Leaderboard

I think that whatever Comms staff we do have should keep an eye on social media. Its common practice in most organisations. Now by that I don't mean responding to every comment. Only those which are factually wrong and creating unnecessary discussion or anger for example. It would take what - perhaps 10 minutes a day. If a fan owned club wants to relate to the fans then it should keep its finger on the pulse. Social media is a two way thing. If the Club wants to use social media effectively for output then it should be aware of what the fans are saying, in the form of input. This particular issue has been chewed over for months, taken up hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts, and I'm just surprised that no-one at the club was aware of it. My second point is that this is a fan owned club and we should be kept informed. Now again, that comes with a caveat. We don't need to know every minute detail of the Club's business. However, the length of the manager's contract is a very basic issue, which we should have known about. I just wonder what would have happened if SK's contract hadn't been raised at the AGM. We would have arrived at late May, having finished anywhere between say 11th and 7th. There would have been discussion about SK's position with nothing being announced. That would have rumbled on into the summer with fans wondering if he was working without a contract. Just not good enough. Big changes are coming our way, whether you or I like them or not, and fan engagement will be crucial to their success. The fans have to be kept on board.

This obviously should have been communicated but lets not make out that it's some great scandal. At the end of the day manager contracts don't mean a whole lot, it's not even on par with a player contract when you are dealing with a potential asset or a squad position opening up.

THERES BEEN A RUMOUR!

Sorry. To say manager contracts don't mean a lot is probably true in most situations but as I see it not in this case. Take this scenario , we are relegated and have a manager with a 12 month contract which we will end up paying compensation if we decide to let him go.. Now we really know why Weir said SK would not be sacked ie 5 moths as opposed to 17 months compensation.

If injured then that fits our signing policy perfectly 😜😜

Would rather watch us in the Championship (or lower) than give up the 51% stake. We are what we are and we need to cut our cloth accordingly. If that means we can't be a Premiership club every season, so be it. Having said that I suspect we have squandered massive amounts of money on ridiculous player turn over and managers and that needs to end. Also we can't afford to subsidy a women's team so they need to find their own level just like we do.

Where's Declan Gallagher when you need him?

Do you not mean a no hamstrings attached contract? 😜😜

Indeed! Why throw anything out. I’m sure there will be a chance or two further down the line to vote against any proposition put forward.

SK's mandate was also to cut costs by reducing the size of the first team squad. There are a lot of factors at play here but what SK has achieved with such a small squad is remarkable. There is also no lack of fight within the squad, even when results haven't gone their way they have battled for 90+ minutes for every single point picked up along the way. How many teams sack their manager after relegation? Do you have those statistics to hand?

Was a really well constructed and balanced communication. Basically asking for views as to whether losing the majority shareholding is a red line you would not cross, or whether you would consider a proposal leading to that on its merits. If negotiations commence and a final offer is put forward then members get to vote on that. I understand totally the emotions involved but I think it wrong to dismiss something out of hand without knowing what it involves

No idea. I'd prefer to go with the Society option but have voted to consider external options. I think it would be remiss to reject out of hand external options without knowing details. I do not want to influence anyone else though. Each to their own.

Yes and I've voted

I meant with respect to the organization of the football club not to the feelings of the supporters.

Lamie signed pre-contract with Dundee....let's see if he actually goes this time https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/02/23/ricki-lamie-signs-pre-contract-with-dundee/

It'll cause a bit of discussion for a few days, some will go meh, some will lose their shit over it then everyone will forget about it and move on to the next "shambles"

May I suggest that the initial question should actually carry three options. Not everyone is a definite no or yes at present. That should be reflected. I for one will only decide when I see the detailed proposal and have had a chance to ask questions. eg. 1. No 2. Yes 3. Undecided but open to change if the terms are suitable and safeguard MFC. That would possibly give the Club Board some more negotiating power if the majority were open to change, but not at any cost. If it is a majority no, then end of. Discussion now is good. But we are all speculating regards what will be proposed. Unless we have a Corporate Lawyer in our ranks, then how much of what we assume is actually correct? Somebody mentioned St Johnstone. What they may or may not do ground wise is no indicator of what Motherwell may or may not do. Each Club needs to do what is in their own best interests. Based on their own circumstances. . But if St J are sitting on prime development land which they can sell for a fortune, move to a new ground and still have substantial funds left in the kitty to secure their future, then lucky them. On the 51% red line that folk mention, I get that being the majority shareholder carries power and enables ‘ fan owned’ bragging rights. But a simple (amateurish) internet search reveals Companies often have clauses build in to their Corporate Agreement that permit a Shareholding of only 26% or so to veto certain proposals. It might even be an automatic right? Veto rights it seems can be drawn up to cover almost anything. Like the sale of Fir Park for instance. So a 51% Majority does not grant freedom to do what you like. I could vote for a % reduction if I was convinced MFC was protected against asset stripping and such. Whether any investor would agree to such veto powers is for those whose task it is to protect the Club to investigate. In essence I understand there are terms that can be drawn up to protect against much, if not all, of the concerns that folk will rightly have. But I am no expert so will happily leave that to the Professionals to deal with. Also, it was clearly stated that potential investors were not looking to take a Charge over Fir Park or have the Club provide Guarantees which would put Club assets at risk. That for me is huge and suggests a long term involvement rather than an effort to make a quick buck. My request to MFC and the WS is that when more details are known and we are asked to give our input, then please provide straight answers to straight questions. If the answer is not known, then say so.

