Goggles & Flippers

I'd say pretty good under McGhee now he's got his feet under the table .... well I'ld like to think so.

Cue the Well Society apologists

I wasn't able to attend, however if I was it wouldn't because I had issue with the WS even though I'm finding myself a growing critic day by day. It was conveyed in advance that Andy had pretty much run things with minimal WS input or help so not attending on that basis would be naive and churlish. Anyone with a little bit of background could see that the WS involvement was limited to a tag line on the poster. If anything the podcast team should be commended for not dropping the WS tie-in when it appears they had every right to. Dissatisfaction with the WS should manifest itself in other means, may I suggest not blindly paying direct debits to a group that seems to have forgotten they represent us and have a duty to inform and consult on major directions the organisation takes. I didn't sign up on a "need to know" basis.

Ally Maxwell 1991 Cup Final, holding his ribs for 40? minutes from memory. Stuck in my mind as it was the same day as the FA Cup Final where Gazza was playing his last game before heading to Lazio. He committed two of the most flagrant and vicious tackles I've ever seen, got injured but all the news focused on was how unlucky he was and no mention of Ally other than in passing. He played on stoically and was a credit to his sport.

In all seriousness, wasn't his statement factual rather than racist? Would you have been as inclined to report him if "Irish arsehole" or "Welsh fanny" were used for a different player? However he was in the Cooper so there's plenty of other places he could go to swear as freely and not influence kids.

Marv seems to had enough of square sausage and the Megabar, maybe a quick word in his ear that playing badly won't get him a new deal anywhere else other than at a pub team may get him focused again. I suspect Kennedy will be in the SPFL team of the season come May. Skippy will find the form of last season at least. Thomas will benefit from starting with Marv coming on to replace him. Could be argued that Moult and Ainsworth are two of the only ones to get pass marks so far this season, so could we see them playing like well tuned fiddles in a months time. One thing is certain, he alluded to double training all next week may get a few petted lips though.

Alan Muir for ensuring I'm not listening to post match interview where endeavour and workload are lauded .... oh wait

Sorry upon rereading it maybe appears my post suggested McGhee spoke to skippy as to the feeling at Motherwell recently. McGhee actually suggested Skippy contacted him (I'm suspecting last Jan/Feb), hence my question where the association flourished. He also seems to want to put across the narrative that we contacted him rather than he applied, despite him outlining in that article that he was actively seeking a day to day club management role. Maybe his ego needs that or perhaps it was actually the case. Does anyone think if it was between us or Dundee Utd, he'd be draped in a C&A scarf.

Section 30b of the society rules state that 10% of the adult membership are required to do so. I was informed that a change in the rules (again passed by the board without consultation) means that as soon as you have paid your first monthly instalment on the way to the £300 steel membership then you have a vote, so the number required increases.

OK, so just listened to the pre-match press conference. Apparently he spoke to Skippy in advance of his signing on the phone to give advice as to helping him to move (6 minutes in approx). Not that it's a big deal but I don't see any reason or connection there? However one other thing I did like, he didn't apologise for Celtic and limit our chances as McCall so often did against the OF, he was relatively tenacious about wanting to contain them but go for the win too.

I'll start off y saying I'm not fussed either way he has returned, certainly without seeing who the other 79 CV's belonged to. However I have read a lot of "the way he conducted himself" concerning the circumstances surrounding O'Donnell's collapse. Does anyone think that whoever we had standing on our touchline wouldn't have dealt with things with a degree of reverence and respect that would have got universal acclaim? Would have been a bit of a callous, self absorbed, arsehole with no social intelligence that would have.

Kinda the reason why I started this thread. I accept an executive of any group has to make decisions and I never assumed that every item would be put to a vote, but major things such as this should have been brought to everyone in advance to scrutinise and debate. Stuff like race nights and other stuff I'm happy to have decided for me. There's just an increasing chasm of accountability and transparency as time progresses. In the fall out of Baraclough leaving we find out the club chairman finds out after the deed is done, even if he wasn't consulted as a courtesy he should get a heads up opposed to reading it in the newspaper, however no different how 1,000 members tend to find the details of the entity we've invested in. Left me wondering if the position is purely symbolic?

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).