Raoul_Duke Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Financial losses aside, there will probably always be a need for short term cash injection around January. This is when cash flow is at its lowest and most clubs need some kind of buffer at this time of year. That doesn't mean to say they'll make a loss over the year though. "Then there would be little need for firefighting using Well Society money or loans from Les and the WS cash could be used for the purpose it was originally meant, as an emergency slush fund when cashflow is slow." Exactly what I said? No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 "Then there would be little need for firefighting using Well Society money or loans from Les and the WS cash could be used for the purpose it was originally meant, as an emergency slush fund when cashflow is slow." Exactly what I said? No? Not quite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raoul_Duke Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 If we budget for the worst case scenario, we'll get the worst case scenario. How so? There are a few clubs whose wage budget will be smaller than ours that are currently out-performing us. Spending money doesn't always equate to quality. The fact is we made a loss over one of our most successful spells on the park for years. That cannot be allowed to happen again. The money we have wasted this season is also scandalous, bringing in loan players that aren't any better than the players we have and signing a ridiculous amount of strikers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 How so? There are a few clubs whose wage budget will be smaller than ours that are currently out-performing us. Spending money doesn't always equate to quality. The fact is we made a loss over one of our most successful spells on the park for years. That cannot be allowed to happen again. The money we have wasted this season is also scandalous, bringing in loan players that aren't any better than the players we have and signing a ridiculous amount of strikers! I agree with all of that. I suppose the key is that the budget should be managed better, much better. I'm at a loss as to why IB was allowed to spend in the way that he was but the shouldn't stop us from affording a competitive budget to Mark McGhee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 How so? There are a few clubs whose wage budget will be smaller than ours that are currently out-performing us. Spending money doesn't always equate to quality. The fact is we made a loss over one of our most successful spells on the park for years. That cannot be allowed to happen again. The money we have wasted this season is also scandalous, bringing in loan players that aren't any better than the players we have and signing a ridiculous amount of strikers! I agree in general with the point you're making, but originally you said "Exactly what I said? No?". I also set the point in a wider context of Scottish football where most clubs experience short term cashflow problems in January. In other words our cashflow problems in January are typical of those of most cots clubs. Am I splitting hairs - yes maybe. Your point about other clubs on smaller budgets outperforming us is well made. Clubs like Inverness and St Johnstone have gone down a different investment route from us. Rather than acquire talented ostensibly talented individuals, as we have seemingly done, they have put more accent on teamwork, hard work and organisation and its paying dividends for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The risk, on the other hand with going worst case scenario, is that our budget is so tight we get outbid for decent players the scouts find, squad quality gets worse, don't finish higher than 9th regularly, never get that regular cub run and that snowballs itself into never attracting players and a continued malaise. There needs to be a balance - like I said before. It can't be shooting for the stars and it can't be worst case scenario planning. We need to have something in the middle that if things go wrong then losses are not completely unmanageable and also things like making a loss when finishing 2nd...like what happened before...can never happen again! Needs to be managed risk - it's the only way we will grow. Unfortunately, when you don't have a wealthy owner who can cover any costs that arise you can't really afford to take many chances as you don't have that safety net of someone who can fund the shortfall. If & when we're under Society control the money raised and banked is all we have, isn't it? We need to cut our cloth according to what we bring in, and we simply should not be spending more on a yearly basis than that amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Unfortunately, when you don't have a wealthy owner who can cover any costs that arise you can't really afford to take many chances as you don't have that safety net of someone who can fund the shortfall. If & when we're under Society control the money raised and banked is all we have, isn't it? We need to cut our cloth according to what we bring in, and we simply should not be spending more on a yearly basis than that amount. Is the point of the 5 year plan not to get us to the point where we live within our budget? If we had slashed the budget in year 1, I've no doubt we would have been relegated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Is the point of the 5 year plan not to get us to the point where we live within our budget? If we had slashed the budget in year 1, I've no doubt we would have been relegated. I'd assumed so, but