Goggles & Flippers

To progress in the competition, as good a draw as you can hope for. Financially, if we played them away, it would have covered the petrol and the hotel rooms. To stage a game at FP it's approx £25k so when you half the gate money from a home support of what .... 3k plus 200 teuchters paying on average £12 a ticket we'll probably make a small loss, best case break even.

I think UBH was suggesting we could have gone for him when he left ICT for Accies. While he will never go beyond SPFL level, he is a consistent performer and been better than a number of players that have graced the C&A in that time. While he's not the player to gain qualification in the Europa league he is the sort of guy who will get you into a position to qualify the season before.

He's constantly delivered as far back as I can remember and yes part of his game is winding up the opposition (comments above show it worked). Very much in the Robbie Savage/Chick Charnley "love to hate unless he's playing for you" role

The bus ride is gonna drag

Someone was kind enough to offer and my question(s) were forwarded to them. Whither they have submitted them to the WS in advance of the meeting I don't know. I'm not a big fan of them being able to vett or spin an answer in advance.

I can't make the Q&A but would appreciate someone who is to ask a question by proxy. Please PM me if able.

Let's see, someone fighting a corner, elegantly written, while trying to be diplomatic, with a ready supply of articles ..... I'm sure your Dad appreciates your efforts. That goes for some of the stuff you've cited on here, I'll highlight a few. If that is referring to me. I'll reiterate form the "Governance of our club" thread: If you still doubt me and claim any of the above is not verbatim, I'll happily disclose the email conversation which would no doubt embarrass someone close to you. So to make it crystal clear, I was told in advance I could attend but not have a vote, I accepted on that basis, I never demanded anything other than to have the promise made to me in advance of attendance fulfilled. So don't try and peddle that little porky. Ahhh, this example you cite is a particular bugbear of mine. Let's cast our minds back. I recall your old man standing up and telling us that the current scheme was unsustainable. Quite rightly he pointed out the club took a stipend from the Well Society per year based on every WS member using all their available discounts regardless if they used them. He proposed an option B which kept the subscriptions but did away with the benefits in their entirety. This would be replaced with a raffle scheme where each (e.g. £100) you contributed got you a ticket (a Steel member would have 3 and an Amber would have 50). Top prize would be a car or similar. Before a debate a vote was called and option A (remember we've just been told it cost the Well Society £XX,XXX per annum) was put against option B (benefits ditched, subs retained, raffle and sustainable). Of course the vote was 95% in favour of moving away from option A, it would be ludicrous to persevere. However the vote was no different to asking "would you like a kick in the baws or a £50 note?". It was a rigged vote and the result has been used repeatedly to justify changes. I'll tell you, because they didn't fit with the agenda of the presenter to steamroller their own plan though. A number of the board members present that night felt that and were silenced by the unity of collective responsibility. The ensuing debate involved murmurs of discontent from a number in the audience as to why an option C or D weren't also presented. Resulting in Leeann and Derek Weir standing to give more background but also suggested a third option where the benefits were retained but done sustainably, that received overwhelming support. If it hadn't, I'd be waiting here just now on tenterhooks to see if I was getting a Citroen Twingo. I wasn't asked to present to the Club Board. I was asked to do it to the WS Board which I did. If you wish to justify the way I was treated after being asked to and putting in over 50 hours compiling it then it's a lack of basic manners at best and woeful negligence at worst. Every WS board member was sent the presentation by email in advance, none of them got in touch subsequently, they must be too busy cutting about with buckets of sand and hoses. He may want to wind in the rhetoric and not bank on the concept of "elasticity of demand" ... where we (the general support) will pump money into Motherwell FC regardless of cost as it's perceived that having a pass-time on a Saturday is a necessity for the majority of us. I love the club and the rollercoaster it takes us, why I've spent an hour at 3am in the morning writing this reply. However it is a business and definitely not a charity, while some will throw money at it regardless I don't. Yes focus on the fact 6 people have left rather than the circumstances as to their leaving. If you sincerely think they all left for the reasons they gave, then you're naive. You should appreciate the fact they acted with a degree of diplomacy for the sake of the WS than air what they witnessed and really felt. I'll tell you what you do, when the deal goes public as it did back in January, based on the fact it has been shrouded in secrecy, you call a EGM to convey as much as possible to your membership. You don't drip feed wee bits here and there via various media sources. You engage with your membership while remembering you're not distant or removed from them.

