David

It really comes down to the criticism and how it's delivered. I doubt that Bair would have any issue with anyone calling into question his record before he arrived at Motherwell or people questioning our signing him based on that record. If we're honest, it was absolutely honking. He'll likely be the first to admit that. He's not an idiot. He'll know his record wasn't great. Another key aspect is being critical of the player's performance and his record without getting personal. But those same fans who were critical of him are now giving him his due credit, so it works both ways, doesn't it? Social media is a cesspool anyway, and any player who reacts to that really needs to sort themselves out. Once we step into the stadium, all that criticism should go out the window. It's at that point we support the team and the manager. I don't think booing or hurling abuse from the stands is acceptable.

Of course it's acceptable to have those opinions. The difference is, it's usually the people who want to wait to see what a manager can do or who want to wait for full information on investment who are the ones telling others to basically shut up. There's room for all types of opinions. That's the whole point of this website. We're fans. If we only ever discussed facts or waited until October or November to critique a player then this place would be a ghost town most of the time.

It should be pointed out that there's a huge difference between us signing a player, fans looking at his previous record and discussing how he's performed up until that point, how we think he'll do for us and so on, and actually booing him at a game. The former is a large part of what being a fan of any club is all about. Chatting about speculation, looking at previous stats and so on and discussing how he's done until then and guessing how he'll fit into our squad and setup. If we all stop doing that and only discuss players once they've signed and only strictly discuss how they do for us, and even then only how they do for us after an agreed-upon period of time to allow them to settle in, we'd be as well binning this forum and others like it. It's like the investment thread and the individuals who keep saying, "Let's wait until something is concrete before discussing it." What's the fun in that? If you don't want to discuss it, then don't log in. Go and wait in the corner for official confirmation before weighing in. Leave the rest of us to pass the time discussing signings, speculating about new owners, and generally talking shite. It's what fans have done since the game originated. Previously, it was only done in pubs and workplaces; now, it's done online as well. It's all part of the fun of being a fan. Thanks for letting us all know 😉

I imagine he's likely gotten anywhere between 30%-70% of the total value left on his contract paid to him.

That's a big "if" though, isn't it? As I said earlier, we don't know what our team will look like next season. Will Bair be as effective without the likes of Spittal in midfield? What if he picks up an injury? What if, and I hope it's not true, this season is his "Van Veen season"? £750,000 is a fair price for a guy who's really done nothing of note until this season. Any team paying that would basically be taking a punt on him. Sure, English teams can spend more, but would they spend more on a guy who has one good season in seven under his belt? He didn't really take a drop in wages though. He didn't force a move from St Johnstone to join us, he agreed to terminate his contract by mutual consent with the club because they deemed him a waste of time and money and he wasn't getting much game time promised to him. So, when he signed for us a month or so later he was basically earning nothing. I doubt there was a whole lot of teams blowing up his agents phone wanting to pay him more than we were offering either.

The best-ever Canadian player? Alphonso Davies, the Champions League-winning Bayern Munich player who joined them for $22 million, is probably going to hold that title for quite some time.

That's the main factor I think. Like it or not, clubs down south will be looking at a player like Bair as a punt. They're always going to be asking "yes, he's done that in Scotland against the teams in that league, but can he cut it in the big time down south?" We could keep him for another year. But there's always the risk that he returns to previous form depending on what the team looks like around him next season. Will he be the same player without Spittal in the side? Not sure that's a risk we can take. We ideally need to bring these players in then move them on at a decent profit. Bair would fit the bill in that regard.

So, all we're looking for is an investor who gives us money but doesn't want a controlling stake in how and where his money is spent, the ability to sell our young players for a profit that the club keeps, and more people joining the Well Society? Sounds amazing, but incredibly unrealistic to me. Again, we come back to this word "investment" when in reality what we want is someone to give us money to compete with other clubs who are spending outwith their means, and for that individual to find some vague, unknown way that they can see an ROI that doesn't affect the club in any way.

