Leaderboard

Borrowed from P&B with Vietnam91's permission. I wanted to post it because I have an EMail from the Club Board received a few days ago advising that any income from the new/revised domestic deals cannot be taken into consideration when looking to the season ahead/valuations. Because those figures cannot be quantified. The Board really are playing a nasty game here. Operation Misinformation is alive and running The Uefa uplift is also public knowledge but it is the ignoring of 'Scottish' income uplift I find most insulting to us fans. Fuller details on Pie and Bovril for anybody who cares to have a look. Remember all the doom and gloom in the clubs detailed statement? Seemed not to mention any of the good stuff coming our way, like if we finish in 9th again we're looking at an £808k improvement. Quite an attractive prospect for an investor, especially when removing £434k of benign debt for a "clean" balance sheet is insisted upon. Overnight the league and Motherwell becomes more much more attractive. Nobody buy into any feigned surprise or ignorance to these facts. Here's the inconvenient numbers: SPFL League Sponsor changing from Cinch £1.6m per season to William Hill £2m per season, covered here: League Sponsor Announcement Sky Extension and uplift from £25m per season to £30m per season with an additional £4m options to cover more games, covered here: Sky Increase to £150m over 5 years Premier Sports announce 20 games per season for 8 figures (£10m?), covered here: Premier Sports 20 games per season So total prize pot rising based on press by 58% above this season (or 73% if the Sky option is taken up). Percentages defined here (2018 but still the same): Percentage breakdown for final league placing, all 4 divisions, 42 clubs UEFA Then throw into the mix that for the next three seasons (club says 2) due to our league winner getting automatic CL qualification a 80% uplift on the solidarity payments (min £650k per season). If the 2nd place team do it through the qualifiers then it is estimated to be over £1.1m, (this is behind a paywall, why there's no link):

As I said earlier in the thread, do those players even want to come to Motherwell? For instance, instead of signing four players at the wage we usually offer for a single player, let's say we actually do consider combining those four salaries to buy one player. Just for arguments sake. You'll often find that players commanding the equivalent of four players' wages at our level will attract interest from clubs higher up the hierarchy, who see that combined four-player salary as their standard, single-player salary. Consequently, they are likely to offer far more than we can in other aspects besides salary. In essence, it wouldn't work. It's a very simplistic way of looking at transfer dealings. It’s easy to plan with rough estimates, but the real world is usually far more complicated.

Appreciated. At the end of the day we all want what is best for our football club.

Thanks for your response. I agree that the WS could learn lessons from the Hearts set up. Particularly with regard to a web site which is clearly a particular gripe of yours. No doubt there is other best practice to have a look at. So, yes, have a look at them for ideas. I also agree the Society could be and should have been more forceful given their standing as majority share holders. But where your comparison falls flat is the part played by the respective Club Boards. That is a massive factor. At Hearts, and whether folk like or loathe Anne Budge, we have a Board and former Board Members who respect their fan group, work with and support them for the benefit of both parties, and ultimately Hearts. I get the impression there is an open door policy whereby the fan group can call upon the expertise of the club when appropriate. And there will be differences of opinion at times, but I think that is natural and healthy. Also the Hearts executive have brought in literally millions to the Club via their contacts, business acumen and knowledge of the Club's fan base locally and worldwide. As recently as a month or so ago a couple of new initiatives were announced. £2m I seem to recall. Hearts appear to have learned lessons from the disaster that befell them and brought about the creation of the Hearts Foundation. Turning to Motherwell we have the exact opposite. We have a Board who resent the WS and certainly show them and their position as majority shareholders no respect. Plenty of examples of that with the discussions and negotiations surrounding this proposal from Barmack a classic example. A proposal that would ultimately bankrupt the Society and remove all power. The Society has been deliberately sidelined and ignored. Regarded simply as a Bank to be raided for whatever purpose the Club Board saw fit, aided by two or three Society Board Members whose loyalties and intentions are far from clear. Who come across as puppets of the Club Chairman. Through their influence the role of the Society diminished year on year until such time as the Society Board changed. At which point the worm turned, although not fast enough for some, fighting for your rights as a Motherwell fan and striving to return to what was originally established. It takes time although some progress has been made, otherwise we would not be having this debate. Regards sourcing external finance, exactly how much has the current Chairman and the Board brought in over recent years? Or ever. I would suggest the Society you hold in such poor regard has brought in far more through fans' subscriptions/donations alone. Not bad for a bunch of amateurs. Compare that to Hearts. Instead our Board have relied upon the Society to fund gaps and now Mr McMahon is attempting to sell the myth that it is the role of a bunch of volunteers to come up with a solution. As I said earlier, to do his job for him. And sadly some appear to have been fooled by his diversion strategy. So by all means compare the Well Society to the Foundation of Hearts. But please include the whole picture. It is not as simple as walking in and sacking the existing Club Board, even if the Society wanted to and has those powers.We need to retain some semblance of stability as the Club transitions to the new set up I believe you, me and most others are hoping for.

