steelboy

Bringing players through is part of our business model. We have Lennon Miller now, there will be more. Focusing on 12 month cycles rather than the medium term would be cutting our own throat. A lot of annual losses over the years have just been investing the profits from the previous year.

I agree with this and whenever (or possibly if) we have a Society meeting there are going to be a lot of questions asked about exactly that. Going back to the very start of the Society one of the first things that happened was the Society bought 5% of the club for £250,000 without informing the members which led to complaints, a meeting and new rules being put in place. The share sale recently apparently involved selling 5% of the club for £10,000 which is hugely undervalued. My back of a fag packet calculations put this at a 90% discount for the buyers. I'm sure i'm not the only member who wants to know why this is considered beneficial for the membership and who exactly benefitted from the discounted sale.

That's not true though. These are the figures during the period of fan ownership so far. When you compare it to other clubs during the same period we have done exceptionally well. According to Derek Weir at the AGM we are likely to break even this season which is impressive considering the dead weight in the playing squad. 16/17: (£104,000) 17/18: £1,720,000 18/19: (£436,000) 19/20: £346,590 20/21: £3,575,615 21/22: (£1,082,000) 22/23: (£1,605,000) Net profit: £2,415,205

Giving up transfer income would be crazy unless we are getting some kind of transformative investment on the playing side. It would just be giving away an income stream for nothing in return. Apart from having some glamour due to be in the entertainment industry I don't understand why are meant to be impressed by this guy. He's never been involved in professional sport before nevermind football, has never lived in Scotland and doesn't seem to be that wealthy. All that seems to have happened is that he's discovered a bunch of mugs who might give him millions of pounds worth of assets at a huge discount.

I don't see how you could possibly have more say as a small shareholder than as a Society member? Everyone is equal in the Society, it gives us a legal structure to pool our resources, no one can take money out of it and it could easily outlive most of us.

I didn't sign up to pay monthly because I didn't want my wages going to repaying John Boyle and Les Hutchinson. Even now if the Society wants more funds it's only to have the cash in reserve to give the club. For me if the club has enough money to afford Harry Paton, Jon Obika, Andy Halliday and Oli Shaw they definitely don't need any more of my money. It's like someone booking a week in Ibiza then asking for a tap because they're skint.

I'm sure I've told you this before but I'll post it again. Every adult Well Society member owns one voting share. No one can lose their share or sell or transfer it.

We've already been asked that. If you don't walk about with your eyes closed you'll know it's easy to get people to vote against their own interests. What I'm expecting is an offer where we initially go equal with the American and it leaves McMahon, Weir, Dickie etc with the swing vote. It's worth remembering that the Society used own 76% of the club and sold 5% at a huge discount not long ago. That reduced the Society's legal status as majority owner and it would be interesting to know who bought the shares.

I went to a Well Society meeting years about expanding to a 14 team league with a 6-8 split. At the beginning of the meeting virtually everyone in attendance was against the proposal. Two hours later due to bullshit, lies and spin from Leeann Dempster everyone in attendance apart from three people voted for it. With a straight face she told the meeting that the 12 team league set up with 1 relegation place and 1 playoff place that we have now had for 10 years would put the viability of the club at risk and that auditors would refuse to sign off on our accounts. Time has showed that she was lying through her teeth but in the meeting there was no way to argue against her. The side in favour of American ownership has the backing of the individuals currently controlling the club and the PR resources they can muster. At the moment no one has stood up and made a case for the fan ownership and what it has achieved over the past seven years. If that continues it's pretty much guaranteed the members will give the club away.

The video he paid for that says we are looking for American investment.

The rumoured proposal is the American taking 51% of the club for £1.5m investment. The question put to the Society members was about losing the majority shareholding. It's fair to assume that's what's going to be on the table even if the money is different. We don't even know if anyone is asking about long term protections in the negotiations. We seem to be expected to trust McMahon to act in the interests of the shareholders when he has already spent a large sum of his own money promoting the idea of giving an American the majority shareholding. Clearly he has a personal interest. Hopefully we will be able to put questions forward to get details about not only what the American wants but also what he has ruled out before any vote but the way things have been handled so far doesn't make me optimistic.

This is slightly complicated by the fact that a member of the executive board, the head of governance of the Society and the largest private shareholder are all the same person. The Society members and private shareholders have different positions. The Society board has to act in the interests of the membership, it shouldn't be giving a thought to private shareholders.

A load of shite like wanting to secure that no one can ever sell Fir Park for a profit and pocket the cash?

I've got a feeling if it's a deal which gives away the majority shareholding McMahon will be putting pressure on the Society board to stay neutral. The fact it's apparently going to come down to a Yes/No decision before the Society gets any input at all is absurd. If this guy actually had good intentions he would be coming to the Society and directly asking what concerns we have rather than cutting us out.

On the one hand you have the club chairman Jim McMahon funding a marketing campaign to give the impression that we need an American investor when he was in secret talks with an American investor. On the other hand you have "We believe the fan ownership model has - over the piece - been successful". They can't even bring themselves to say it's worked without adding in a weird qualifier. What does - over the piece - even mean?

Of course the Society should be taking a position of whether or not the Society is capable of being majority shareholder. Any Society board members who feel that it isn't should resign (particularly if they also happen to have a significant private share holding).

Are the Society going to be completey silent on this? They don't have to talk about the Yank's offer but it's strange they haven't put anything out highlighting that fan ownership has given the club a solid platform for the past 7 years.

McGinn's form is in decline and although SOD has been better recently he's still got too many errors in him and is rotten on the ball. I would guess the two of them will be on decent money as well. As we have seen with Gent and Spencer there are younger and better players available.

The problem with our squad is Lamie, Tierney, Maguire, McGinley, Obika, Wilkinson, Elliott and Shaw. Change them for a decent centre half and centre mid and we'd easily be top six.

Vale played well when he dropped back into midfield. I'd be tempted to start him there next week.

The manager's tactics and starting line ups.

Brilliant come back. What a difference after Halliday went off.

Aberdeen game we lose a goal second phase from a corner. St Mirren game Kelly goes walk about and they score from a corner. Today direct from a corner. A joke of a keeper and manager.

There's surely no way he'll be here next season???

Peak Liam Kelly Worst goalie in the league by far.