Again, don't dispute people's hearts are in the right places but increasingly frustrating that it needs the throwing of dummies out the pram on here to prompt responses. Can you honestly say you feel you would have been contacted without voicing your concerns on here? As for the acceptance of poor communication and a resolve to fix it, heard that chestnut repeatedly over the past few years and yet to find myself doffing my cap in acquiescence. Denny, I think its safe to say your optimism and encouragement was mirrored by me 6 months ago. Now, I couldn't care less sadly. I really wanted the WS to work but can't find myself supporting it in its current format and with its current hierarchy.

The last post on page 64 (#1280 http://www.steelmenonline.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=12411&p=453581) illustrates how the club has to pay back Les' loan plus other outstanding debts over the next 4 years. If at any point during the repayment schedule the club can't meet the agreed amount, the shortfall is made up from WS funds. From memory, if the club is defaults either 2 or 3 times, the agreement is breached and Les can essentially do whatever he pleases (I say that as if that's not already what's happening). I'm sure I read in the Daily Mail article that the club had already defaulted on the first £40k payment, not many strikes left is that is the case. This agreement was made without consultation of the members and for me is an intrinsic part of the WS, it is scandalous it was allowed to be agreed to without at least a debate. I feel Mr McCafferty went overstepped his authority and beyond his remit during his secret negotiations over in Bothwell. What is equally worrying is the number of WS members who are currently completely in the dark over this. I also don't even want to guess what the activities at our last two transfer windows has done to the balance sheet. Think about all of this that when your DD's are continuing to go out and you're cyber mowing your virtual 1/1886th of the FP turf.

Slide 3. Genesis of Concept, outlines why a growing attendance at FP only helps the WS as you have more engaged people to recruit. But you are correct the second part does follow on. The WS has 2 members on the full club board out of 7? from memory, they can bring suggestions from their membership to the board you would think approximately 30% of the time. I understood fan ownership (or a move towards it) would allow us to try different ways of doing things rather than flogging the same old ones. Now with representation, it should give the ordinary fan a voice. However it's a tad short sighted for the WS only to be concerned with growing their own membership when ultimately in just over 4 years they will be charged with growing that of the club. Why not try and grow them in tandem? I've criticised the fact the recruitment was put on the back burner while the deal with Les was worked through, I would hope that multitasking was seen as key to their survival. Finally, if there's more people attending there's more revenue streams available for the club, meaning the WS have to contribute less to guarantee the loans to Les as there is less chance of the club coming up short. Flossy - Don't dispute that it's simplistic at times, why I put a caveat on page 1, I was more than willing to have it pulled apart and if it lead to something that grew from the concept, then great. However I didn't get any.

All I was suggesting is that current revenues (which are subject to VAT) are maintained, the only difference would be that if we managed to increase our attendances, the price per game per attendee goes down and therefore the total VAT paid by the club stays the same, it's just spread through a greater fan base.

Edit - It won't let me add files totalling more than 2.5MB to the thread. I thought it was per message. Unless a moderator can help Part 2 will be unavailable.

Just to confirm, an EGM can be called by garnering the support of 10% of the WS members. Under the new benefits scheme as soon as you pay your first £10 you have full voting rights (before it was £300 Steel membership), consequently the voting membership has increased with the advent of the Direct Debits. Make of that what you will, makes it harder to call those in post to account outside an AGM but also doesn't disenfranchise anyone. But it's not as easy as you make out to do, I applaud your optimism though. I'd happily open an email account where disaffected members can lodge their disapproval to see if the figure could be met. But I think too many are either ambivalent or care about anything out with impending doom for that route to succeed. Sorry, but experience of the club and these boards tells me that. As for criticism without involvement. I found myself sniping from the sidelines over the woeful communications ("not so great" is being very kind to them). So I opted to get involved, as outlined on the "governance of our club" thread I started. I produced a presentation (took approx 50 hours to compile) and was asked to present to the board. I was hurried in and shown the door after 30 minutes. No feedback or discussion other than me asking for it as the Chairman hurried out after a Q&A session before the Scotland vs. Gibraltar game. So I would take with a pinch of salt that everyone who is vocal is isn't able, competent or unwilling to put their head above the parapet. Problem is people who have had their fingers burned, from scrolling up through the past 10 messages Fizoxy and Dennyc cite prime examples and they aren't alone. I've attached the presentation in 2 parts (due to the size of it), if you review and subsequently don't think I'm justified or earned a right to criticise by not attempting to help first then by all means call me out. 9 Quid Ticket - Part 1.ppt 9 Quid Ticket - Part 2.ppt

