Leaderboard

I think Dundee are a better team than us right now , so a point would be a great result. Dont think we will get it cos that defence will concede and just don't see us scoring.

I know it doesn't fit with the reactions, but the truth is, it happens. We've seen this kind of thing happen to teams in this division all the time. Outside of the Old Firm and whichever Edinburgh/big city club happens to be having a good season most of the other clubs can easily do this to each other on any given week. This time it was our turn. I'm sure we'll see over-reactions, doomsday chat and all sorts, then we'll even out and be challenging for top six by the end of the year.

Almost a year ago we got pumped 4-1 by a robbo side. That was a shocker and we recovered. Not sugarcoating tonight but we have had a terrible performance and we all know that. 3 weeks ago we were in Freiburg putting in a brave performance against bundesliga league leaders. We are very much a team in transition and it takes time. Jens took time to get things working also. I have every faith in Alfred. COYW

I'm prepared to put that down as just one of those nights. Thought we played some good stuff in the first half an hour but we found it difficult to find space with Aberdeen basically playing 8 at the back. They score with their only shot on target and we go in at half time 1-0 down in a match we've totally controlled and dominated. I think we had something like 80% of possession at that point. Second half we give a goal away with a mistake within seconds and then the game is gone and a lot of heads went down. Might as well blown for full time then as we just weren't at the races 2nd half but that can happen when things go against you. Worth noting we have 8 points after 6 games when it took us 8 matches to achieve that last season. I think the season can still go either way but we can't afford too many more losses like that because they absolutely kill confidence.

Called it at the time about Burrows, Aberdeen and their warped self entitled fanbase. Anyone going there in a managerial or boardroom role has an almost impossible task.

Lennon Miller and Steven Welsh in the Scotland squad.

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.😂

It's to do with people over reacting to a single defeat. It's one match that got away from us.

If there's an exact opposite of papering over the cracks, what you've posted is exactly it. Hibs away "decent enough." I disagree there, you're not giving us enough credit for a very good away win. This is the same Hibs that went on to beat Rangers at Ibrox in their next game, and didn't lose in the league until they played Hearts. So that was a good performance and win, especially away from home. Falkirk at home "struggled." I don't know if I'd agree with that. We did okay, and Falkirk are a decent enough side. They'll take points off other teams this season. Stenhousemuir was a game that fell victim to our European run. We chose the side based on other competitions, unfortunately. It is what it was. Not ideal, but again, we have to pick and choose our battles at that stage of the season. Dundee United was a very good, comprehensive win. Them being down to 10 men is neither here nor there. We won 3-0. St Mirren. "Could have conceded five" but we could very easily have scored five as well! It was one of those games. Rangers, we lost to the better side fair and square. No issues there. Same with Aberdeen. I'm certainly not going to be proclaiming us as finishing top four this season, but we've been fine so far. We're fifth in the league, we've won two, drawn two, lost two, and our goal difference is close to neutral. Oh, and for those saying we're not scoring enough? Only Hearts and Celtic have scored more in the league so far. So yeah, not amazing. Not terrible.

Suicide awareness.

They will be a few knickers getting rung oot first 😰

They were a baw from scoring twice before they did. The warning signs were there. First Aberdeen team to beat us by a 4 goal margin since Alex Ferguson days. That sums us up tonight. The defence is piss poor and we have zero up front. Maswanhise and RCC are not going to score many goals. I'm not convinced by this squad, yet. Not saying it wont change but still not convinced . I think there has been a lot of hype about a good bit of it unjustified. Pretty patterns with nothing at the end of it was pointless. We badly need to take something from Dens but I fear another grim day ahead.

Time travel in the 21st Century Buck 😎

I would have been amazed if your reply had been any different

At this stage last year the 4-1 was a blip - I don't believe tonight was. There's been several poor performances, albeit the euro early games we did well. I had a lot more faith this time last season that we'd come good. This season has been a lot less consistent. I'm honestly not sure how things will pan out this season .

You may not be wrong but long road to go. 3 goals to St Mirren, Rangers should have taken 4 off us and a piss poor Aberdeen took 4 off us. Nothing up front and a piss poor defence.

Absolutely disastrous night. No complaints, this team are going to do nothing but go downwards.

Give the lad time to settle.

Willy Vogt coming on. I'm switching this off......

Williams deserves a chance tonight

This team is ineffective and poor. We are in trouble this season.

7 minutes in and we've already earned the right to play football.

