the Society been in cruise control for many years, resting on its laurels until it felt a threat from the Club?
Because the people that were elected to the WS Board were happy to allow the executive board to keep the Society at arms length.
Thats no longer the case.
-
Just now, grizzlyg said:
Spittal's free kick definitely wins most embarrassing grizzlyg moment as I was berating him before it as his corners that day were brutal. Cue a quality free kick and everyone around me in knots...followed by me saying "Sorry Blair" 🤣🤣
You werent the only one!
I was shouting at him to leave the kick alone for the very same reason.
He shut me up good and proper!
Absolute worldy!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, wellgirl said:
So fans can't have less than 50 per cent share of a club? If fan ownership was working Motherwell wouldn't be looking for outside investment.
Of course they can. But whats the point?
If you want to remain a shareholder you can buy an ordinary share.
The purpose of the Society was to deliver a fan owned club. And it suceeded in that regard.
If the club is no longer fan owned, the reason for the Society no longer exists.
I will simply stop my direct debit and put money into the club some other way of my choosing.
-
PS. I agree with David, in that if this deal goes through (and I might yet vote for it) and the Society no longer has majority shareholding, I will no longer feel the need to continue my subscription.
In my opinion, if you give away majority shareholding the purpose of the Society no longer exists and you may as well wind it up.
Not sure if the Board or investors hace considered that.......
-
2
-
-
This debate really is just going round in circles.
I guess thats what happens when we have no game to discuss and a vacuum of information.
FWIW, although my preference is to remain majority fan owned and I am sceptical about this investor for now, I'm more than happy to wait and see the detail before making a final decision.
There are one or two things worth repeating though.
Although Ive been a member of the Well Society since its inception, there have been many things around it I have not been satisfied by.
It has always seemed to me that the Executive Board have tried to keep the Society at arms length and only really consulted it when it needed to. Happy to have the safety net it provided, but really viewed it as an inconvenience. Now that might not be entirely fair, but thats how it has felt, to me at least.
I sense there has been a change since the last WS Board elections and that some power and control has been wrestled back, and Im keen to see what direction that takes now that there might finally be a chance to make the fan ownership model mean something more tangible.
Obviously the timing of this bid moves the timeframe forward for the Society and they will need to act quickly to get their ideas across and show that they can work.
Re the bid, I dont know where the figures came from or whether they are correct, but for argument sake, a bid of £1.5m over a specified period isnt the kind of offer thats going to get me excited, and its certainly not the kind of figure that should see us selling controlling interest of the club for. Our club is worth considerably more than £3m regardless of how shit or desperate anyone thinks we are at the monent.
Its not a figure we can turn our noses up at though, and if there was a way of getting that kind of investment into the club whilst keeping majority shareholding and the promise that we will still keep a majority share of player trading, then it might be worth looking at.
At the end of the day, we need a deal which leaves us with more money coming into the club, not less. So whilst £1.5m now seems appealing, if the amount we bring in for player trading goes down, there doesnt seem much point.
Its up to Mr Barmack to demonstrate he has the business skills and knowledge to grow the business and allow him to do that whilst making a profit on his own investment.
In the meantime, I dont think a figure of £1.5m over 3 or even 5 years is revenue that is necessarily outwith the reach of the Society. But they dont have a lot of time to show it can be done and would be a viable alternative.
-
15 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
Vale beside Bair please, not behind him.
This all day long.
We need to ditch the weird formation and get our best players playing in their best positions.
Vale is great with his back to goal and holding the ball up and playing others in.
Bair is better running in behind.
Davor runs around and breaks shit up.
Miller and Spittal are both best at controlling the tempo and picking a pass.
Gent is great at beating his man and driving crosses across the 6 yard box.
Just do that.
And if the defence could maybe not chuck any in our own net that would be grand!
-
2
-
1
-
-
Are cup goals not included?
Not that he needs any more entries, but Spittal's free kick v Alloa has to be a contender.