if I'm being honest I've not really been convinced thus far. Our signing policy certainly hasn't looked like that of a club looking to downsize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 The results of our recent board elections are in and we would first of all like to say a huge thank you to all three candidates for putting themselves forward for election. We know that joining the board is a big commitment and we appreciate their willingness to get involved. We would also like to say a big thank you to all of the Well Society members that put their votes in. We received a tremendous response which of course is pleasing to see positive engagement. We originally planned to vote on only one of the three candidates as there was only one vacancy, however following on from the departure of chairman Brian McCafferty we were left with two vacancies and therefore the logical approach was to add in two board members from the vote. The voting closed at midnight on Tuesday December 8th and here are the results. Maureen Kirkwood Markus Schieren Arthur Jackson We would therefore like to welcome Maureen Kirkwood and Markus Schieren onto our Well Society board. We are excited for them to officially join us at our next board meeting and we know they will both make a positive impact in the Well Society moving forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al B Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Poor Arthur. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last post by: Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Okay, I've always chosen to ignore everything "Well Society" on these forums (until now) so please excuse my ignorance here. I've taken a look into this today and have a few observations/questions that the website didn't really answer for me. Benefits - It's the first thing you hit when you log on the site. The strapline reads "The more you contribute, the more you benefit look out for the Bonus Benefits Scheme" A quick Google of the domain throws up very little of reference to the scheme. There is dead link - http://www.thewellsociety.co.uk/2015/10/20/well-society-membership-benefits-bonus-scheme/ and some talk of a virtual plot of the pitch for contributors who have paid in more than £49.99 so far. There is little mention of this Bonus Benefit Scheme other than an entry within the AGM minutes from 2 years back stating that the scheme "benefits no one" and that the "proposal was that the benefits system is wound-up" It goes on "The vast majority of those present at the meeting voted in favour of the board developing its alternative plan in greater detail for more formal consideration." I click on the link to read all about the benefits and to my surprise the first few paragraphs talk about the goals of the Society with no mention as to what I get for signing up. Then there is a reference to a change of policy which talks about replacing annual renewal fees and membership payments. This must the the old scheme that was being wound up right? Nope, the next part confirms "Your contributions will be recognised in the form of benefits" There is a chart which details the "revised membership structure and associated benefits" There is a wooly statement basically saying you don't have to pay by Direct Debit and can pay what every you can (whenever you can). It doesn't really make clear how to get a signed bottle of Claret. Do you need to pay £1,000 on direct debit each month or £83.33 per month. Bit of a difference for those considering signing up. As the Society are targeting new members, why are all these references to how it previously worked listed. I've no idea about what system was there before - but what I do know is that it's not exactly clear how this present scheme(?) works. The website has a section for Businesses. It says "Companies that join will receive the same benefits as an individual member at a comparable giving level" Why? I would have thought that companies will be looking for alternative benefits? Does this mean that the packages listed on the live website are no longer valid? http://www.thewellsociety.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/BusinessClubBrochure.pdf Doug Inglis and Craig Hughes have a footnote on this page asking for help to distribute flyers to promote the Well Society. Perhaps this plea for help could be re located for maximum visibility. Maybe this should be in a "How you can help" section that's visible in the menu banner of the site? I think there would be loads of people who read WelltrustFC Forums that would/could help with this sort of thing? I get the impression the people running it know in their mind exactly what's on offer but they have failed to articulate it on the site. My recommendations to the people running this site are: 1/Clear up all dead links or out-of-date Scheme references. 2/Spell out the benefits that new potential member (like me) will get Don't forget to mention the benefits that we'll see on the pitch - i.e the vision points out the money will go to supporting the development of a successful Youth Academy. 3/Rework the pledge page. Get the user to tell you about themselves and drive the options available to them from there. Are they an existing member/new member/business? if existing > do they want to top up or change package etc if new > give them a list of packages and what each cost Make clear what happens with overpayments. Give more specific details about the the benefits on offer (e.g - What is the prize for the monthly cash draw) and so on. It's just too generic and a bit off puting that there is an option to pay £500 each month with no on screen validation to back up why it's a good idea to join. Investing in the Well Society is an emotion investment too. Having a bland corporate style page with ever increasing amounts of money will put off even the most diehard of supporter. 