the traveller

So the Club has reported a loss of £1.6m for the last year. However, it “ was fully anticipated , managed and primarily the result of various long term strategic decisions made by the Club in recent years “ so there is nothing to worry about.

Nothing like jobs for the boys

Last week Mr Robinson said we were " a bit short and a bit jaded.......as we had a very hard week with double and treble sessions". This week was " a wake up call for some people fitness wise with a few people off the pace". Clearly we have a well structured fitness programme in place. And winning a pre season game 10-0 does tell you something Mr Robinson. Just as shambolic and inept performances against Stirling Albion, Livingston and Gateshead does also.

Alex Fisher is a journeyman . The type of signing we make which leads us to where we are . Of more concern is Robinson's rationale in why we signed him. He says " I watched all of his games " . Really? " His stats ..in how he finished the season...speaks for itself" Scoring half of your seasons goals against us isn't very inspiring given that even Blyth could have scored against us. In the other 16 games he scored once. And the season before? 5. None of which were for Inverness. He says" he's familiar with the league". Well not from the park. He only started for the team that was relegated 9 times in the league and not once in any of 6 cup games. He wasn't even a first team player! How this is meant to be an exciting signing let alone an improvement is frankly beyond me. It seems history is destined yet again to repeat itself for us.

McGhee has left hasn't he?

Come on you can say it. Hammy was at fault for both goals. It capped a truly awful performance by him. The thought of another 2 years of that is enough to ask for a refund on ones season ticket.

I am puzzled as to how the club is almost running at an operating profit. Our last accounts showed a loss of almost £1.2 million on the back of a loss the previous season of approx £190k. Our turnover was down from £4,5 million to £3.4 million. Our biggest expense namely that of staff costs was down from £3.5 million to £3 million. Our other costs have already been pared to the bone so any further savings must come from the staff costs. Although we released 10players in January given the composition of who they were and the cost of paying out contracts early I do not see how currently we will have made further significant savings there. The annual accounts stated " The board recognise that the achievement of it's cash flow forecasts is critically dependent on football performance( both league and cup) for the remainder of. 2015/16 and player trading income in January 2016 ". Given that this has not happened it's difficult to see therefore how our income will have improved significantly and we surely must be looking at making a significant loss again as the boards projections will not be met again. I appreciate the money for Erwin and Murphy will to some extent plug this gap however it will not address the longstanding fundamental underlying problem we have in not budgeting appropriately for our means. The Well Society are undoubtedly going to inherit a very difficult situation to say the least.

If you own something how do you not run it? Does someone else independent of you somehow run it? The board will surely run the club on behalf of the owners, ie the society. If the society only 'influences' who is on the board despite being the owner of it how could someone else have the ability to choose who the board consists of?

I have major concerns about their ability to be able to properly run the club. They banged on for months about how we needed 2000 active members to allow them go forward in taking the club over from Hutchinson. It then transpired the agreement said they only needed 1000 and on top of that they could give no definition of what an active member is. If you can not even get the basic fundamentals correct then it does not auger well or inspire confidence for the future. It has been an organisation without a chairperson for a number of months now and yet several of it's directors have now migrated on to the club's board. That they might be the only option available currently does not let me believe our future is by any means secure.

Sorry typo error on my part. It should have read 100 and 50. We had double the number of stewards that were required.

My understanding is that for such games the ratio is meant to be 1 steward for every 10 fans. We had 1 steward for every 5 fans.

I don't know if you were able to make today's game. My post was not principally about Hammy and his performance notwithstanding his culpability at the 2nd goal. It was what McGhee tried to achieve with the substitution and the resultant change in our set up that cost us again dearly. Whether he brought on Hammy or Law it would have been the same difference. It failed miserably. Would you disagree with that?

We were at least in contention during a dreadful first half. McGhee then at half time changes it , brings on Hammy and changes our formation. Guess what, we simply weren't in contention in an equally dreadful second half.

There is a god. Or rather there was for 88 mins.

And the difference between him and Baraclough is?

Imagine how bad that could have been today without Hammys sublime performance.

It's nice to see the Hammy fan club out in force. His unerring inability to be able to find a Motherwell player with his passing, let alone with his crossing and the vast unoccupied space left in our our left back channel by his inevitable continual drifting into the middle of the park are not what I would deem the attributes of even a half decent left back. Still I for one will not miss his constant disappearing into his pulled up jersey act after yet another error. His 'performance' at Tynecastle highlighted fully his limitations. The sooner we get a proper replacement the better.

I'm quite happy to admit to profusely applauding Sevco off the park in their 2 games against us last season.

It's a long time since we've seen such a clinical professional performance playing some excellent football. My only small criticism is our defending at set pieces. Notwithstanding having everyone back in the box and sometimes having a numerical advantage of 11-7 we still at times contrived to allow an opposition player to win the ball unchallenged. Positive substitutions and it was good to see McFadden and Thomas on and the link up with McDonald who once again put an excellent shift in.

Our 3rd best result of 2015. That said it was a fantastic performance and was what makes being a Motherwell fan so enjoyable.

In response to a question we were advised that our players wages to turnover is in the' 70's% ' which is particularly relevant to the this thread of discussion. It was not indicated that it was intended to bring this down substantially in the near future so if increased revenue through cup runs/player sales does not materialise we will have further major problems.

We should be concerned about our current precarious financial position. To paraphrase again' the Board acknowledges that the club's liquidity is reliant on the continued availability of loan funding further which may be needed in January 2016'. It would be needed if 'their cash flow forecasts which are critically dependent on football performance(both league and cup) in season 2015/16 and player trading income in January 2016 'are not met. We can not exist on continuing increased borrowings, they have to be repaid at some point soon. Given our likely league performance where if we stay up that will be a success and our cup form is crap there is not much likelihood of projected revenues being met and what players are we going to sell in January? Our expenditure will not be decreased in the near future. How therefore are we going to balance the books and get on an even proper keel based upon the forgoing?

The latest club accounts make dire reading, a loss of approx £1.2 m with outstanding loans of £1.6m. To paraphrase the auditors comments if our projected cash flows from football performances and players sales don't materialise we will require additional funding to survive the next year. If that isn't achieved then there is a ' material uncertainty which may cast doubt as to the company's ability to continue as a going concern'. To say we have major problems ahead is clearly an understatement.

I thought Baraclough had left.

Now that the Well Soc have broken cover could you let us know when the previous incumbent left and why we were not advised of this? A little communication never goes amiss.