David
-
Posts
5,758 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
81
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by David
-
-
4 hours ago, wellgirl said:
But fans have the option to say no
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.
4 hours ago, wellgirl said:Asking for outside investment isn't the same thing as giving up fan ownership - the fans get making the decision as to what happens with the well society
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.
-
5 hours ago, steelboy said:
Even McGinn knows the team are dog shit.
I think they are the worst bunch of players we have had in a long time but there's still zero chance they are getting relegated now.
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.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:
As for David’s post above I don’t agree that we are being drip fed info via the media designed to get us to give up control. As for the WS will need to give up control narrative, again I disagree as the clubs not a loss making enterprise - our profit/losses over the last 7 years pretty much even out but future ground improvement’s are needed and will put us into loss more over the next 5-10 years no matter player sales - and although could survive without investment all be it probably in a poorer fashion.
The question is how is he going to get a return on his investment? The options I can see are either through a % of player transfer fees, some sort of media involvement or a combination of both. These don’t require total control of the club but more a clear contract which states where and on what his investment can be spent, what % of transfer fees he gets (if this is even on his agenda) and what is expected from the club and society.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.
1 hour ago, santheman said:tbf I haven't really read anywhere except on here that there's a targeted attempt to give up fan ownership.
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.
-
5
-
-
14 hours ago, wellfan said:
I'm just not a happy clapper.
I don't think anyone will ever confuse you for that. Happy? Very rarely. Clapper? I doubt you clap much at Fir Park.
10 hours ago, wellgirl said:I would personally give the young boys a chance once we are mathematically safe.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
The Rancid is reporting that SK is trying to fix up Georgie Gent and Jack Vale for next season. I hope he can pull that off ,but fear its a pipedream. .
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.
-
1 hour ago, grizzlyg said:
There will be folk who will never be convinced but I really like the guy.
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.
-
2
-
4
-
-
38 minutes ago, stv said:
If it was easy everyone would be doing it no just like us typing opinions with no consequences.
Its up to him to sort out the first half performance thats our obvious weak spot. What your using as , reasons , applies to all the other teams in the leauge as well.Would be interesting to see thetimes this season we started the second half at least goal down or not in the lead . Its glaringly obvious he has to do something to improve the first half performances. Maybe hes still learning but i still think its overthinking tactics and what opposition will do before a ball is kicked.
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.
-
54 minutes ago, stv said:
Over the season his starting tactics have generally been crap. How many time do we loose the first goal and are shite in the first half. But fair play to him he has changed a lot of games by tactical switches but thats usually when hes seen the game pan out and when we are down by a goal or two. Think how well we would be doing if he could manage the first half of a game better. Hence so many draws.
How about giving the halftime talk before kickoff.
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.
-
4
-
-
49 minutes ago, wellup83 said:
It tells me that the squad isn't strong enough. We lose a couple of players to injury and we can't play football.
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.
-
5 hours ago, SteelmaninOZ said:
And just to keep SPFL sweet Motherwell to play in our away kit and Dundee in their home kit……
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?
-
15 minutes ago, stv said:
Exactly, over thinks how to start a game, usually negatively. Then reacts well once hes seen the opposition play. Not a very good combination hes got to improve on this over thinking stuff during the week n play to our strengths.
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?
-
1 hour ago, Tamwell said:
I’m quite concerned by how many fans think the fan owned model isn’t working. Please do your due diligence, we’re in a decent position right now.
For many fans, the sign that it isn't working is that we got outbid by Kilmarnock for Van Veen in January.
-
1 minute ago, fizoxy said:
Hopefully things will be clearer when the Well Society complete their governance work stream, but some folk could do with learning what boards, executives, and shareholders do in general.
I'm not really sure it's on fans to learn what boards, executives, and shareholders do, though. It's on the club and our representatives to convey the required information clearly and in a way that can be understood by the wider fanbase.
As you say, the Society has certainly grabbed the bull by the horns when it comes to the way they want to do things moving forward, so let's hope that a lot of what people on this forum and elsewhere are asking gets answered over the coming weeks and months.
-
7 hours ago, wellup83 said:
Add neither should they be.
No, they most definitely should be involved in the discussions and proceedings. As majority shareholders, that should be a given.
7 hours ago, wellup83 said:Fan owned or not, divulging potentially sensitive information to the Society would be making details of the negotiations public knowledge basically.
There's a difference between the elected representatives of the Society board being involved in proceedings and any information being divulged to the wider membership base.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, wellfan said:
My view is that we should've learned the lesson during the Hammell debacle that promoting from within may be the cheap option in the short term but is likely to be more costly in the long term in terms of poor performances and the lost revenue that can lead to, and the potential gardening leave when it goes wrong.
Is it really "promoting from within" when the guy had been at the club for four months? Would you have felt better about the appointment of Kettlewell had he been appointed as manager but hadn't taken the lead development coach position a few months earlier?
Also, is it really the cheap option? I don't see how that would be the case.
-
1 hour ago, wellgirl said:
Either people have the right to say what they want on here or they don't.
They don't have the right to say what they want on here.
This isn't a democratically run public park where everyone has a right to be. It's a website run and owned by certain individuals.
1 hour ago, wellgirl said:Calling posters out as a mod is a really bad look as far as I'm concerned.
