dennyc

And unfortunately finances dictate that clubs such as ourselves cannot currently afford to stick with youngsters beyond 17/18 purely in the hope they are late developers. Steelboy cites Keith Lasley but that was years ago and at a time when reserve teams existed for development purposes. For youngsters to be retained nowadays Clubs are looking for a greater likliehood of success than in the past. One we did stick with in more recent times was Barry McGuire. How did that work out? Pretty sure if I was to check back I would find that the folk that are now questioning the release of youngsters were outraged when McGuire was repeatedly kept on. More recently, Matty Connelly is another one that we have taken a gamble on. There too, only a few weeks ago questions were asked about his continued retention Like you, I cannot think of any youngster we have released (as opposed to having had poached) in recent times that has gone on to make a name for himself. The success of those we have opted to retain......Turnbull, Campbell, Miller, Johnston (even Hastie and Scott in their Motherwell careers) suggests the Club have more or less got the balance correct. Anybody looking for us to produce and retain four or five top players season upon season is just not being realistic. Also to be factored in is that there is a limit to the number of players we can employ.

Good point. I also imagine the Manager prefers all teams in the ladder to play a similar style to the first team to help kids transition across if and when the time comes. So it makes sense that our youth coaches would be involved in first team match days as well as assisting in integrated coaching sessions. Compare that to the distancing of the first team and coaches from the youth set up that Alexander established. And which was identified as a major cause of friction within the Club in the review that followed his departure. At least under Kettlewell the youth players can see a route to the first team squad, even if that step up is a huge ask.

I'm not a coach and only played the game to a basic amateur level but I believe some folk are losing sight of how big an ask it is for our youth players to make the huge step up to becoming a member of the of the first team squad. Not everyone is a Lennon Miller or Max Johnston........ and if we are honest it took even those two time to find their feet and have an impact. The skill can often be there but there is a lot more to being a pro footballer than just basic ability. Mentally and physically. I also don't know anything about Foster's ability as a coach but I am not convinced it would make that much difference whoever we had in that position. How a coach interacts with the kids is a factor though and the Club have a safeguarding responsibility which I have to believe means they would intervene if needs be. Said as an outsider with no insight whatsoever to the internal workings of the Club. Regards the kids that we let go, my reading is that Kettlewell and his coaches are not saying those released are not talented players but rather that the direct step up to the first team squad is too big a challenge for all but the very elite. The absence of a reserve team in which they can continue to develop in preparation for senior football is the issue rather than talent, willing or coaching ability. Finances and a lack of meaningful, supported strategy from the Football Authorities have left most top flight Clubs with little alternative other than to be ruthless and extremely selective. I agree the Analyst/Loan Manager position that has been mentioned represents an astute forward thinking innovation. Anything that assists our youth players to bridge that gap to the senior squad is to be welcomed. So, on a positive note, I see it as encouraging that Kettlewell and his team are trying to find a way to improve matters. But, hey, some will just criticise them instead as it fits their wider agenda. Add to that the sad fact that there is absolutely nothing Motherwell can do to stop top quality kids being poached by Clubs who are not operating under the same constraints as we are. And every team in Scotland is in the same position. No exceptions. In truth we have not done that poorly in comparison to others. The situation has been done to death on here but no matter the reality of the situation a few will always accuse the Club of being negligent or lacking foresight.

Fair comment and hopefully guidelines that do not have any grey areas. As long as lessons are learned. Clearly any Society Rep on the Exec Board must have some autonomy but there has to be aspects that need referral to the Society Board/Members.. My understanding is that Dickie and Feely were originally placed on the Exec Board purely as representatives of the Society. (Stand to be corrected if not the case). Might have been seen as 'needs must' at the time given the requirement for experience and a link to enable communication between two areas. Were there any other realistic options at the time? From memory, No, but there has been plenty of time since then to make changes had the willing and the abilities been present. In any event the Society reps must surely not be chosen by the Football Club? Conflict of interest and all that. Given that Dickie is no longer on the Society Board I would think his right to be on the Club Board must have gone and he should be replaced by a Society Nominee. But there will be protocols and timings to be followed? Maybe to drive such a change in future, those amendments you mention need to be exact. That said, Dickie may have inherited his father's 10,000 shares so maybe that affords him Board rights outwith the Society connection? Over time I am of the opinion both Feely and Dickie tended to side with the Club Chairman irrespective of the impact on the Society. The transfer of funds and the Wild Sheep proposal being prime examples. Hopefully everything can be properly addressed following the Society AGM. As you mentioned earlier, nobody should be hounded out. But anyone trusted to represent the Society must represent Society values and be able to resist the demands of the Club Chairman when appropriate.