4/Create a "How you can help" section - lot's of people can offer time rather than money. There are a few request for help in the news section but I suspect they will get lost in there. 5/ If you no longer accept Standing order then remove this form http://www.thewellsociety.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InstalmentForm.pdf Otherwise - add a link to it within the pledge page as an alternative payment method. 6/Add some website functionality for member to login and see there status and amount paid.People like to see that their money is going to good use - even if it's just to see their name with a status next to it. 7/Move the progress bar indication how many people have signed up into a splash page or more prevalent at the top of the home page. Get some basic HTML5 stuff to "load up" the progress bar whenever anyone logs on. It can't be easy doing this so I respect the people who are behind this. Hopefully some of these points are looked at. If you make some of there changes then I think you'll get another 6 or 7 sign ups and maybe some extra support. I guess it's down to if all that effort is worth it or not.... It's good to find that the Well Society site has been updated with the 'how you can help' section. There are a few more changes that I notice since I last had a look. Good work - but still plenty more could be done. There was a chap on here who mentioned he'd offered to help with the website for free but no one got back to him. I find that odd as there are clearly a few quick wins that could be implemented here. Anyone from the society got any thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 I demand a recount. Arthur was robbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsMFC Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Was the election stuff sent out by post or email? I didn't receive anything but have changed address so would have missed it if sent by post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Was the election stuff sent out by post or email? I didn't receive anything but have changed address so would have missed it if sent by post.There was a reminder about the deadline up on social media during the week. The form and the info about those putting their names forward was available from a link on the site. http://www.thewellsociety.co.uk/2015/12/07/reminder-last-chance-to-get-your-board-nominations-in/ I'm not signed up so I don't know if anything was emailed out or posted, sorry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 I received an email from the Society on 16th Nov regarding the elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 The results of our recent board elections are in and we would first of all like to say a huge thank you to all three candidates for putting themselves forward for election. We know that joining the board is a big commitment and we appreciate their willingness to get involved. We would also like to say a big thank you to all of the Well Society members that put their votes in. We received a tremendous response which of course is pleasing to see positive engagement. We originally planned to vote on only one of the three candidates as there was only one vacancy, however following on from the departure of chairman Brian McCafferty we were left with two vacancies and therefore the logical approach was to add in two board members from the vote. The voting closed at midnight on Tuesday December 8th and here are the results. Maureen Kirkwood Markus Schieren Arthur Jackson We would therefore like to welcome Maureen Kirkwood and Markus Schieren onto our Well Society board. We are excited for them to officially join us at our next board meeting and we know they will both make a positive impact in the Well Society moving forward. Who are Maureen and Markus ? does anybody know anything about them or what experience and talents they are bringing to the WS board ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Their CVs were included in the voting email. I don't have it to hand, but someone can probably dig them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Their CVs were included in the voting email. I don't have it to hand, but someone can probably dig them out. The CVs are linked to in that URL I posted earlier today or at least they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 The CVs are linked to in that URL I posted earlier today or at least they were. The link still works, just read the 3 brief CV's and I have to say I was not overly impressed by any of them, the 2 people elected seem to have experience in sales and marketing, Optometry products and furniture, so no doubt wanting to run a football club would be the next logical career move. That said maybe the experience of sales and marketing will help to improve the image of the WS and the communication with the members as it seems to have been a bit of a shambles up till now, time will tell how effective they will be and if they manage to attract additional members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 The WS isn't going to be running the football club. Their job right now is to run the society and bring in new members. Regardless, the nominees are all volunteers - if there are any members with football club running experience who want their chance, I'm sure they'd be welcomed. The