The Well Society

[Mintymac]

For whatever reason the majority of fans are just not buying into the well society . ive been in since day one as well a contributing like a few others by direct debit but as I say I came away from that meeting thinking for the first time this ain't working out the way it was meant too be . Not a lot of positives came out the meeting after the agm that night. I'm sure the well society board members are working flat out to keep it going and resolve issues with Les but in my opinion it looks like it's starting to unravel . Hope I'm wrong

[Onthefringes]

For whatever reason the majority of fans are just not buying into the well society . ive been in since day one as well a contributing like a few others by direct debit but as I say I came away from that meeting thinking for the first time this ain't working out the way it was meant too be . Not a lot of positives came out the meeting after the agm that night. I'm sure the well society board members are working flat out to keep it going and resolve issues with Les but in my opinion it looks like it's starting to unravel . Hope I'm wrong

 

Echo the sentiments. I'm one of the existing membership who haven't committed further funds - I'm sure it was approximately 1/3rd given as a total of those who thought along similar lines.

[superward]

 

Echo the sentiments. I'm one of the existing membership who haven't committed further funds - I'm sure it was approximately 1/3rd given as a total of those who thought along similar lines.

Likewise. I am still a supporter of it in principle but stopped the DD a couple months back. I just don't have the confidence in it - which is sad - we have been given answers but it all just seems very wooly.

[Kmcalpin]

For whatever reason the majority of fans are just not buying into the well society .

I don't know. Our core support is say 3,600 and the Society membership is 1,912. On that basis the Society membership represents about 53% of our support. Thats a maximum figure as not all members attend games and so I'd say its about 50%. Of the half who haven't joined a significant proportion, and I wouldn't care to quantify that, would never ever join under any circumstances. The Society and club know that perfectly well. I do however share some of your concerns.

 

I am confident that the Society will take over the club in the not too distant future. The Society wants it, the club does and so does Les. The problem is that Les moved the goalposts a little way into a five year period. Not surprisingly the Society had to rip up financial plans and rejig them. As far as I can see, the only feasible and fair way for the Society to pay our benefactor back is to do so through a cut of future transfer fees. A lot of money is stake and I'm not in the least bit surprised that lawyers are painstakingly going through details. In my career I've was assured several times that a project was all but signed sealed and delivered only to be delayed for months or even a year by lawyers going through seemingly straightforward issues and raising problems. I've no doubt that the Society takeover is exactly the same.

[dennyc]

 

I'm not entirely certain, but maybe they don't want to publicise to the entire world the financial details of the Society via the website? I've attended meetings in the past and they've been pretty transparent with figures.

 

Are you a member? I'm sure you can get that information if you are.

Apparently not.

 

I suggested at the Meeting held after Mark McGhee's intro that the up to date balance be included in the monthly update. I was promised it would be. That was in response to Jim McMahon stating the balance at that time was minimal and that a minimum of £1m to £1.5m would be needed to give the Society takeover a decent chance of succeeding. My thinking being that people seeing an ever increasing sum held would be encouraged to contribute. I might have missed it, and apologies if I have, but I do not think the amount of funds held by the Society has been made public since that time. The Society also has outgoings so the monthly sub income is not the exact monthly increase.

 

In fairness Jimwas pretty open and was adamant that he would not support any switch of ownership until the Society was in a much stronger financial position and able to fund any Cash Flow difficulties. To help us arrive at that stage I suggested that a portion of any transfer income should actually be used by MFC to partially repay the monies owed to the Society rather than to repay Les as soon as possible. Building up the Society funds being essential to the Club's survival beyond the share transfer. A repayment schedule was agreed with Les and I see no reason for risking the future of the Club by attempting to repay that debt earlier than agreed merely to hurry along the transfer of shares. Surely taking the time required to build up Society funds is the safest approach and if that means we stick to the agreed repayment schedule with Les then so be it.

 

Unless of course there is an agreement that Les is entitled to a share of transfer monies by prior arrangement. That is another question which has been asked but not answered.