Of course WS Board Members are entitled to a range of views. Essential for healthy debate and I hope different viewpoints continue to be openly expressed. But can I ask you? Should those WS Board Members who represent Society members on the Exec Board seek the views of the WS Board and ultimately the fans before voting on something as important as handing control of the Club to an external investor, reducing shareholder % and writing of debts? And if they do seek guidance should they go against the majority wishes of the WS Board? My view is they should have abstained from that vote citing the need to refer to the WS Board. The Club Exec would have still carried the day 3-0 but at least the Society would not have been seen to be supporting the deal, as it must have appeared to Barmack. Dickie and Feely either did not seek the views of their own Board or chose to ignore those views. That is the issue here. Not whether they hold different opinions.

I trust it is up to the Society Board to select who they choose to represent the WS on the Club Board. Following the upcoming elections. For practical reasons that might not have been 100% the case on day one. Given how things transpired of late I don't see how Tom Feely can remain in that position though. Trust is a huge thing. As for Dickie, why on earth is he still on the Exec Board having resigned from the WS Board? I am guessing he is still in position although hopefully someone can confirm otherwise. I had hoped he would do the decent thing and resign from both. The worry I have is that not enough of the revised WS Board will feel qualified enough, or be able to afford the time, to cover both positions. Perhaps that is one reason the WS were seeking specific skill sets from those putting their names forward?

I think it's telling that you turn the game into how many we could have conceded rather than enjoying the victory and looking at how many goals we could have scored. I do agree both areas need improving. As long as lessons are learned I can live with early season frustrations as players build up to full fitness and sharpness. So to be positive rather than negative, I have seldom seen us create as many clear cut chances as we did yesterday. The one goal we did concede was down to a brain fart by Ebiye and following a clear foul on Casey which the referee ignored. (Casey booked for showing the referee the stud marks on his leg). But for two great saves denying Miller and a string of poor finishes from a host of players we could easily have scored eight or more goals. But I suspect if we had won 8-3 some folk would prefer to look at the 3 rather than the 8.

SOD set up at least four fairly straight forward chances but others made a hash of finishing. I thought both he and Wilson did what was asked of them but lapses elsewhere stopped us strolling to a far more comfortable scoreline. Similar to Montrose. Miller clearly a class above, especially when the movement of others stretched opponents creating space. His penalty was class. I also thought Paton looked much more effective running from deep. Please SK, no more having him as the main support for a loan striker. For the second game running Halliday showed he may have a big part to play. Surprised Balmer did not feature. Not convinced yet with the back three we saw as a unit yesterday. Hopefully we can identify the best partnerships as no doubt they all have something about them.

Subscription totals will be highlighted in the Annual Accounts enabling comparisons to be made. Might be a year or so before that is meaningful though. To keep the positivity going right now there is no reason why in a month or so figures cannot be made available detailing how many new members have signed up following the Wild Sheep rejection. Also the number of non contributing members that have restarted monthly payments or set them up for the first time.

And who exactly is saying we don't need outside investment? But not at any cost and with little thought of implications. The Society Board have set out a draft plan that seeks to bring in both internal and external investment, initially locally and then from further afield. But it will not, and should not, happen overnight and with a disregard of consequences. Otherwise we might as well have just adopted the Wild Sheep/McMahon masterplan. And that Society plan must work hand hand with a revitalised, forward thinking Executive Board utilising their experience and contacts to secure additional income/investment streams. With the Club, at the same time, examining all aspects of the Organisation to address any inefficiencies they identify. I genuinely believe that for progress to be made relationships have to be repaired and trust restored. Board adjustments in both areas may assist, but that will take time and protocol has to be followed. But I do agree the change we all wish to see needs to start immediately, and be seen to start immediately. The Society Board have already reached out to the Club CEO and Board and it will be revealing to see what response they receive. But it is not just up to the Society Board to continue the progress we have seen of late. Every single fan needs to get on board and support their efforts in any way they can.

