Personally, I think there’s a middle ground here.
I agree that “investment” is a word we need to be careful with. Motherwell simply isn’t the kind of club where someone comes in, puts money in, and gets a normal business return from profits. That’s just not how it works for clubs our size.
The latest accounts show the club is in a reasonably solid position, but we’re not sitting on huge profits. So if an investor is coming in looking for dividends, control, security over assets, or some guaranteed route to make money, that’s where I’d be taking a long, hard look at their intentions.
Where I do think there’s a difference is between bad investment and properly structured strategic investment.
The Hearts/Bloom deal is interesting to me for that reason. Bloom put in something like £9.9m for just shy of 30%, but those are non-voting shares if I recall. Hearts/FoH also state that player trading revenue stays with the club, so it doesn’t look like he’s taking a direct cut of any transfers. His upside seems to be tied to the value and success of his stake, not stripping money out of transfer fees.
When it comes to Motherwell, I’d be against selling control. Completely against it. But, I wouldn’t be against the right minority deal if it was properly protected.
Something like:
minority stake only
fan control protected
ideally non-voting shares
no security over Fir Park
no right to force asset sales
no direct claim on transfer income
clear exit terms
clear limits on board influence
money going into sustainable growth, not just short-term spending
The above is very different from just handing the club over to someone.
Hibs is probably a bit of a warning sign. Foley/Black Knight came in for 25% at £6m I think, but the relationship didn’t work out from what I read and the stake has now been bought back. That doesn’t prove outside investment is always a bad idea, but it does show that alignment is crucial. Money on its own isn’t enough if the investor’s model, timescale or expectations don’t fit the club.
So I’d say organic growth should still be the base case. That’s the safest route, and we do seem to be in a better position now than we were during the car crash that was the Barmack discussion.
But I also wouldn’t be shutting the door completely. If someone credible came in with capital, expertise, no demand for control, and a structure that protected the Society and the club, then I think we’d have to look at it seriously.
The key for me is that we shouldn’t be looking for “an investor” in the generic sense. We should only be interested in a very specific type of potential partner.
Basically, one who strengthens the club without owning the club. Which is hard to find.