Excellent summary and not rambling at all. There are so many aspects involved it is hard not to end up with lengthy posts. I’ve picked out one area where I think I know the answer. And apologies if too lengthy. Re protection. Any loan monies the WS provides are secured by a first charge over Fir Park and are interest free so as not to burden the Club. . That places the Society ahead of other Creditors were disaster to strike. Tax Authorities might have a prior claim as they are a Law unto themselves. So any loan monies could eventually be returned to the Society subject to the amount being less than the sale price of Fir Park. In 2011 those returning monies were seen as a restart fund if it came to it. Please note, under normal circumstances there is no intention of ever seeking repayment of the Loan. It is simply in existence to protect Society monies as the Society indicated in their presentation. Last time I asked the WS and checked with Companies House, that Charge was still in place and covered all monies loaned to MFC by the Society. But that is certainly one point that needs confirmed beyond all doubt. The First Charge being granted to the Society also means external funding is not so easy to access. Lenders ( just like the Society) prefer to have Security in place., and be first in line. But given that the Society are the first in line, any new lender would have to accept being next in the queue. Or the Society would have to agree to step aside which would normally not be acceptable. It is done though if circumstances suit. So that situation can be a barrier to seeking finance elsewhere and anything agreed could be more costly than normal. Donations are an entirely different ball game to Loan monies. Donations are not protected by the Security over Fir Park. So once a donation is made, those funds are gone forever. That happened fairly regularly under a different regime. Otherwise the current Loan and/or Bank balance would be a great deal higher. From discussion with Society Board Members that is an issue they were keen to address soon after Board membership changed after the Barmack approach. Personally I don’t understand why all monies passed to MFC should not be by way of adding to the Loan. That way everything would be protected. Maybe there are accounting or tax implications? Talking of Barmack. One of his demands was that the outstanding Society Loan be written off entirely. Why was that? Well, that write off would have dispensed with the need for the Society to have Security over Fir Park. Barmack could then have sought external finance using Fir Park as a Guarantee. Default on any new Loan and Fir Park would have been at risk. A potential risk members identified and took into account when telling him to get lost. Hopefully never to be relied upon, but that Security over Fir Park provides so much protection in so many ways. It grants a huge say in the way things are done. But the Loan needs to exist for the safety net to exist. That is my understanding of how things stand. Anyone who knows differently please dive in. More than happy to stand corrected. Edited to add. Per Football Authority rules. Football debts are cleared first or else Club is sanctioned. So wages, outstanding transfers, suppliers are first up to be cleared. Tax is behind secured creditors as they lost a recent court case.

Recognise it nooow.

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.

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.

Good lad, would be worried if you predicted a draw or Well win 🤣

Reading the exchange between @Goggles & Flippers & @Speedie85 I think there are really two separate questions being conflated here. The first is whether the Dalziel Park project falls within one of the mandatory triggers in the Major Votes Policy. On the wording as it stands, I don't think it does. The policy is quite specific about the circumstances in which a ballot must take place, and capital investment in a training facility is not one of them. On that narrow point, Speedie's interpretation is difficult to argue with. The second question is different though, and I think this is where the discussion becomes more interesting. The policy also gives the Society Board discretion to call a vote on matters outside the listed criteria where there may be an impact on the club's structure, financial stability, governance or identity. That doesn't mean every large decision has to be put to the membership, and nor should it. The Club Board has to be able to operate and make significant commercial decisions without everything becoming a referendum. But equally, the discretionary clause has to mean something. If the figures being discussed around Dalziel are broadly accurate, and the club is committing several million pounds to a long-term infrastructure project on land it does not own outright, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the Society Board considered that discretionary provision and, if so, what led it to conclude that a membership vote was not appropriate. That is not the same as saying the policy has been breached. For me, that is the important distinction. The mandatory criteria create certainty. If one of them is triggered, the Board has no choice about whether members get a vote. The discretionary provision exists for significant situations which fall outside those criteria, where the Board still thinks the implications are serious enough to justify wider member involvement. Acknowledging that discretion does not make the specific criteria redundant. It simply means the policy has two levels, mandatory matters and exceptional matters requiring judgement. Where I think the argument in favour of scrutiny is strongest is not around the semantics of whether "selling a training ground" should somehow also mean "developing a training ground". I don't think the current wording supports that. The stronger issue is the nature and scale of the investment itself. If the club is ultimately putting £3m, £5m, or whatever the final figure turns out to be into Dalziel, members are entitled to understand what the club is receiving in return. What are the tenure arrangements? How long are they secured for? Who owns the improvements? What happens at the end of the lease or agreement? What protections exist around the money being invested? What alternatives were considered? Those are proper governance questions. The same applies to the financing point. It is obviously positive that the club is in a position where it may not need to borrow to fund major projects, but the absence of debt does not automatically make a capital allocation decision a good one. Equally, debt is not automatically bad. What matters is the cost, the security, the repayment profile, the risks and what asset or long-term value is being created. That is particularly relevant if there is a wider stadium discussion taking place at the same time. There is an opportunity-cost question around committing several million pounds to Dalziel now versus retaining some of that capital as part of a future stadium or combined infrastructure solution. That doesn't mean one option is right and the other is wrong, but it is a strategic question worth understanding. I also think it is worth being precise about what fan ownership means here. The Society is the majority shareholder, but that does not mean members should be approving day-to-day or even every major operational decision. The Club Board still has a proper governance role and has to be able to exercise judgement independently. Fan ownership does, however, mean there should be clarity around which decisions sit with the Club Board, which sit with the Society Board, and which are significant enough to go back to the membership. So for me the fair position is this: Dalziel does not appear to trigger an automatic Major Vote under the policy as currently drafted. But that does not make the discretionary clause irrelevant. Given the potential scale and unusual nature of the investment, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the Society Board considered exercising that discretion, and if it did not believe a vote was necessary, to explain why. That is a governance question rather than an accusation of procedural breach. If anything, the debate probably shows one area the Society may want to tighten when the policy is reviewed. The current wording is clear around ownership changes, debt, asset sales and relocation, but much less clear around very large capital commitments. A future version could distinguish more explicitly between mandatory reserved matters, discretionary major matters and ordinary delegated Club Board decisions. That would probably prevent exactly this kind of argument next time.