Let's hope we're both proven wrong.

Was about to say much of the same. Expecting a rejuvenated WS Board to come in and change anywhere from 5-10+ years of what appears to have been stagnation or potentially downright mismanagement under the watch of the previous incumbents, coupled with what seemingly had been a Yes sir/no sir/three bags full etc. relationship with the Chairman in less than a year isn't fair. As for the business plan being a result of the situation we're now in, that's not entirely accurate. My understanding is that it was already under development/in its initial stages before Christmas and has since picked up as significant a pace as it can with the time constraints the board have, based on the short notice of facto the original HoT being delivered to them. I agree some things can/could have been done quicker (the standalone website being a good example of that) but to write the board off before there's been any chance to present anything isn't fair, but as always, each to their own opinion etc. I think the Foundation of Hearts is the kind of structure in terms of comms, presence etc. is what we should be aiming for, personally. Its size and stature is unrealistic for us, purely based on the funds they have available to them from one or two individuals and the size of the Hearts fanbase. All this shows to me is just how broken our "fan ownership" model has become, as a result of the Les investment and subsequent sale changing the original plans and so on. There's a catalogue of errors and issues that go back much further than the current WS board.

That is a fair point, which I generally agree with. I've said elsewhere that the WS seem to have been resting on their laurels for years, not understanding the members or being able to quantify who does and does not financially contribute, etc. And now the WS Board has to react against adversity through no fault of the new generation of members. However, I see this situation as being down to the previous WS Board and their remit/(in)ability/constraints. Now, I look at the current WS Board as a new generation, which will hopefully get things right moving forward with a fresh slate, but it won't happen overnight. It's theirs to lose.

No, I just can't be arsed debating with someone hellbent on not giving the new Well Society board members a chance to produce their forthcoming business plan. You've already made up your mind about the new WS board, as I've done with Kettlewell, so that'll be that then.

Did the board and these three members stop them from building a website in 13 years?

Excellent compared to what? Queen’s Park are developing better facilities, Aberdeen have built Cormack Park, Killie have just announced work on a new training facility, Hibs have 7 pitches and 90 plus acres at Tranent, Dundee are working with their Council to develop a site at Riverside, etc. Dalziel Park is a rudimentary facility and the lower pitch floods frequently.

I genuinely feel the current custodians of the club have framed it this way, or am I giving them too much credit?

It’s honestly unbelievable. I can’t believe we’re still all talking about this and it hasn’t been laughed off as some sort of weird joke. i was dismayed by the original offer, after the ‘lengthy statement’ and subsequent revised offer, now I'm just angry.

That's not true is it, was it not £300k a year for 3 years then £350K a year for another 3 years, so £1.95 million in total,. Must be some size of a house in Fir park St

You can't be serious Steelboy / Peter Miller would have him in tears and running for the hills after his first post

No we don't but people need to realise that any other deal from any other investor will be fundamentally the same. "The club needs investment I have the cash to invest, so here's what it will cost for that investment " deal or no deal. As I said earlier if we really want to embrace true fan ownership then the WS needs to be made fit for purpose, come up with its own plan and as Santheman said a few posts ago, tell the members to prepare to dig deep financially to make it happen. As bucket collections etc won't cut it.

Do you really believe Barmack is going to do a deal with the WS directly on the premis that he puts in a significant amount of cash but he's never going to be in Control, no guarantee of a return etc, that's fantasy its never going to happen with him or any other investor.

All I would add to that is if TRUE fan ownership is the holy grail then we had better be prepared to dig very deep into our pockets.

As much as I think the Barmack offer is a bad deal, sooner or later people need to wake up to the reality that further investment comes at a cost. We're never going to attract a multi millionaire who will offer us a million a year no strings attached and say spend it wisely and let me know how you get on. The Barmack's of this world want a return on their cash, ie control of the club and it's assets that's their guarantee, so if this offer is rejected we will be having this debate with the next Barmack etc. The main issue we have is the WS, nobody is going to invest money and not have full control of the club, they don't want to be annoyed by the WS. So for me the only way I can see is for the WS to come up with their own plan to provide additional investment and for them to start controlling the club as they should be as majority shareholders. But that said in its current format I have no confidence in that happening, it needs proper professional people onboard, not the enthusiastic volunteers it has now. We are paying the price now for a WS badly set up and implemented at the start.