Jump to content

The Well Society


stuwell
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is the purpose of the bucket collection? Doesnt sound too promising for the Well Society if we are having to resort to methods like this to fund it

 

It's part of an ongoing fund raising initiative, there is a quiz night next Friday also.

 

The Society has a financial target so the more opportunities we take to raise money the quicker we get to the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of the bucket collection? Doesnt sound too promising for the Well Society if we are having to resort to methods like this to fund it

 

I would imagine its to raise funds. Surely income from any legal source is to be welcomed? A pound raised from a bucket collection is just as important as one raised from a donation/race night or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went along last night. Quite an odd night on reflection. It bumbled along in much the same way as most AGM's do. Thanks offered. Election of new board member undertaken. Financials discussed. Membership levels advised. Discussion of future events and the questions posed how to take the WS forward then....

 

...BOOM we got the show-stopper news of a fairly major change of strategy from the club who will now begin to actively seek external investment.

 

My immediate was that this was a sign the game was perhaps up for the WS fan ownership model. Over the course of the remainder of the meeting the WS board and Derek Weir attempted to offer re-assurance that isn't the case, but I find it a little difficult to shake off the view that the importance of the WS in the overall club strategy has been downgraded given the slow pace of uptake.

 

Essentially, going by what Weir said, the club still want the WS model to work. They still want full fan ownership. But having got just 30% or whatever towards that goal in close to 2 years they realise it isn't something that is going to happen soon. Having got feelers that there are people willing to invest in the club directly but not through the WS, they've decided to look at that avenue as the likes of Killie and Dundee Utd have done previously for finance in the more immediate term. What they say they will make clear however is any investor will be fully briefed that they are still working towards fan ownership in the longer term and so any investment they make should be made with that knowledge. In other words they aren't going to give someone a majority shareholding in return for money or anything like that.

 

The role for the WS in that intervening period until the £1.5m is reached? Well life goes on as normal it seems. The attempts to attract more supporters and businesses into the WS continues. The attempts to build on the money raised goes on unchanged.

 

The reasons for seeking additional capital from Derek Weir seemed sound enough. The safeguards he talked of and the commitment to the WS in the longer term seemed fair enough too.

 

As for the WS response though, the "we only really found about it on Wednesday and haven't discussed it as a board yet" remark from the WS board before Derek Weir began to intervene and offer the club's perspective seemed a bit rabbit caught in the headlights like.

 

More to come in the days, weeks and months ahead clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the other thing that was mentioned about the Kilmarnock and Dundee Utd models were that the money that was invested by the business community was to clear the debt and put them on an even keel. Derek Weir said that if we were able to attract the same sort of investment that would be put directly into the playing budget as we don't have the bank debt. What was really interesting was that Weir implied he didn't believe we would have a league sponsor next year because the brand was seen as toxic because of what was going on in Glasgow.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But having got just 30% or whatever towards that goal in close to 2 years they realise it isn't something that is going to happen soon.

 

I imagine the biggest chunk of that 30% was secured in the first 6 months or so and the rest has trickled in.

I'm ever the optimist, especially when it comes to MFC, but at that rate I simply can't see how we will ever reach the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm. Not sure what to make of that. I wasnt able to make a commitment to WS initially because of the cost of the initial outlay. However, with the offer of the monthly payment scheme I decided to take up a membership. I had hoped others would be similarly encouraged and we could have seen the scheme kick on. Be interesting to see how this develops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad the board has seemingly decided to seek outside investment as that will be what will safeguard our immediate future as a Club. The WS has reached it's ceiling and I think everyone has been disappointed at the relatively low take up of the more expensive options. From a personal point of view, when it comes to the more expensive personal memberships and the business memberships, I would much rather be investing that type of cash directly into the club in the form of private shares as opposed to a WS membership.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the other thing that was mentioned about the Kilmarnock and Dundee Utd models were that the money that was invested by the business community was to clear the debt and put them on an even keel. Derek Weir said that if we were able to attract the same sort of investment that would be put directly into the playing budget as we don't have the bank debt. What was really interesting was that Weir implied he didn't believe we would have a league sponsor next year because the brand was seen as toxic because of what was going on in Glasgow.

If that final statement is the case then it really is quite stunning that football people from other clubs haven't been more vocal about pushing for more decisiveness from the authorities.

 

As an aside I also heard from someone connected to the situation at Hearts that the current 11-1 voting at SPFL will never be removed as too many of the better supported clubs (particularly Aberdeen & Hearts) will never risk the voting in of gate sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy and Tweed for the reports. Did anyone from the WS comment on the departure of Leeann and the appointment of Flow as her replacement? And what sort of turn out was there? Also, what are the current membership levels?

 

There was formal thanks given and noted for Dempster's efforts but no direct discussion of her departure. And a welcome for Burrows (who was present at the meeting as a WS member).

 

I'm not that great at guessing numbers but certainly the room (it was held in the Millennium Suite) seemed pretty full.

 

 

I imagine the biggest chunk of that 30% was secured in the first 6 months or so and the rest has trickled in.

I'm ever the optimist, especially when it comes to MFC, but at that rate I simply can't see how we will ever reach the target.