owners at Bolton might be available soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 How so? There are a few clubs whose wage budget will be smaller than ours that are currently out-performing us. Spending money doesn't always equate to quality. The fact is we made a loss over one of our most successful spells on the park for years. That cannot be allowed to happen again. The money we have wasted this season is also scandalous, bringing in loan players that aren't any better than the players we have and signing a ridiculous amount of strikers! I agree looking at a weak midfield and seeing a plethora of strikers did seem to confuse many early on. Shouldn't the final conclusion on the strikers who have came in this season be left until each and every one has left the club? If it's a free then your summary is vindicated, if however they leave for a tidy sum then it was a good bit of business and foresight. They way I seen it: Moult - With pedigree and purchased with plans to sell on for a tidy sum, there is/can be no alternative based on how he ended up at FP Clarkson - Signed before Skippy put pen to paper and after Sutton moved on (understandable), not doing enough in training or being outshone by his contemporaries to get a regular involvement, was anyone expecting much? Fletcher - Checkered past, blood in the U20's and maybe a few first team games, he impressed early on then got injured, hopeful he doesn't plateau, he is potential with a capital P Skippy - Bit of a coup getting him to resign, form improving week on week after a dreadful start (maybe mixed with apathy for IB and his methods?) Robinson - I genuinely think Bara seen him on the open market after the deadline and thought he was too good to be without a club, brought him in because why not, we were in a strong bargaining position as he had no form of income, the Dr Pepper of our team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 The WS isn't going to be running the football club. Their job right now is to run the society and bring in new members. Regardless, the nominees are all volunteers - if there are any members with football club running experience who want their chance, I'm sure they'd be welcomed. The owners at Bolton might be available soon. I think that's one of the problems the WS face at the moment though. Rightly or wrongly, the impression that a lot of people have with regards the WS is that they will be running the club if not now then in 2020 following the 'handover'. It may well not be the case but based on the information being presented and the language being used; "Own MFC", "safeguard the club from foreign ownership" etc then the main takeaway is that the WS will run the club. If you own the club then it's not a massive leap in logic to assume that it will be incumbent on the owners to actually run it and I'd guess that's why there's hesitancy on the part of a large number of fans in so much as they'd, not unreasonably, want evidence that the Society is competent and fit for intended purpose as they see it. When it comes down to it incompetent owners are just as damaging whether they're from Lanarkshire or South America. Furthermore, the fact that Brian McCafferty was chairman of both Club and Society probably won't have helped in establishing any sort of separation between the two bodies in people's perceptions either. That may well not be the design when you get down to the minutiae of how it's intended to function but you certainly can't fault people if that's their interpretation based on the headline information and broad strokes they're being presented with thus far. Equally if the message fans are picking up is being misinterpreted or is not a fair reflection of how the Society is designed to function then it's down to the WS to streamline the information they're presenting and make sure that what they're saying is clear and unambiguous. As you say though, they people joining the Society board are volunteers so good luck to them. Hopefully they can get the WS back on track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 The WS isn't going to be running the football club. Their job right now is to run the society and bring in new members. Regardless, the nominees are all volunteers - if there are any members with football club running experience who want their chance, I'm sure they'd be welcomed. The owners at Bolton might be available soon. I thought that eventually running the club was the fundamental goal of the WS or has their position changed recently ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 The plan is to own the club, but any discussion I have heard around running it has always been that they (or we) expect to have a Board in place of experienced directors that will execute the day to day duties. I can't think of any other way to make it feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 The plan is to own the club, but any discussion I have heard around running it has always been that they (or we) expect to have a Board in place of experienced directors that will execute the day to day duties. I can't think of any other way to make it feasible. owning and running pretty much the same thing in the context of a football club. If as you say the WS will be the owners with a board of experienced directors running the club, will that board be separate from or part of the WS board? If separate we then have effectively 2 committees each with differing priorities and agendas trying to run the club, how can that possibly be an effective business model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.