Of those in the compilation, Slattery's is the best team goal.
Individually its between Spittals screamer v Ross County and The Bairs dink.
-
58 minutes ago, robsterwood said:
Personal opinion but I'm not that interested now finishing 7th or 8th or 9th. I know money means a lot to club but to fans I'm not interested now and season over. Splits not a great idea. Means seasons finished and clubs in top half sometimes have less points than bottom 6. Think we're safe now points plus goal difference. Wil be back at league cup matches.
Ive never understood this logic.
Surely you are interested in how much money the manager has to spend on new players in the close season.
As has been already stated the difference of a couple of places could be £125k.
That could be the difference in getting a couple of our 1st choice targets, or having to settle for "projects" again.
Every game between now and the end of the season is important to us.
We have a big rebuild again in the summer. The more money we have for that the better.
-
6
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:
Given our injuries this season and our horrible winless run I would have settled for 10th spot a few months ago. So for me, its almost job done but not quite yet. Lets take the summer to rebuild for next season. Hopefully SK will find it easier to clear the decks this time round and bring in more of his own choices.
Hopefully a more balanced squad that will allow us to play more than one way!
-
The wind spoiled the game today.
Thought we started the brighter although Hibs grew into it and were the more dangerous team for 10 -15 minutes in the middle of the half.
Thought we might have got the advantage with the wind behind us but it didnt really seem to pan out that way.
Pretty scrappy second half and although Kelly made a couple of good saves, I didnt think there was much between the teams.
SK's substitutions continue to baffle me. I felt sure we were going to a back 4 when he took SOD off for Nicholson which would have been the obvious move, so to see Nicholson playing wing back seemed weird and didnt really play to his strengths
Taking off both Miller and Spittal and firing on 2 forward players when we already had Bair and Moses on the pitch seemed a bit mental, albeit we ultimately got the equaliser.
It felt that we got it in spite of the changes not because of them.
Mental to think we should have won it at the end with Shaws chance.
-
2 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:
Was talking to some Celtic supporters this week about Theo Bair and said he must be the biggest player in the league.
Well I wanted to know for sure....so I did the research.
Top Ten Units in the Scottish Premier League (height x weight, goalkeepers excluded).
1. Theo Bair (Motherwell)
2. Ricki Lamie (Dundee)
3. Cameron Carter-Vickers (Celtic)
4. Michael Nottingham (Livingston)
5. Leo Balogun (Rangers)
6. Dante Polvara (Aberdeen)
7. James Scott (St Mirren)
8. Stephen O'Donnell (Motherwell)
9. Charles Dunne (St Mirren)
10. Dan Casey (Motherwell)
Surprised Bevis isnt on that list.....
-
Gent.
-
16 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
Kelly
O'Donnell
McGinn
Casey
Blaney
Gent
Miller
Zdravkovski
Spittal
Vale
Bair
Not too much to argue about there.
Devine probably better foing forward than SOD, but SOD has been pretty steady at the back this season. Probably his best since he joined us.
I like Mugabi in the centre of the 3 just to clear the ball at set pieces, but maybe not so much an issue v Hibs.
The rest picks itself.
-
2 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:
Hi folks, is Motherwell TV available for UK residents? My mates dad unable to attend today and was wondering if he could watch it online anywhere?
As far as Im aware its only audio available officially via MFCTV in the Uk.
There may be ways to get it online but not officially via the club........
-
Hold.......
Hold.......
Hold.......
-
1
-
2024/25 Ins & Outs Discussion
in Club Chat
Posted
The problem for Halliday is that he came with a pedigree so expectations are higher. Im hoping his issues are just lack of football and match fitness and that its not that his legs are just gone. Happy to see how he looks after a proper pre season and a bit more first team football.
We should offer Theo an improved deal because he has earned it, but also to show prospective suitors we are serious about keeping him and if they want him they will need to make it worth our while. If we want to push his value up we need to send out the right signals.