This is it in a nutshell. There's a huge difference between increasing revenue streams and basically living outwith our means and hoping some wealthy individual will cover the shortfall.

We don't need to sell our best player to survive. Not if we're budgeting accordingly, and we're budgeting for that 10th place finish at worst. Selling our best players should result in some financial leeway and a cushion of sorts, the way the Turnbull money did.

It's not precarious if the club is run correctly. We budget for finishing 10th and a few cup games, and anything else above & beyond that goes into the "rainy day" fund. Be it player sales, extended cup runs, top six finishes, whatever. For example, we're sitting 8th at the moment, and let's say that finishing in 8th means getting £1.375 million instead of the £1.250 million the team finishing 10th gets. That's an extra hundred grand or so that we didn't account for, so it's a little bonus.

Yeah, and that's all well & good. And you're entitled to that opinion, but the truth is that the majority of people do have televisions, and have had Netflix at some point in their lives. So it will have an effect. It adds credibility in some ways, doesn't it? That's why the media have mentioned it a few times. It's only natural that people hear about an investor and want to know what he's done. The fact he's not been with Netflix for quite some time doesn't really matter. And I wouldn't expect him to say anything of real substance about the investment publicly, not if he's a savvy operator. Only an absolute fool would come in and say "yeah, I won't be investing unless I get total control." And he doesn't strike me as a fool. The reason people like McCafferty are saying it is because as journalists they'll know how this kind of thing usually works. As I've said a few times, if he comes in, puts in a fair chunk of cash and does so without wanting to have majority ownership and thus final say over what happens to the money he invests then I'll be pleasantly surprised. He'll be a unicorn of sorts in the investment world. Because investors only really come in for a few reasons. The first is a financial return. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the reasoning behind this venture. There's typically not a lot of ROI in Scottish football. The other is because it's a useful asset to have as part of a portfolio of companies, which is where the control factor comes in. It's not quite as useful if the final say on important matters rests with a fan group. Such a framework is usually seen as a roadblock more than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually find out that the Society retaining majority ownership is a deal-breaker. Again, we'll see how it plays out. It should be interesting. All I know is, if someone is wealthy enough to invest in the club and we hand them majority control, they won't need my regular monthly subs. I pay that amount because we're a fan-owned club and the fans are majority owners. As @steelboy has said, I fully expect that we'll be told that having a 30% holding or whatever alongside his investment is the best of both worlds. And it might very well be. It could all work out fantastically. I guess it depends on if we want to take the risk that it might not.

Of course they do, but as I said, there's quite clearly (in my view) a drive to funnel the fans down the avenue of us desperately needing outside investment. It's not an overt drive, but it's definitely there. And I personally think it's succeeding. I believe if Erik Bermack, positioned as the "Netflix guy" with "Hollywood connections" as we've seen in the media so far, is officially positioned as wanting to come in and take us to " the next level" but only if the Society drops to less than 50% control that the fans will vote in favour. Again, as I said, asking for outside investment of a level that will make any real difference will most likely come with giving up fan ownership, for the reasons I mention. Very few successful businessmen are going to come in, risk their own money, give up their own time and expertise, yet remain answerable to a fan group. It's incredibly unlikely to happen. These types of guys are used to calling the shots. And this will be no different in my opinion.

The thing is, you're in the investment thread talking about how the Well Society has been a success. If you think the team as it is is "dog shit" then you're not going to be any happier next season or the season after if we remain as a fan-owned club. Because we simply do not have the money to increase spending on players I don't think.