You wouldn't ever be asked to do that though, so not sure what the point you're making is? The question the WS will be consulting on shortly is if the membership is willing to give up fan ownership or not to any potential investor. If the answer is no, the WS Board will feed that back to the MFC Board, who will in turn tell investors that. If they're not interested, they'll then pull out. If they are, they'll come back with a new head of terms/initial agreement on it. If things progress on whatever terms the WS agree to for a continued/developing fan ownership model and we receive a formal offer for investment, everyone with a stake in the club - WS member or private shareholder - will receive the full details of the investment offer to then make a decision/vote yay or nay.

You're rght Grizzly. Of course, SK knew his contract had been extended. It was probably part of his original contract and was results based. However he probably felt, rightly, that it wasn't his job to make a public announcement about it. As you say just poor communication. If nothing else, you'd have thoughtthat someone at the club would monitor SO and P & B to pick up on any avoidable complaints/discussion centred on his contract ending this coming May.

I completely agree. Apparently the entire board and Kettlewell have to get to fuck according to some people on social media.

I'd have serious concerns about him crossing the road by himself. I doubt even his harshest critic on here would imagine for one second he or his agent were oblivious to his contract situation. The board left themselves wide open to criticism/ridicule on this and they deserve it. But when they did issue the statement and folk immediately began foaming online about Kettlewell getting a year's extension last night, you have to wonder if those fans are actually interested in anything other than moaning.

Just hope to feck Obika hasn't triggered a 4 yr extension!!

An excellent summary of last night's AGM @StAndrew7, thanks for pulling that together. I just wanted to pick up on the point made about The Society having the opportunity to present it's own plan. Firstly, as some have pointed out, I think from it's inception the Society has been hugely successful but in my opinion one of our real failings has been to effectively communicate our success. I noticed a very good summary from @capt_oatson Pie & Bovril that detailed since 16/17 the fan-ownership model has been profitable; Net - £2,415,205. Our loans to the club (around 900k) have been invaluable and who knows where we'd be without that input. It's important to note that there's room for significant improvement from the Society and if we want to move forward and succeed we must acknowledge our shortcomings. On that note, I'd argue that we've simply not been good enough at is converting those members who are not paying a monthly subscription to actually stump up (if they are in a position to do so) and we've not inspired those who are currently paying to up their contributions. There's many reasons why people might not be paying a monthly subscription but the change from the original model to the current one example; some have paid their initial fee before it was move to monthly DD's and haven't paid much since. This should be an easy fix, and as @Jay has highlighted, I feel with the current re-vamped board in place we are in a much better position to do this sort of thing. On said plan, I've been really impressed and inspired by the additions to The Well Society board at the end of last year. The contributions from Amber, Sean and Phil have been excellent and I believe we're moving forward at pace. From our discussions, and I hope that other members of the Society board who contributed to this don't mind me sharing their vision, it has became clear we must explore in detail the potential of both the 'Well Society and the operations of the club to maximise revenue and to grow. Some suggestions put forward from Board members include; - Extensive market research of our fan base, cross referencing habits around tickets sales with our membership to identify potential membership growth. In turn allowing the board to develop a strategy for increasing the revenue of TWS, forecasting financial targets therefore dictating our organising strategy for future years. - Commission a study of the operational structure of the club similar to what other Scottish Clubs are doing. This will help us identify what additional roles and infrastructure are required and what financial investment would be secured for them over a set time period. A fundraising strategy can then be developed as part of a comprehensive operational strategy that ensures cohesion and shared vision throughout the club that can be collectively evaluated regularly. - Host a fact finding conference at Fir Park bringing together fan owned clubs across Europe to explore best practice, develop relationships and commercial opportunities. This alongside the ongoing work and sessions hosted by Phil Speedie should ensure a closer relationship between the Majority Shareholder and the operations of the club and I would hope that it would empower members to be more involved and bring them closer to the club and the vehicle which they are funding. By compiling the results from the above projects we can present a fully comprehensive 5-10 year strategy that will sustainably grow the revenue of the club, reduce potential financial risks and ideally ensure remain competitive on the park. The strategy should lay out the require project specific investment and infrastructure requirements and lay out a roadmap to achieve each. In my personal opinion, I believe that this work can and should be done whilst continuing to keep our options open to potential investors, providing they are credible and fit with our values. We've no doubt got a wealth of talent in our ranks that is going untapped. We've got 3,800 not only from Lanarkshire but across the Globe and we simply don't know enough about them and we don't know what each individual can bring to the table. That needs to change, and it needs to change fast, regardless of external investment or not. I've been really heartened by progress and I'd like to thank all those that have been involved it in, but there's a long way to go and I'd like as many 'Well fans to be part of that journey as possible. Regardless what the future brings, I think discussions like this are so important in highlighting how much the Club means to so many people.