And a Stadium like St Mirrens would severely restrict our capacity for income. We have a capacity for 4800 away fans every game, St Mirren have capacity for 1400 that's why their average crowds were so far behind us last season (8620 v 6835) we had room for more home fans and alot of away fans. If we were to build a new stadium it cannot be with a capacity any less than 12,000.

Sure and I can answer that, I don't disagree with the underlying point about risk. A £30-40m commitment is obviously a completely different proposition and I'd want to know exactly how it would be serviced, what the downside scenarios look like and what happens if the current level of player trading isn't sustained. My £250k house analogy wasn't meant to suggest that taking on a £30m mortgage is somehow equivalent to an individual taking out a mortgage. It was really about the standard being applied to the club: that it somehow needs to have every penny sitting in cash before it can even contemplate a major investment. Nobody buying a house says, “I can't afford this because I don't have £250k in my bank account.” They look at income, expenditure, existing assets, borrowing capacity and the risks if circumstances change as well as projected wage increases or any lump sums (bonus', inheritance, etc.) coming their way. The club should be doing exactly the same exercise. In my scenario I suggested we go from a 13,000 stadium to a 18,000 one and make those additional 5,000 seats available to a guaranteed three OF fixtures (possibly four if top six is secured) with potential for two Hearts fixtures (I don't think they'd take the full 10,000 allocation but can assume it would over their current 5,000). Over 20 years that brings in an extra £10m than we realise at present. If you wish to apply that to the mortgage analogy I illustrated, it's now like buying a £250k house on a £35k salary, finding £10k to stick a plumbed garden room studio at the bottom of the garden and stick it on Air B&B for £25k a year income. That changes the complexion of the means to repay the mortgage. To keep the analogy going if you were let go, your personal finances dictate if you get a stop gap job to keep the wolf from the door, do some side hustles or if you do a job that allow it, a few 'homers'. While a football club can't lose it's job, the equivalent is relegation. Reduced revenues demand the club bounces right back up to the top division. For at least one season we have the WS buffer fund, beyond that it gets gets tricky. However, we would also have means to earn money from the stadium outwith matches. A brand new 18,000 stadium would have a whole raft of ways to make money to keep the finance payment schedule over what we currently have. As outlined already, concerts, events, conferences, restaurant, cafe, office and business' rent, gym and Scotland U21/womens, cup finals, etc. Before anyone says we're a football club, sure, a space is rented and we take the rent with favourable access rights granted. What I've proposed to date is five fold: We maintain our current playing budget and in theory that is ring fenced purely for football operations (unlike some clubs that really have to cut their cloth to fund a stadium). We exploit the OF dominance in our area and follow the precedent set by the McLean stand in the mid 90's to fund a significant portion of the build. A new stadium offers no upheaval, relocation, or loss of income during development. The residents around FP would welcome it. We reduce our costs by co-locating all assets and 'sweat' the stadium and ancillary grounds 24/7-365. Consider new revenue streams not even on our radar or we would be capable of at present, there are so many opportunities. While I'm happy with the conclusion for some being “the numbers don't stack up, so we stay at Fir Park and rebuild the Main Stand.” What I don't think is acceptable is reaching that conclusion before the owners have even been properly involved in assessing the proposal. That's the bit I'm arguing about. I'm not advocating a £30m mortgage. I'm saying the people who own the club should get to see the numbers, understand the risks and have a say in whether the opportunity is worth pursuing. If, after doing that, the answer is “too risky, let's rebuild Fir Park”, fair enough. That's a perfectly legitimate position. But that's very different from saying “we can't possibly do it because we don't have £30m sitting in the bank”, which isn't really how major capital projects work.