How he gets a return on his investment is simply one part of the equation. I actually think the biggest bugbear for someone who's relatively self-made with a ton of cash will be having to run things past a group of unqualified individuals in the form of fan ownership. I have absolutely no doubt that someone of that standing would happily accept an element of fan input and would be happy to listen to ideas, but they'll want to be the decision-makers. In my experience, investors and operators at that level don't really like taking orders from anyone. They call the shots. I'd be willing to put my life savings on Erik Barmack coming in being contingent on the Well Society ceding majority control. Nah, the whole drive from the club of late has been with the angle of giving up fan control. From the marketing video to the lengthy interviews we've seen on YouTube to the question asked via the email poll. Everything has been geared towards convincing fans that giving up majority control is the way forward. Which is fine, if that's what the majority eventually vote for then I hope it goes well. I won't be putting another penny into the Well Society once that happens, though. At that point, I'm a customer. The guy who owns the club is the one who finances it. He doesn't need my monthly contribution.

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.

I don't think anyone will ever confuse you for that. Happy? Very rarely. Clapper? I doubt you clap much at Fir Park. So would I, if they're good enough. Even once we're mathematically safe, we should push to finish as high up the table as possible. The difference between finishing 7th and 9th could be something like £125,000. Considering we're pushing for outside investment and needing cash, that money should be a priority.

I remember the Record back in the day when, even if I didn't agree with what they posted, they had actual journalists writing the content and reporting the stories. It's a shadow of the publication it once was.

The Rancid put out a report today that mentioned Rangers had already beaten Dundee and taken three points from Dens Park "last night." The fact they don't even seem to know what day it is makes me question anything they have to say regarding us.

It's worth remembering that certain people who will remain nameless have been greetin' about every manager we've had for years now. Those same people were moaning about Robinson, Alexander, McGhee, Baraclough, McCall, and on and on. And if and when Kettlewell moves on, they'll do the same about the next guy. Some folk just get a kick out of being negative. I personally think he's a very good coach for us. Sure, there are better ones out there, but we're Motherwell. I'm not sure many better managers would be throwing people out of the way to get to Fir Park and work with our budget. If we make the top six this season, considering the squad we have? I'd say that's pretty astounding. It won't stop some people from focusing on the teams who didn't make the top six, though, and saying that it wasn't because of us being decent.

Of course it's up to him to sort out how we start games. But that doesn't mean that the reasons I provided are any less valid, and yes, other teams in the league do face the same issues. We'll start some games well, and we'll start some games badly. Like most other teams in our league. We're a small club with a small budget, and the players we sign will very likely be inconsistent, which is why they're playing for Motherwell and not a bigger club.

If only it were that simple, eh? The current manager has probably had to work with one of the smallest playing budgets our club has had in recent times. That's clearly reflected in the players we have. There are a lot of reasons why we don't start some games all that well. Factors such as early goals, injuries, or unexpected opposition tactics all necessitate on-the-fly adaptations by the manager. That applies to all managers of all teams, of course. There are times when we start a game really well, and it's then on the opposition coaching team to work out a way to combat that. I mean, generally, one of the two teams in any game has to start off as the better side. So there's a 50/50 chance it will be us. Many people seem to overlook the fact that the opposition's response adds another layer of complexity. We don't operate in a vacuum. It's not just about what we do. The opposition plays a part in the game as well. They may make tactical changes during the game, requiring the manager to react accordingly, which Kettlewell has shown on a few occasions he's more than capable of doing. How many fans of clubs do you hear moaning about no "plan B"? Well, that's not really a problem for us, as Kettlewell has shown he has the ability to read and react to a number of circumstances, which considering the quality and budget he has available, is admirable on its own. I'd go as far as to say that a top six finish with the current squad we have would be nothing short of astounding.

With our budget, that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. We can't really afford to have quality in depth, and like many others in the league, we just need to work with what we have.

Not so sure that's anything to do with the SPFL. I'm sure we're contracted to wear the various kits we have a certain number of times per season, no?

Or, just hear me out here... He puts out the best available players we have, and on occasion, we look like the better team against the opposition, but on other occasions, the opposition looks better than us, and Kettlewell makes some tactical changes as well as personnel changes and uses his know-how to change the game in our favour? I know that's mental, as that would actually involve giving the guy some form of credit for doing his job, but could it possibly be the answer? Could he have "out-coached" the opposition?