Leaderboard

Ceetainly 2.5m is a more reaistic figure if you base it on inflation rates since 2011. Im led to believe that the WS currently raise approx 200k per year?? so in theory it would take 5 years to reach the updated figure of 2.5m so in 5 years would it then need to be 3.5/4m to keep pace with inflation?. The 1.5m reserve will therefore always be a moving figure. Im supportive of the plan in principle as its a nice straightforward way of building up the reserve whilst releasing monies for 1 off projects which might not otherwise get funded through general expenditure. The most obvious example of this for me personally would to see lifts in the Cooper and McLean stands and some form of elevated viewing position for our disabled fans which the DSA have been lobbying for the last 10 years.

Hes probably just bored fielding the same banal shite from the media.

In my defence i have been here 37 years, so a wee slip now and again is ok 😃

You have very eloquently expanded on some of the thoughts I was having and put flesh on the bones of what I was trying to get across. Very well done! 🧡❤️🧡

Lengthy rambling post incoming, btw... I think there are two different lines of thought being discussed here. The first is whether the Society should ever use some of its money to invest in the club rather than continuing indefinitely to put everything into the reserve. On that, I can see a strong argument for change. The second is whether this particular structure is the right way to do it. I’m less certain about that. One thing I wouldn’t underestimate is the risk of doing nothing. As a club, we are competing against clubs where private owners or investors can put additional capital into training facilities, stadium improvements, commercial infrastructure, recruitment systems and sometimes simply provide financial headroom when it’s needed. That doesn’t guarantee success, and badly spent money can obviously achieve very little, but over a number of years that investment can compound. Better infrastructure can help develop players. Better commercial operations can generate more revenue. Better facilities can improve recruitment. Those things can eventually feed back into the playing budget. So if Motherwell cannot generate enough surplus internally to fund that type of long-term investment, and also decides not to access Society or external capital, there is a genuine risk of falling behind structurally. For me, that is probably the strongest argument in favour of the principle behind Active Investment. Where I think we need to be careful is making the jump from: “Motherwell needs access to investment” to: “therefore this particular annual rolling-loan model is the answer.” They aren’t quite the same thing in my opinion. The £1.5m reserve is still the first thing I would want clarified. If £1.5m represents the amount the Society believes it prudently needs to protect the club against relegation and an unforeseen event, I still struggle slightly with the logic of diverting half of the default subscription income elsewhere before getting there. If £1.5m is simply a longer-term target rather than a minimum safety level, that's a different matter. But I think members need to understand which it is. I also don’t think simply inflation-adjusting an old £1.5m number necessarily gives us the answer. The correct reserve in 2026 should be based on the risks facing Motherwell in 2026, not just what £1.5m from years ago is worth today. The consultation explains that around £1m could be required in a relegation scenario, plus another £500k for an unexpected loss of income. That sounds reasonable as a starting point, but I’d be interested in how far the downside scenario goes. For example, what happens if we spend two seasons in the Championship rather than one? What happens if relegation also affects transfer income? The consultation itself acknowledges the importance of recent player sales in covering potential shortfalls while the underlying operating deficit is reduced. If we were relegated, there is at least a possibility that player valuations fall, buyers know we are in a weaker negotiating position, some players want to leave, commercial income drops further, and the timing of sales becomes less favourable. That doesn’t mean £1.5m is wrong, by the way. It just means fans might like to know that those risks have been considered together rather than relegation being treated as a single isolated £1m event. I also agree with the point made above about the difference between productive investment and plugging ordinary losses. If the Society lends £200k for a project that has a credible business case and will save the club £60k a year, increase commercial income, improve an asset or otherwise produce measurable long-term value, I can see the logic. If the money gradually starts disappearing into normal annual operating expenditure, that is a very different proposition. The answer there could be a pretty firm rule that Active Investment is for identifiable investment projects, not simply another source of working capital to reduce the club’s normal deficit. That also brings me to the loan structure. Calling the scheme “Active Investment” is understandable, but what is currently proposed, from what I can see, is essentially an ongoing shareholder-loan arrangement. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Private football club owners use shareholder loans all the time. The difference is that a private owner is normally risking their own capital and may ultimately extend the loan indefinitely, convert it into shares or write it off. The Society is deploying money accumulated from thousands of supporters, so I think the terms deserve more scrutiny. When the consultation says the investment will be “protected”, what exactly does that mean? Is the loan secured? Does it earn interest? Where would it rank against other creditors? What happens if the club cannot repay after the stated period? Is rolling the loan expected to be the normal outcome? If loans keep being rolled for ten or fifteen years, is the Society effectively providing permanent capital anyway, and if so, would equity sometimes be a more appropriate structure? I don’t have a predetermined answer to those questions. I just think they are fundamental rather than technical details. There is also a broader point about how the projects are generated. I’d much rather the sequence was: “Here is a project the club believes is worth £250k. Here is what it costs, what it saves or generates, the payback period and why Society finance is the best funding source.” rather than: “We have £200k of Society money available every year. What can we spend it on?” That distinction is important, I think, because otherwise the existence of an annual funding pot can eventually start driving the spending decision. That is something private owners also have to guard against. Access to easy capital can be useful, but it can also reduce financial discipline. So I’d probably be somewhere in the middle on the whole thing. I don’t think continuing forever with every penny going into a bank account is necessarily the best use of the Society’s position as majority shareholder. If other Scottish clubs are investing significantly in their businesses and Motherwell refuses to access any additional capital, there is a legitimate risk that we fall behind over time. But equally, being the majority shareholder should mean more than simply being the easiest source of finance available to the club. It should mean deploying capital selectively, independently and with a clear understanding of both the upside and the downside. That’s why I keep coming back to what seems like an obvious compromise. Agree the Active Investment framework now if members support the principle. Put the project appraisal process, loan terms and safeguards in place. But unless there is an urgent investment opportunity that makes waiting genuinely disadvantageous, why not maintain the existing default until the reserve reaches whatever level is finally agreed to be prudent? At that point you have both sides of the model in place: a properly funded safety net and a mechanism for investing in growth. For me, the question isn’t really whether the Society should invest in Motherwell. The answer is that It probably should. The more important question is how it does that without weakening the very financial protection that supporter ownership was designed to provide.