 

Regarding taxis, I haven't a clue how much it is possible to earn and I don't know if our resident expert is talking crap or not. But he is raising valid points regarding the Society which no amount of sniping from others can deflect from. Perhaps they should address those points he does highlight.

[Goggles & Flippers]

Aye, progress right enough. 'Unfortunately due to confidentiality agreements' rears it's head again... 'however we will provide members with an update as soon as we are in a position to do so' Well, if it's handled as eloquently as Les Hutchison's arrival, we're in for a treat.

 

Maybe a radical suggestion here, but as we are a public body where every member is equal and has therefore an equal say, where transparency is key ...... Is it beyond the realms of possibility or reason to suggest that when other parties ask for such agreements, well tell them its not possible due to the society's status? Or is that naive and simplistic?

 

I welcome the moves made, they couldn't have got much worse from where they were in the communication stakes. Still very wooly with no clear message however.

[Wellfan1984]

I don't know. Our core support is say 3,600 and the Society membership is 1,912. On that basis the Society membership represents about 53% of our support. Thats a maximum figure as not all members attend games and so I'd say its about 50%. Of the half who haven't joined a significant proportion, and I wouldn't care to quantify that, would never ever join under any circumstances. The Society and club know that perfectly well. I do however share some of your concerns.

 

I am confident that the Society will take over the club in the not too distant future. The Society wants it, the club does and so does Les. The problem is that Les moved the goalposts a little way into a five year period. Not surprisingly the Society had to rip up financial plans and rejig them. As far as I can see, the only feasible and fair way for the Society to pay our benefactor back is to do so through a cut of future transfer fees. A lot of money is stake and I'm not in the least bit surprised that lawyers are painstakingly going through details. In my career I've was assured several times that a project was all but signed sealed and delivered only to be delayed for months or even a year by lawyers going through seemingly straightforward issues and raising problems. I've no doubt that the Society takeover is exactly the same.

Is this our downfall? For some reason fans love to put money into football clubs. Should Motherwell or the Society look to advertise further a field than Lanarkshire or Scotland. Begin advertise for non-Motherwell fans.

 

Not saying it will be the same but look at the like of Eibar (10,000 members from 69 countries - with a similar core support).

[Kmcalpin]

 

Maybe a radical suggestion here, but as we are a public body where every member is equal and has therefore an equal say, where transparency is key ...... Is it beyond the realms of possibility or reason to suggest that when other parties ask for such agreements, well tell them its not possible due to the society's status? Or is that naive and simplistic?

 

 

The Society and Club are not classed as public bodies in the same way that local authorities are for example. Therefore they are not covered by Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulation legislation. I suspect that if the Society or Club were to stipulate that all information be available to members then Les would have walked away.

 

I agree about communication being poor.

[something else]

Likewise. I am still a supporter of it in principle but stopped the DD a couple months back. I just don't have the confidence in it - which is sad - we have been given answers but it all just seems very wooly.

 

Also stopped my DD to the well society.

[Mintymac]

And there lies the problem . People now starting to become disheartened with the whole well society project . I'm still paying my d/d but my patience is running thin now . Unless some movement forward in the right direction and people can see this is going to work am afraid to say that I can see a drop off in support for this cause . Hope am wrong but my gut feeling tells me different

[Lobey_Dosser]

I reluctantly joined up in April but would be very disappointed if a deal was signed and sealed with consultation with the society members and more importantly, the core fan base.

 

With crowds reducing and income revenues constrained, there is very little momentum behind this.

[weeyin]

I reluctantly joined up in April but would be very disappointed if a deal was signed and sealed with consultation with the society members and more importantly, the core fan base.

 

With crowds reducing and income revenues constrained, there is very little momentum behind this.

 

I'm not sure the core fan base has the right to much of a say. In an ideal world, obviously, you don't want to sell to a developer that is going to strip your assets and destroy the club.

 

In this case, however, there has only ever been one option. Unless a sympathetic benefactor suddenly crawls out the woodwork, we don't have many alternatives. I would like there to be a consultation with Society members, but I doubt we can have that much influence over the final details. The ball is in Les' court and while I don't think he has any intention to harm the club in any way, he literally owns us.