He's not a mod. He's an admin. There's a big difference. I'm a mod, which means I give up a little of my free time to help out where I can in running the forum, but what an admin is responsible for requires a whole lot more involvement.
The truth is, as harsh as it sounds, he can call out whoever he likes. He doesn't, though, unless there's a reason for it. This forum is pretty relaxed when it comes to rules and how people are treated, with a lot of leeway given. That approach comes from the top down.
I know that you personally have had some issues with how this forum is run and the leeway I mentioned, which the moderating team didn't agree with you on.
It's a football forum. For the most part, the mod team lets stuff slide because football is a passionate subject, and people get heated, particularly after games when the result hasn't gone our way. I think, by and large, we do quite a good job in that regard.
Basically, we are a small team, but we've done okay the past few years, I think. But it's important to remember that being allowed to post here isn't a right. The admins in charge make the rules, and the mods help keep things flowing as best we can. People can choose to either stick around and follow the rules set by the admin team or not.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, smiddy said:
i also seen billy davies in the crowd at dens park last week , his nottingham forrest gardening leave must be finished
It'll be ten years next week.
-
2 hours ago, MJC said:
Yes if you want.
I'll have a look later. There's a few of them from yesterday reassuring Rangers fans that they'd do their best to peg back Celtic for them and so on. The actual accounts are all pretty similar in the pish they post on the regular.
2 hours ago, MJC said:I would have to disagree though that they have a leaning in one particular direction. Most Hearts fans I know, in fact, ANY Hearts fan that I’ve ever known has only ever had a leaning towards Hearts and no one else. I’ve said this before on these forums, Hearts fans support their club through thick and thin and tend not to care what any one else thinks of them.
I know you have a weird hard-on for Hearts, so I'm wary of going down this rabbit hole too much with you, but as another poster mentioned, there are definitely shades of the Celtic/Rangers bigotry aspect when you look at Hearts and Hibs, so it's perfectly natural that an element of Hearts fans would look up to their "big brothers" in Glasgow.
And it's not just Hearts. Hibs are just as bad. It's quite pathetic, really.
It reminds me a little of how Rangers fans view Chelsea.
Anyway, we won. That's the main thing. I couldn't actually care less who won between Hearts and Celtic. Unless we're chasing Hearts for third place, their results have little bearing on me. Neither does who wins the title. I have good mates on both sides of the divide, so whoever wins, I know I'm guaranteed a few free beers when they're out pissed up and celebrating on that weekend.
Of course, this result over the weekend will be tainted somewhat if we don't keep this form up into the next few games.
We have a real chance of snatching a late top six finish if we play our cards right.
-
7 minutes ago, MJC said:
Do you have any evidence of Hearts fans posting stuff like that?
I’m not being awkward or argumentative btw, it’s a genuine question.
I can’t speak for anyone else but any Hearts fan I’ve ever known has only ever been interested in what is best for their club and they certainly don’t have any preference or leaning towards either OF club.
I can look for it again on X if you like? I saw it there.
As for Hearts fans not having any leaning towards either OF club? I think we both know that's nonsense. I'm not saying that they outright support one club or the other, but I think it's been clear over the years that they definitely have a leaning in one particular direction.
An example of that would be their fans singing the Billy Boys. I know a few sensible Hearts fans myself, and they're thoroughly embarrassed by that quite sizeable element in their support.
Again, I'm glad we don't have that side to our support. While some of our fans will no doubt have personal preferences on which of the old firm clubs they'd prefer to see win their games, maybe due to having family who support them or whatever, it doesn't leak out into how we actually support Motherwell, which is a good thing.
-
1 hour ago, MJC said:
And Celtic bottle it against Hearts at Tynecastle. Could this weekend get any better?
As the Tynecastle sound system is now blaring out
#Oh, ho, ho it’s Magic
You know oh ho#
Get it right up them, their odious fans and that prick Rodgers.
Although I've seen some right cringeworthy stuff from Hearts fans in the lead up to that game, posting stuff like "Don't worry Rangers, we have you covered tomorrow"
Talk about bending the knee to their big club? Jesus. I'm glad we tend to have more fans that are happy to see both cheeks get done over.
-
2 minutes ago, Wee Dougie said:
Appreciate what your saying David, but the man has had a hard on for doom and gloom all season. As stated I had read a lot of posts before joining and appreciate thst people are entitled to their opinion, but christ every week predicting doom and gloom, be it the manager, players or whatever, gets right on yir mamaries. I am not party to what you say to him privately, but by god publicity, he appears to have a free rain to diss anything MFC, every day every post. If you think that's correct, well, that's your opinion.,but mines is, FFs, give us a bit of encouragement from your posts. End of rant. COYW.
You have the option to put him on ignore if you so wish. If not, then leave him be. If he oversteps the line the admin will deal with him.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Wee Dougie said:
Does this man have no shame, gloats at every defeat, predicted one here, even at half time and then has the temerity, to come on and declare his love for all things Claret and Amber, I just don't know how he has the neck to do it.
Honestly mate, you've had a hard-on for MJC since you got here.
Enough is enough. Cut it out, or we'll need to look at moderating your posts.
-
2
-
New Investment Options
in Club Chat
Posted
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.