Goggles & Flippers

With respect to the loan repayments, that has been covered in the press and in blogs so far. Any shortfall in the club being unable to meet the terms as outlined in the spreadsheet above, the Well Society has to make up the shortfall. What they also don't convey is for example Louis Moult is sold this January for £1m then essentially the deal would effectively be a fait accompli. But the Well Society don't really want fans to consider this as it may dry up recruitment and Les has stipulated a membership of 2,000 (adults, not total, from memory) to ensure there's a big enough base to draw funds from if required as I assume all members would be in some way liable/responsible as owners. I'm only conveying what I've heard and accept it may be conjecture or a half truth that is close to the truth. It may be as simple as a caveat that any future sell on revenue for a player, our owner gets his initial transfer fee investment back first then the club.

Yes it's focused on the Well Society as they are accountable to their membership and the wider fanbase as that is their target audience and potential membership. They also have two members on the full club board, chairman who is also club chairman and also in 4 short years will be looked upon to run the club day to day. The loans you cite are relevant as the deal signed up to on our behalf allows any shortfall in the repayment from the club to be met from the Well Society coffers. They steamrollered Les' involvement (which I accept may have either been the lesser of any evils or a piece of business acumen) however we as a membership were not consulted, informed and even now nine months since the dust is settled find out snipbits of information regarding the deal here and there or as Superward discovered, a bit of detective work. A number of good people associated with the WS have already cashed in their chips and walked away, mostly due to exasperation and intransigence. I don't dispute those involved put their names forward with the best of intentions and don't question their character or reasons for doing so. However, I think with any office that comes with influence or a degree of political maneuvering, eventually these initial ideals are pushed to the side and self aggrandisement and protecting ones position takes over. I hope I'm not the only one who sees a certain degree of irony in a successful, multi-millionaire, tax exile, citing how the economic fortunes of Lanarkshire has made things particularly tough for the community. However in the same breath has insisted any shortfall is repaid to him from our £500k and has a view that no discounts, initiatives or other help should be offered to encourage greater attendances. Now it could be argued that as a philanthropic gesture, he is entitled to insist that the club is self sufficient when he leaves and I do get that but the language and the "if you don't like it, live with it or jog on" attitude is slightly grating and sits at odds with the caring, considerate benefactor narrative back at the turn of the year.

I've decided to compose this thread based on my own experiences thus far and from a few things that have come to light over the past few weeks. Firstly the society invited members to volunteer and list their credentials to be considered to be co-opted to the board back in March. I was contacted by the chairman after the closing date and advised that this endeavour was essentially a fait accompli and there were two people lined up in the wings from an earlier period. However, would I be interested in joining as a “special advisor” along with a number of others including a Podcast host. I explained that I didn’t feel I had any special qualities to offer over and above your rank and file plus my experience in the past would suggest that such a moniker would be ridiculed. He accepted that and went on to explain that we could sit on the WS board, contribute but not have voting rights, all which seemed perfectly reasonable, so I accepted. With hindsight I suppose I should feel pleased I was at least formally asked opposed to finding out I was recruited via twitter. In advance of the first “full” board meeting I along with a number of others received an email inviting us at 4pm to the June meeting, this was hastily changed to 5pm. I understood and was told in advance, that my involvement would be no different (other than voting rights) than a fully elected or co-opted member. At that meeting I asked for clarification on the matter and I was advised that there was potentially a “democratic” issue with the special action group members attending the WS in it’s entirety. I was invited to attend under certain terms and already these had changed. Being wheeled in after the main business is done for what appeared to be a mixture of a focus group, some blue sky thinking, extra labour, or pseudo-endorsement by a critic now bound by collective responsibility was a diluted version of what I had been sold. I found this hard to countenance as I can surely lobby or petition board members at any time, in fact I’ve been asked to present on my ideas in the past which I did willingly. I asked for clarification on the attendance, and was told it would be considered and I would be advised. Rather than receive any correspondence I have just been removed from the mailing list. I don’t know if this is burying heads in the sand, sweeping things under the carpet, lack of basic courtesy’s or ineptitude. The recruitment of new members has been effectively stagnant over the past few years, half hearted initiatives have not worked. The negotiations with Les were cited as a reason for this however I would ask you all to consider IAG’s attempts to takeover Aer Lingus or Cadbury's and Hershey's. They did not cease day to day operations of getting people from A to B or making chocolate bars to focus on the takeover, it is their core business and the reason that they were being taken over. Unfortunately there was a lack of a clear plan, accountability and prioritisation to ensure recruitment ran in parallel with other the business of the WS. Sometimes the truth is hard to hear. If they truly feel they have been effective, done as much as they could have and have not seen evidence of anyone else in the WS membership who could take things further, then by all means continue. However I would have assumed the underperformance over the past few years would have resulted in some falling on their swords and stepping aside. The WS board are not a true reflection on the demographic of the support or the WS (they are however representative of who turn up to AGM’s and vote), rather than address that fact women and younger members have been invited to get involved as a sticky plaster rather than a tangible solution. In the past few days I've seen additional questionable things happening such as the alleged change? in the primary objective (as noticed and highlighted by Steelboy). Maybe this can be clarified. I've heard of accusations that some of the new players to arrive since Les took over aren't actually owned by the club but who's contracts are actually held by him/holding company separate to the club. Also only by a bit of digging by Superward this came to light: Why was this not shared formally? It's hardly secret if it is in the public domain but we've apparently missed some of the repayments already. I accept that an executive such as the WS board has to make decisions and does not have to consult the general membership on every move. However in the past 12 months we've seen a number of defining decisions as to their direction without any consultation or votes at all (Les' involvement, constitution of membership, benefits structure). There's a lack of transparency and if anything an insulation of the WS board from those they are charged with representing. Ivory Towers? Two months ago I contacted the WS board and asked for a figure to invoke 30 (b) of the Society Rules, a figure that equates to 10% of the adult voting membership necessary to convene an Special General Meeting to get to the bottom of things and have a degree of accountability. I was advised that the chairman would contact me and address my concerns. Needless to say I'm still waiting. However I was furnished with a figure of 1,064. I sincerely seen the WS and fan ownership as an opportunity to do things different from the stoic, distant and tired way football clubs were managed in the past. What's the point in replacing a 1950's management structure and view of their customers/fans with the same 1950's management structure carried out by volunteers who could be sat there with nothing else than an endorsement of 30 of their peers. I seen it as a way to get a fresh look at things, implement truly revolutionary ideas, engage with parts of the support who had lapsed and those who had yet to associate with the club. However I look and see a distinct lack of dynamism, lack of any innovative ideas and lack of focus on the priorities.