 

The point about crowds reducing and income revenues constrained is another argument in favour of Society ownership and our new approach to budgeting. As much as people like to complain (myself included) about the Society, it has provided essential loans to the club on multiple occasions since it was founded.

[dennyc]

 

I'm not sure the core fan base has the right to much of a say. In an ideal world, obviously, you don't want to sell to a developer that is going to strip your assets and destroy the club.

 

In this case, however, there has only ever been one option. Unless a sympathetic benefactor suddenly crawls out the woodwork, we don't have many alternatives. I would like there to be a consultation with Society members, but I doubt we can have that much influence over the final details. The ball is in Les' court and while I don't think he has any intention to harm the club in any way, he literally owns us.

 

The point about crowds reducing and income revenues constrained is another argument in favour of Society ownership and our new approach to budgeting. As much as people like to complain (myself included) about the Society, it has provided essential loans to the club on multiple occasions since it was founded.

I agree that the eventual transfer of Les' shares to the Society is the only option currently available and I look forward to that happening when the time is correct for MFC and the Society. However he did agree to a five year repayment programme and as such he does not hold all the aces. As long as MFC stick to the agreed terms and do not default on any due payments, is it not better to reduce his debt as agreed over the remaining three years or so thus allowing the Society (and hopefully MFC) to build up a decent bank balance?

 

My fear is that we sell Marvin for a decent sum, use the cash to repay Les ahead of time, with the Society taking immediate ownership of the Club. What happens if MFC then hit cash flow problems and the Society is unable to assist as they have done in the past? All I urge is some caution until such time as we know the Club is trading profitably and/or the Society has sufficient funds to cover any short term problem. My take on Jim McMahon's comments at the Q&A was that this was the approach he favoured and that this was contrary to what Les wanted. Jim was quite clear that the Society at that time would be unable to support the Club as it had in the past as all monies collected previously had been used up.

 

If Les does indeed have Motherwell's best interests at heart why would he insist on the Society taking over before they are in a stronger financial position?

[David]

The problem we face if the Society doesn't work has been highlighted by the Hutchinson fiasco in my opinion.

 

The guy came in, talking about something like a five-year period only to change his mind and basically throw the plans of the Society into a bit of an uproar if we're honest. Now, I'm not saying that Les doesn't have a good reason for doing what he did (be it health, family or whatever) and I'm not saying he didn't do well for the club in his time here, but it highlights the ease with which things can go awry when you have one man holding the controls.

 

I really don't think there's ever going to be a "perfect time" for the Society to take over the club, and we'll always find reasons to delay it if we look hard enough, but the truth is that if we, as a fanbase, don't step up over the next few months or so then the future is uncertain.

 

I understand people who are disillusioned by the Society at the moment, and it's certainly far from perfect, but the way to sort that out isn't to cancel your involvement or your contribution, as that'll achieve nothing except making the Society weaker.

 

Let's get it to the level we need to get it to, sort out the immediate future of the club, and then at that point we can look at making changes to the structure and those in charge if the majority aren't happy.

 

That's my opinion anyway.

[Kmcalpin]

The problem we face if the Society doesn't work has been highlighted by the Hutchinson fiasco in my opinion.

 

The guy came in, talking about something like a five-year period only to change his mind and basically throw the plans of the Society into a bit of an uproar if we're honest. Now, I'm not saying that Les doesn't have a good reason for doing what he did (be it health, family or whatever) and I'm not saying he didn't do well for the club in his time here, but it highlights the ease with which things can go awry when you have one man holding the controls.......I understand people who are disillusioned by the Society at the moment, and it's certainly far from perfect, but the way to sort that out isn't to cancel your involvement or your contribution, as that'll achieve nothing except making the Society weaker......Let's get it to the level we need to get it to, sort out the immediate future of the club, and then at that point we can look at making changes to the structure and those in charge if the majority aren't happy.