 

 

Mmm. Not sure what to make of that. I wasnt able to make a commitment to WS initially because of the cost of the initial outlay. However, with the offer of the monthly payment scheme I decided to take up a membership. I had hoped others would be similarly encouraged and we could have seen the scheme kick on. Be interesting to see how this develops.

 

On the numbers front can't remember if it was on the screen or announced but I scribbled down that we currently have 1271 members with 79 having joined since the payment options were revised earlier this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we aren't entirely sure when we have the full amount to purchase the shares in the club, couldn't the society purchase just 51% of the shares in the club and leave the remaining 49% to external investors. Still means the fans would have a say on the board and it gives investors something back for their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the WS response though, the "we only really found about it on Wednesday and haven't discussed it as a board yet" remark from the WS board before Derek Weir began to intervene and offer the club's perspective seemed a bit rabbit caught in the headlights like.

 

 

considering that the first objective of the society is to obtain fan ownership it puts them in a bit of a pickle. can they continue to give our money to directors who aren't committed to the society's goals/

 

i've missed the last few society meetings because i came to the conclusion that weir and co were only looking for a cash float and were not serious about fan ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pity there wasn't a way to listen in as I have a lot of questions about that model. On the surface it seems they want investment from folks that won't be part of the WS, but will never lead to control of the club.

 

I doubt there are many wealthy individuals who would want to donate in return for no control, so there must be something I'm missing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

considering that the first objective of the society is to obtain fan ownership it puts them in a bit of a pickle. can they continue to give our money to directors who aren't committed to the society's goals/

 

i've missed the last few society meetings because i came to the conclusion that weir and co were only looking for a cash float and were not serious about fan ownership.

 

Well I can only take Weir at his word and he stated and repeated that it remained Boyle's wish that the fan ownership model succeeded and this was the route the board wanted to continue to go down too. I've no reason to doubt that.

 

But certainly at the same time it's fairly obvious that even with less than a third of the funds required for full ownership the WS remains a very attractive option for MFC when times are tight. Indeed a considerable loan made this season is due to be repaid shortly. Personally though for me that was always going to be one of the ways the WS could assist the club and I've no issues with that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

killie have sold their hotel and done a deal with their bankers and all united have done is have some fans buy their debt and give them more favourable terms.

 

It's hard to see what MFC have to offer a rich benefactor.

 

Another example was cited where an investor could take a percentage of a transfer fee of an academy player's transfer fee in return for more immediate investment.

 

I suppose any such arrangement would come down to a variety of factors, not least the people looking to invest and the sums involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

considering that the first objective of the society is to obtain fan ownership it puts them in a bit of a pickle. can they continue to give our money to directors who aren't committed to the society's goals/

 

i've missed the last few society meetings because i came to the conclusion that weir and co were only looking for a cash float and were not serious about fan ownership.

 

I don't think there was anything that has changed the Society's objectives, the only thing is that the club are going to try and obtain other investments in the short to medium term. However, Weir said it would be made clear to any investor, the objective remains fan ownership. I'd never come across Weir before but he seemed to be a shrewd cookie and it seems that there is a lack of trust in the business community about a direct investment in the society and the club are going to try and exploit that in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that final statement is the case then it really is quite stunning that football people from other clubs haven't been more vocal about pushing for more decisiveness from the authorities.

 

As an aside I also heard from someone connected to the situation at Hearts that the current 11-1 voting at SPFL will never be removed as too many of the better supported clubs (particularly Aberdeen & Hearts) will never risk the voting in of gate sharing.

 

Baistard, that's that plan scuppered :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From Evening Times

 

 

It's high Society for Well re-launch

 

THE Well Society hope to hit their £800,000 cash target in four months as they prepare to launch a new campaign to attract more members to the Steelmen cause.

 

Despite several years of on-field success, finances are still tight at Fir Park and the Society stepped in last season to loan the club £230,000, just 12 months after £150,000 was ploughed in to help Well through a cash flow shortage.Despite several years of on-field success, finances are still tight at Fir Park and the Society stepped in last season to loan the club £230,000, just 12 months after £150,000 was ploughed in to help Well through a cash flow shortage.

 

The group, made up of fans, have raised just over half the funds they require to acquire a majority stake in the club as former chairman John Boyle looks to hand over his shares to the supporters.

 

Boss Stuart McCall led his side to second place in the Premiership last term, once again clinching European football this season, but the club still reported a six-figure financial loss.

 

And the Well Society are now set to up their efforts to attract more members and money as they attempt to play their part in ensuring a bright future at Fir Park.

 

A statement read: "The Well Society board is finalising plans for an imminent new campaign to raise money as we strive to reach the target set by the club.

 

"A steering group has been formed to look into various ways of supplementing membership income as we seek to hit the £800,000 mark by the end of November.

 

"This is being operated by board members Robert Montgomery, Brian McCafferty and Tom Feeley, who are liaising closely with Motherwell Football Club.

 

"The group is working on fresh ways of raising money such as soft loans and donations from Motherwell-minded business people and others who support the idea of community ownership.

 

"Graham Barnstaple has temporarily stepped back from his role as chairman because of work and family commitments.

 

"Graham will still be involved in the society and remains committed to its goals but is unable devote the time necessary to lead efforts at the moment. Brian McCafferty will act as chairman for the time being.

 

"Other board members and volunteers are continuing to work on recruitment, fund-raising events, communications/publicity and membership participation."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...