Interesting sentiments expressed there Gadgey. However I did try to follow your suggestion and got my fingers burned similar to Denny. Rather than detract from the sidelines I opted to volunteer my time and ideas to scrutiny with an aim to ultimately benefit the WS and club. I never had formal feedback after my 30 minute presentation, an opportunity to field questions or any meaningful discussion on a presentation that took a considerable time to research and put together. I had to seek out some of those who attended a Q&A in the centenary suite for a hasty 30 seconds as they were heading out the door, is that right or correct? My experience with communications is endemic of the WS from it’s formation and I don’t count myself alone if criticism on here is anything to go by. I conveyed this during the meeting and two months after the initial invitation I find myself frozen out rather than have my points addressed. It is almost as if the lack of reply has endorsed my criticism. I was advised the chairman would get in contact to address my concerns by Craig Hughes ..... a further 2 months later, still nothing.

Something decidedly Orwellian about this

My problem with that is we as a support and on top of that WS members should have been informed of any caveats and not via a filthy, jingoistic, tabloid rag. From reading comments, I see I'm not the only one seriously concerned with the governance of our club and where it's going at WS and full board level.

I sincerely hope that any contracts that are offered have decent get out clauses for us as I imagine we've probably paid out a significant amount in severance pay over the past few months.

Bop, there's potential here for you to be a parody of yourself in the same vein as steelboy or DEWELL with stuff like this.

Not anywhere near moderate comments from a moderator. I'd reconsider your position.

One of his first jobs is to find a replacement for our head of acquisitions. May I suggest .....

If it is McGhee, then there's two sides to that particular animal ..... 1. The guy that delivered some of the best, slick football ever witnessed at FP, who brought a team back from Austria looking like they could handgliding with Dorito's. Turned Jim Paterson into an adept player. 2. Can anyone remember his last press conference at Aberdeen? Pivoting on his chair with his hands behind his head, arrogant and couldn't give a tuppenny fuck that his team was chronic. I've pointed out before I think the dressing room has too much influence on affairs and is a tad militant. I think we have enough players of quality there that McGhee could do conjure something similar to his first season. Interesting to see if there's a revolt as he will instinctively lay down the law.

Is the delay in appointing due to the fact we're waiting on the chosen one getting his jotters from Chelsea like?

Yeah I agree, can't blame a 21 year old for doubling his salary and going to a massive club (despite their 10 year dip).