Would that be in the twenty first century?

Every game I witnessed when he was playing he was always out of position, off the ball never anticipating where the ball was going in the box and two yards short in the box ,he was truly woeful. Most of his goals were penaltys , that bad no one would buy him from us. Probably McArthur FC got Tesco vouchers to take him off our hands.

I don't that quite captures the welcoming and "safe place to fail" ethos that has helped create our current level of success.

Fuck him , he was shite and a waste of money.

Yet another joke recycled from last season.

We were a bit off it, but a self-inflicted 1 - 0 defeat at Ibrox at the end of an 11 games in 37 days run, wasn't that poor.

Nah not for me........3-0 or 4-0 would be lovely

He was wicked , so he will be settled in Oz.

Cmon proper English please "Cheque" 😉😁

Held to Account yes. 100%. Undoubtedly. However, the Club Board do have the expertise to operate like any other football club board. They have done that pretty well so far. Seating aside 😂. That responsibility surely includes managing infrastructure projects. The only difference is that they have ‘bosses’ to report to who can intervene if appropriate. In effect that arrangement should provide extra security for us fans. My question is whether the Society Board are strong enough to disagree with the Club Board/Brian and say NO. That has not always been the case in the past. They certainly appear to have sidestepped the POD seating issue. But hopefully those days are behind us. The current proposal has some merit. But are we in a position to commit at this time? I guess that is the question folk have to answer for themselves.

Still mulling this over. Plenty of good intention but yet to be convinced. Also trying to leave the emotional fan owned buzz out of things. First thing that strikes me is the reserve figure of £1.5m as the target originally set…..in 2011. That figure equates to almost £2.4m in 2026. So it’s nowhere near like for like or close to the level of emergency funds that were visualised as appropriate in 2011. Should it therefore be £2.5m we look to have before we use any excess funds for ‘projects’? To give us the same level of protection that was seen as required in 2011. That initial target was for the exact same scenarios set out in the Broadcast. Effectively relegation. Hard to understand why relegation nowadays would have less of an impact than in 2011. I don’t believe using St Mirren and £500k as a yardstick is wise either. Pretty sure other Clubs have identified relegation as having greater financial implications than £500k, even allowing for an immediate return to the top division. My other concern is ‘Why now and who is driving it?’ Fund raising initiatives have worked well this season. And congrats to all concerned. Mrs Baillie’s as an example. So why not carry on in that manner meantime? Walk before you run. Or perhaps, is the upgraded Training Ground and the apparently hush hush Fir Park Report playing a part here? Bearing in mind external funding is not straight forward as the WS hold a First Charge over Fir Park. Lenders don’t like being second or third in the queue if things go belly up. The WS is also a much cheaper source of finance. And per the broadcast, we may have heaps of transfer monies due but only in increments over the coming years. ‘ We do not have £10m in the Bank’ as a direct quote. So how are those two projects being funded? Perhaps I am being too cautious but, until convinced otherwise, I would rather build up to £2.5m before proceeding as proposed. Interested to hear what others think.

Ive watched the podcast and read the document and I am certainly intrigued by the proposals. It would make sense that once the security reserve figure has been reached that we should be looking at other ways to use Society Funds. No point building a huge pot of money if its never going to be put to good use. Im unsure whether taking this step now, before we have met the reserve figure is the correct thing to do, but I think I could be persuaded. Making our money work for the benefit of the club certainly makes sense. A little investment here and there could generate further revenue for the club and that would be welcome. What I wouldnt be in favour of however, is the Society money going straight into the running costs of the club and being absorbed. Having seperation between the Well Society and the Club was done for a reason, and should be kept that way. The club should still be required to balance its books and the operational shortfall must be closed if we are going to be run sustainably. That figure cant include Well Society cash. Also, Id be wanting something in return for any money the Society puts into the club. Previous loans were attached to security on the stadium. So we are in a situation where no one can sell Fir Park from underneath us. That is a good thing. Ive seen it discussed elsewhere that future loans might be leveraged against increased shareholding for the Society, and something like that would be appealing. Hopefully all these discussions can take place during the consultation period, and I have put them forward in my response to the active investment document. It feels like the club and the Society are both in good health at present. The ideas being put forward appear positive and as long as we get the small print correct, I think we can move forward in good faith.

But of course........no way would Tam Cowan be in it! 🤣🤣

I have started to compile a dossier of your funny jokes that you have posted on here , I am on page one at the moment and that's still blank.😂

Rogers doing the press conference, was Alfred passing the buck? 🤪