Just looking at Yabba's pinned list, there's only one player who has left the club and could be argued has gone to a bigger/higher level (albeit he's being loaned out at present). Also Yabba, I'm sure the 4 players released last year without clubs have got gigs now as been highlighted on this thread. ZFA - Leyton Orient Cummins - Bangor Lawson - Formartine Ramsden - Gateshead

You need to re-read the constitution then weeyin and see how "easy" it is to do. That is if the constitution hasn't been re-written since I last looked. There was a concern highlighted by Steelboy that it had been done. The issue is a number of people have put themselves forward to help or offer solutions and have been ignored, pandered to or paid lip service. I don't think there is a shortage of people willing, but the desire to get involve diminishes daily.

Does he though, he's asked legitimate questions which have been both ignored and promises to discuss have been broken. Bear in mind these postholders on the WS Board are there to represent the interests of the general WS membership. They've contributed at least £300 each the same as us, somehow the link between them and us has widened. If a fellow member asks for clarification, then voices his disappointment on here, he's got an "axe to grind" .... oh come on. The only reason we know half the stuff we do is because a number of members have kicked off, raised concerns and forced the WS, faced with increasing poor publicity, to reveal details. It's not because they either wanted to or felt they had to. If it wasn't for th eaxe grinders of this world then ask yourself how much do you honestly think we'd know. I don't think they are trying to stifle and subdue discussion, however I do think they've "stifled" information dissemination and not adequately furnished the WS membership with a full and frank outline of agreements they've entered into. Remember this is a deal that is key to their future strategy, done without ANY consultation. As for "subduing" I think they'd prefer it if they could continue to scheme without having to placate and deal with any concerned fans. And yes I use the word "scheme" as no other feels right. Say what you like about Barnstaple, at least he got 5% of the club for a fund transfer. We've now been signed up where our £500k slush fund is secured against Les' loan. I would say any board member who is constantly being embarrassed by association and the failings, who is going to say OK, I'll manage this going forward and be responsible for communications being released as promised. I also echo "not a penny more"

I don't think any of those who have put themselves forward could be considered anything other than Motherwell fans. However there has to be a distinction between nice people and those able and capable of delivering the duties of their post. Unfortunately time after time we've seen promises broken and it just reeks of amateurism. How many instances does it take before someone takes control of this. Everything they do seems to be a bit of a cockup.

Opposed to giving an endorsement to someone who's son organised a vehicle getting from A to B? Ideal, glad to see there are other strings to someone's bow before they get your vote.

I think we've been blackballed Denny

Ying and Yang, I'm just tried of the constant reactive press releases opposed to proactive ones. This statement from Les is borne out of a growing rumble of dissatisfaction from the support in how we are informed. Of course any info is welcome but the nature of how we find out is getting really tiresome. The WS board's remit is to represent the general fan base however repeatedly inept at engaging and keeping their fellow members (let me emphasise "fellow" - they aren't above any of us who have contributed in a one member one vote constitution, they merely secured the vote of 20 or so other guys who sit in the POD stand and attend meetings, sadly that fact seems to have been lost). I got this email on the 20th of October (that's 13 days ago, which will become relevant) Still nothing, despite what you imagine is a October 27th deadline, a poor track record, plenty of criticism, they issue this and still can't deliver. When will anyone take responsibility for this repeated failing and fall on their sword?

Sounded like a turgid affair from the radio and twitter. Great to see Louis step up and slot one away, he must be on to get 10 by Christmas. Next week we've got an opportunity to jump from 10th to 7th and leapfrog 3 teams if results go our way.

You mean like when Big Handsome fouled Langfield and Craig Reid tapped the ball in?

McGhee's reaction up on youtube. Highlights no doubt to follow shortly as the media team must have just got back to FP.

Everything I've read seems to suggest it was the best performance in ten games only eclipsed by the playoff final or ICT. Nice to see there's some fight and players seemingly finding the ability we all knew they had. Heartened that McGhee seems to be pulling the right strings. After shockingly few enjoyable games and lack of a competitive edge for so long today has left me feeling optimistic. Hopefully in the week ahead he will find where the killer instinct and having a go from 20 yards has been hiding.

How's Johnson playing?