I asked before in the thread and nobody answered but does anyone reckon Steve Robinson has thrown his hat in the ring? I just think too many of our fans are expecting a re-run of an Alex Ferguson scenario where our next manager comes in and wants to empire build, turns down many opportunities to move on "for the love of the club", promotes a youth academy and slowly we increase our standing over time till in 2030 we welcome the Champions League trophy back to our full 50,000 seater stadium at Ravenscraig. In reality if we're lucky we'll get an Alex Ferguson at St. Mirren forging his career. Fergie at Aberdeen is beyond us.

Baraclough was judged on his merit of over achieving with limited resources, based on your assertion of "it should depend on what someone has achieved in that league. Treat each candidate on their merit" Nobody can argue those involved in the selection process back in December 2014 they did that and deemed he was suitable. As for our next manager, I think we'll get someone that's at our level, by which I mean 3.5-4k support, budget of £1-1.5m a year in a uncompetitive league where 2nd is the best you can hope for. There won't be any surprises, nobody who we get will result in a collective "really? how did we manage that?"

Who mentioned England? Baraclough had a impressive resume from his time at Sligo (albeit in a lesser league), at time has shown the transition to the SPFL was beyond him (as has been proven by a number of League of Ireland managers who have ended up over here).

There's a simple fact that too many of us don't seem to understand and it works for both managers and players. If we had a winger who had an engine, gave 110%, covered back, footballing brain and was able to land a cross on a 50p piece then he wouldn't be playing for us. We instead get Humphrey/Ainsworth (while both accomplished and have a number of qualities, they aren't fully rounded). If they did have all the attributes then they wouldn't be at Motherwell, it's as simple as that. That rule extends to the manager. If we want an experienced guy with a proven track record of making silk purses out of sow's ears then we either: a) can't afford him or b) he wouldn't be interested in Motherwell i) unless he's got a reputation to rebuild (scandal/unsuccessful/etc.) or ii) old and see's it as his last job Alternative is a young, untested manager keen to make a stamp on things, with this option: a) we take a gamble with a 50-50 chance of it working b) respect from players may be an issue unless he has achieved something at a high level (example being a Brian McClair) Regardless who we get, this forum will bring out the best and worst elements of our support and modern social media. Plenty will run him down before a ball is kicked, some because of any of his previous footballing links, some due to conjecture and hearsay and some purely for his hairdo/outfit he wore in 1995 or name he gave his dug. One thing is certain, a few will have it in their arsenal to come on here in a few months time and profess their acumen and insight if things don't go to plan. I like to refer to them as the "told you so's". To be fair I think there's very few candidates out there that we could attract that would get a universal thumbs up from our support.

Does anyone know if Steve Robinson put his hat in the ring?

Ladbrokes have stop taking bets on Yogi Hughes going to Dundee Utd. Mixu maybe hasn't cut the mustard. As for Finland, they love their acronym's don't they? Valakari's record against the top teams is virtually identical to McCall's last full season where we hardly picked up any against top 6 but took almost maximum against bottom 6.

You've just described the Well Society Board

He's the opposite of Samson from the Bible then? (lets see how many went to Sunday School)

I think most of those in the game accept theres a degree of the Pantomime with fans and those who have moved on. However as like everything some take it too far either from the safety of a keyboard or row J of the East Stand. I always cringed at some of the comments and booing directed to Reynolds and Lee McCulloch. McGhee has a skin as thick as a rhinos arse cheek so I'd be surprised if he still has a petted lip. As for the managers considered, I think a number of us have to get our heads round the fact that we will be attractive to the new up and coming guys looking for a break, the journeymen and those trying to rebuild their reputations. All have their pro's and con's, we've gambled in the past and we've got a 50-50 success rate. New guys can be offered contracts that are easy to cancel, older guys not so much.

Personally I also have nothing against him, I just feel that I'd prefer a more dynamic option for my club than a journeyman. If he offered as much as some on here say then why has he resorted to dropping down the Dutch leagues and not picked up ICT/Hibs/St Johnstone gigs over the past few years. I don't doubt he would secure us 10th place and survival for another season but can I see him inspiring us on to greater things? I don't look at it as an advance, it's purely a stagnation/plateau. I'd rather give Craigan the reins for a tad longer to get the right guy in.

I sincerely hope Calderwood is a red herring to find out who's leaking shit out of Fir Park.

Never for a minute suggested he was, you're adding 1+1 and getting 3. As none of the football committee are permanent members of staff I would suspect Flow will collate and pass on the CV's. He's also the one who conveyed to the press the "quality" of the applicants, so I would suspect he isn't in the dark as to anyone linked.