 

 

Good post David. The alternative to a Society takeover would be sale to any party if one came forward or I suppose administration/liquidation in the worst case scenario. I agree with Dennyc that the ball should be in our court as Les Hutchison has moved the goalposts after the game kicked off. However we don't know whats written into the original agreement which may give him licence to do that. At the best though its been unfair.

[Pepper]

I think Les has moved the goalpost because the expected Society membership hasn't been reached with one of the main reasons being the perception that he'd bail us out if anything should happen.

 

By handing over the club sooner it couldn't be clearer that the ball is now in our court.The problem is the Society is devoid of any momentum for the various reasons that have been discussed on depth on this thread.

 

In my opinion it will now take the real, and I mean real, threat of an imminent insolvency event to reinvigorate interest.

[Kmcalpin]

My understanding, and its only an opinion, is that Les has moved the goalposts for "personal reasons" whatever they may be.

[Goggles & Flippers]

I really don't think there's ever going to be a "perfect time" for the Society to take over the club, and we'll always find reasons to delay it if we look hard enough, but the truth is that if we, as a fanbase, don't step up over the next few months or so then the future is uncertain.

 

I agree with the first bit, as for the second, the WS to date have not inspired or forged much confidence, therefore many including myself and others above have chosen not to contribute further.

 

I understand people who are disillusioned by the Society at the moment, and it's certainly far from perfect, but the way to sort that out isn't to cancel your involvement or your contribution, as that'll achieve nothing except making the Society weaker.

 

On the contrary, I want to see Motherwell do well however it is not a charity and I'm not going to throw good money after bad, especially if I'm not convinced it is going to be used wisely. Let's save giving money charitably to beggars and if faith is your motivation, collection plates on Sunday mornings.

 

Let's get it to the level we need to get it to, sort out the immediate future of the club, and then at that point we can look at making changes to the structure and those in charge if the majority aren't happy.

 

I'm sorry but we had a golden opportunity to establish a truly groundbreaking fan ownership model, it's been wasted and you want us to continue paying in to almost give credibility to what's gone on before. Nah, you're onto plums.

 

The Society and Club are not classed as public bodies in the same way that local authorities are for example. Therefore they are not covered by Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulation legislation. I suspect that if the Society or Club were to stipulate that all information be available to members then Les would have walked away.

 

I never suggested they were, I distinguished between the society and a private or family business where there is no need to publish anything public at all which over the past few years you'd maybe think was the case. It's executive are merely ordinary members elevated through election to represent us and make day to day decisions on our behalf, that seems to been overlooked. The issue for me and too many others is they've made major decisions as to governance and direction of the Society with little or no consultation or collective mandate.

 

As for Les, who knows, if it was written into our constitution then if he wanted to get involved he would have known the situation.

[superward]

My understanding, and its only an opinion, is that Les has moved the goalposts for "personal reasons" whatever they may be.

Yep, correct - he isn't well. That's why he has changed things up.

[Lobey_Dosser]

Is Les' daughter still on the Board?

 

If he's ill but still has faith in the project, maybe he could transfer ownership to someone he trusts...

[Del_Superwell]

Yeah she is still on the board as far as im aware, she still sits in the directors box anyway.

[mjw]

She stopped posting on here?

[Goggles & Flippers]

Type something uncomplimentary about Baraclough and lets see

[Dezz]

 

Link above is to an interview the Well Society did with Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association. I thought he spoke really well at the most recent Q&A with specific commercial examples of how clubs can grow revenue streams under supporter ownership. Might be of interest to some.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Just received this email

 

 

 

The Well Society

We can today confirm that negotiations have been successfully concluded to purchase Les Hutchison’s majority shareholding and that Motherwell FC has now transferred into fan ownership.

You will recall back in January of 2015, after fourteen years, John Boyle sold his majority shareholding in the club to Les Hutchison for £1 (as a guarantor) to instigate the transition to fan ownership.

At the recent Well Society Annual General Meeting and subsequent Q&A session, the Society Board reported that they would only agree to terms and conditions that would allow them to take ownership and at the same time maintain the sustainability of the club.

