Leaderboard

And most of the dross rises to the top nearing the end of the window, it's always better to get your recruitment done early, more time to get them integrated into the squad.

Hopefully you were commenting on the comment that was commenting on the likely response on here to my original comment! 😆😆😆

I get that there's a lot going on just now. A new manager; pre season about to start; the prospect of comings and goings and so on. However, don't overlook the Well Society consultation on proposed membership changes taking place just now. Its a chance to put across your views. All in all I found it to be a commendable attempt to update some admin matters. However, I found it to be a bit vague, unwieldy and complicated. Maybe just me. I found it hard to form a definitive opinion on some issues as I agreed with the overall principle but not the detailed changes. Anyway folks its your opinions that matter. Get your responses in.

Welcome back Iain. Its been a long time but hope to see more of your posts as they're always worth reading.

Hello folks Thank you @Kmcalpin for starting off the discussion and drawing attention to the Society Consultation. Worth noting that voting will close at noon this Thursday. All Well Society members will receive a final reminder email tomorrow with a voting link. Whether you agree with the changes or not please do make the effort to vote. We are keen to ensure as many members as possible have their say. All eight of the proposal have been developed in consultation with our members. This process commenced in January 2024 through a series of member workshops which were open to all. We worked through communications, governance and membership. Earlier this year we conducted a four week consultation covering the changes to the membership benefits, adult membership definition, change to the Rules of Association and supporting policies, the introduction of a new funding policy and the members' code of conduct. We then had a further two week consultation for the major votes policy change. We made changes as a result of the feedback received on a number of aspects and pulled together responses to frequently asked questions. If I can pick up on @Brazilian's point on the proposed changes to adult membership definition specifically. Those who joined the Society before 21 May 2015 and as a result made a significant one-off contribution of £300 or more but are no longer contributing to the Society currently will retain membership at the 1886 tier as part of the proposal. The new 1886 membership tier includes a community share in the Well Society, a vote on Well Society matters, discounted Well Society event entry, access to the new mobile app and access to the members education course. The reason for that date specifically is a communication sent by the then board of The Well Society which moved Society policy to seek monthly pledges rather than one-off payments: To help achieve long-term financial stability for Motherwell FC and its vision of becoming the best community club in Scotland, we are asking all members to pledge money to the Well Society each month. Last month we sent an email to members seeking approval for a revised membership structure. We have received an overwhelming endorsement of the proposals and thank everyone who responded. The policy now is to seek ongoing monthly pledges by direct debit, similar to the Foundation of Hearts, replacing the system of initial membership payments and annual renewal fees. You can pay £10 a month, £20, £30 or as much as you are able. Your contributions will still be recognised in the form of benefits, based on an incremental scale. Most importantly, though, you will be investing in a sustainable financial future for your club, providing it with working capital as it moves towards a self-sufficient future with the help of Les Hutchison. It is true to say that the proposal for those who joined the Well Society after this date when the new policy commenced and are no longer making a minimum contribution of £5 per month or £60 annual will lose their membership status and voting rights. Thanks again folks. Philip

Lennon Miller will be in big trouble in three years time then.

Would that then be the Twatt signal? Seems appropriate...

Disappointed Seddons gone but we coped without him for long periods. I'm sure our new signings will come but hopefully soon . Wonder how much we got for Seddon

No comment

Mark McGhee Mark McGhee drinking bottles of whisky!

Further evidence, if any was needed, that leaving us is the first step on the inevitable road to lower-league Scottish football.

I wasn't commenting on the appointment - I think it sounds like a great fit. I was commenting on the comment.

As I read it, the comment was made on the references to the "Liverpool boot room model" not the appointment of Rogers.

Post a review and ask for a refund.

Amazon has the platform for anyone to self publish a book quickly now. That guy seems to be churning out the books so I am assuming he is doing that but using AI to quickly piece together the content. I'd demand your cash back from Amazon.

Yes. Overall, I found it cumbersome and confusing to have to constantly switch between 1) comments received in the initial consultation 2) proposed changes in light of that consultation and 3) the comprehensive detailed proposals and D) the the actual voting form when casting my vote. The information provided in 1), 2) and 3) was useful however; it was just the way in which it was presented. Specific examples? A) I agreed with the proposal to simplify adult membership tiers but wasn't clear about the status of legacy members who had paid in considerable sums in some cases; sometimes in a single lump sum. Why should they be allocated en masse to the 1886 tier and not to a higher tier? B) Code of conduct: I agree one should be introduced but don't agree with specific wording about "perceived" bullying, harassment and discrimination etc. Either its bullying / harassment / discrimination or its not. For the record, bullying / harassment / discrimination etc is totally unacceptable. Someone's perception can be wrong. I get though that this is a wider societal issue. Suggested text seems to say that it doesn't matter what someone does or says rather its whether another party is offended by it that matters. C) Major votes policy. I agree with its introduction but think that 75% is too high. I would have thought that 55/60/65% was more appropriate. That still represents a clear majority. Also, the triggers for a major vote are too loose and ambiguous. For example, what is the meant by a "large scale" financial decision? Is the defintion £1m or £2m or maybe £5m? Lines have to be drawn somewhere though. From memory, I may not have recalled everything 100% but thats the gist of my concerns. To put this in context though, well done to the those on the Society Board who drafted these documents. I know from bitter experience just how difficult and time consuming it is and the ramifications of defining a term loosely that only becomes apparent a later date, when some party takes issue with it.

I voted I voted what I was in favour of and declined to agree on things I didn't like the phrasing off. Not that I don't trust those currently there but some things where worded where I thought that sounds like we can decide if you are and are not allowed to be a member of well society and some of the language around criticism. I think so long as criticism is fair there will be times where they need to be criticised and there should be no blowback for someone saying how they honestly feel so long as it's respectful and not personal.