The basis of the now signed agreement is that the Society would purchase Les Hutchison’s 76% shareholding for the £1 he purchased it for, and the club will be responsible for repaying any outstanding money.

An important element in the agreement is that loan repayments for the first three years will be made from a percentage of player transfer income only.

This means that the club will not be burdened with loan repayments from regular income during this period, but will still benefit from player transfers by receiving a percentage of transfer fee income. After the initial three year period, outstanding loans will be repaid on a fixed payment schedule. All of these factors protect the financial security of the club.

Our ongoing responsibility as fans, through the Well Society, will be to generate additional income for the running of the football club through monthly direct debit payments of £10 or more. The income generated by our fans via the Well Society will be crucial to our financial stability over the coming years.

The day-to-day operation of the club will remain in the hands of our Chief Operating Officer, Alan Burrows.

As you may expect, there will be changes to the governance structure. A new Supervisory Board will be formed comprising initially the current members of the Well Society Board, with additional members to be appointed in due course.

A Supervisory Board will sit alongside a newly formed Executive Board, which is in effect the existing Motherwell FC Board. The Supervisory Board will be key and involved in all major strategic decisions at the club. The Executive Board will comprise Jim McMahon as Chair, Douglas Dickie, Tom Feely, Leanne Thomas and Alan Burrows. Graham Keys will continue as Company Secretary. All members of both Boards are Well Society members.

Mr Ian Reid and Mr Peter Kellie have stood down from their positions as Directors to facilitate these changes and everyone at both the club and the Society wish to place on record our thanks and appreciate to them for their service.

For several months the Well Society Board has been working on measures to ensure that when fan-ownership is achieved, we would have the right mechanisms in place for fans’ views to be heard and represented. Further announcements will be made on this in the very near future.

The Well Society Board will be consulting with you on a set of values that we believe will make sure that the entire organisation builds on oursuccess on the field and in the community, and does so with a culture and tone of respect for all, and a striving for excellence at every level.

The current board members of the Well Society, who have been involved in all aspects of the process, Doug Inglis, Maureen Kirkwood, Markus Schieren and Gavin Whitefield, would like to put on record special thanks to our Joint Chairs, Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely, who fronted the negotiations for the Society, and sincere appreciation to Jim McMahon, a Well Society member and a long-time member of the MFC Board, who has given invaluable advice throughout. We also acknowledge the work of past Well Society Board Members including Brian McCafferty and Robert Montgomery.

The Society wish to acknowledge and to thank Mr Les Hutchison for his valuable input to the club in terms of financial support and business experience, and for assisting in our drive towards fan ownership.

They would also like to thank Mr John Boyle for his huge service over the years as majority shareholder and continuing support and assistance in concluding this successful transfer agreement.

And finally, to the loyal, dedicated, passionate Motherwell supporters, withoutwhom, none of this would have happened.

Jim McMahon, Motherwell Football Club Chairman and a founder member of the Society commented: “The last two years have been dramatic and challenging for the club.

“Having triumphed in the play offs we all hoped that the next period would be more settled and allow us to move gradually to fan ownership over the five year timescale envisaged.

“Instead the opportunity arose almost immediately and it is a credit to the Well Society that they have been able to deal with the abrupt change. I agreed to act as Chairman during that transition and it is an honour to serve the club that I have supported all my life.

“I appreciate there have been different views expressed in meetings, online and on social media about the validity of fan ownership, but it is now up to us to make this work – for our part, we will aim to become more open, change thegovernance structure and listen to all and any ways to help. This is a realchance to do something special”

Douglas Dickie, Well Society Joint Chair, said, “Our aim of fan-ownership has been, at times, a challenging road, but it has been achieved by a great amount of effort by Well Society members, fans and volunteers.

“It has also been made possible by a number of people who have given their expertise and commitment over a period of time to reach a satisfactory conclusion to our goal. We are now entering a new phase in our history.

“Fan ownership has responsibilities and we all need to realise that continued and growing financial support from all fans will be required. Together we can maintain, strengthen and be proud of the qualities and values of this greatcommunity club. The future is what we make it!”