This is exactly how I saw things. Playing Paton as the main support for a lone striker is insane. In fairness to the lad he ran himself into the ground trying to play a role he is just not suited to. I lost count of the number of times the ball fell to him in the box only for the move to end right there, or for him to be 'inches away' from getting a decisive touch. He does not have the natural instincts of a goalscorer or set up man. But 100% for effort. Regards Halliday. I don't think he did much wrong and he was certainly not our poorest player on the night. Noticeably we lost control of midfield when he went off. I would rather he had stayed on a bit longer with Stuparavic being introduced earlier for a shattered Paton. Ferry is just not ready and why he was brought on baffles me. That said Robinson and Moses both missed great chances to kill the game off. I think Kettlewell believed the game was won at one nil as Montrose had shown no sign of being able to test our defence. So rather than wait until the tie was sealed he decided to experiment. Why else start switching the defence around and change the shape of the midfield. Tinkering that went wrong, unsettled our defence and gave Montrose hope. Truth be told they should have....and maybe did.... score before they did. The referee, Colin Stephen?, was a joke. Sadly that is the standard we will have to suffer throughout the season. A game thrown away. And not just by the players. Steelboy has compared our approach to that of Clarke's Scotland set up. I can see what he is referring to. In so many ways. And I don't see it changing any time soon. Not a good ending to a day which started out so well with the Wild Sheep and Bair news.

I thought he showed signs of that in his limited time yesterday. Looked to me like he was planning his next pass well before he received the ball. One move almost linked up all three strikers for a goal but the goalie saved at Ebiye's feet to stop a tap in. I would like to see Stuparevic given a try out in that set up role on Tuesday. He certainly needs a fair bit of game time before the league kicks off.

She also said that referees at the Euros had been 'recommended' to avoid going against what VAR suggested. So what was the point of the referee looking at the wee screen? Go against that direction and there goes your chance of the final. The England penalty being a clear example where only VAR and Ian Wright thought the referee had made a clear and obvious error. Even the VAR lady was stunned.

With Ya Bezzer on the back of course.

This whole situation goes from bad to worse. So we learn our Chairman (and others) strongly endorsed a Business Plan he had not read or tested, presented by a gentleman with no experience in football. At the same time the owners of the Club were excluded from any meaningful discussions. Rather than undertake his legal responsibilities the Chairman turned the spotlight and pressure on the Well Society possibly in the hope they would come up short and the deal would be waved through. And now we are in a state of concern awaiting the outcome of a vote that should not have been forced upon us. Just let that sink in for a minute. Jim McMahon is the man we trust to safeguard our football club. Hardly points to him adhering to his duty to act in the best interests of MFC and the Shareholders. Following diligence shown by the Society Board (including the production of a document detailing a practical and realistic way forward) coupled with numerous valid questions being asked by a concerned fan base, we are now told that no plan was presented to the Exec Board. I assume the other Club Board Members just accepted assurances given by Messrs McMahon, Dickie and Feeley? Not one of the projections or assumptions had been investigated it seems prior to recommendation. By anyone! So no inaccuracies, financial miscalculations or vague promises are anything to do with the Executive Board. Really? Those other Exec Board members, who must now be embarrassed by the truth of the whole situation, should intervene to bring this farce to an end. Then both Boards can work in harmony to identify a way ahead that is in the interest of all parties and secures the future of our Club. And given the fact that only now has the full background become known....days after the vote opened.....how valid is that vote? Would some folk have voted differently had the full background been known to them? Some Legacy this Mr McMahon.

Really provides a safety net if the turnout is less than last time (Unlikely as you say). But will make more of a statement if the threshold is exceeded and the majority who vote reject the offer. That leaves less scope for the Club Board to gripe about the outcome if/when they lose.

I E-Mailed the Society to confirm things and was advised that if the turnout threshold of 35% was not reached, then there will be no change. No change means the proposal from Barmack is rejected.

Can I add that if we reject the Wild Sheep offer, we are in no worse a position than we were before Mr and Mrs Barmack appeared on the scene. We must not lose sight of that fact. Arguably we are positively in a much better position. Not only have we not lost any regular income streams, the financial situation has instead been much improved as a direct result of new TV and Commercial deals negotiated by the League Authorities. Income which our Club Board have shrouded in mystery. Topped up by around £250k due to Kelly and Bair bench warming for their International teams. AND, if strong rumours are to be believed Theo Bair will be off in a couple of weeks bringing in a further £1m or so. AND we still have Lennon Miller. Add to that a much stronger and refocused Well Society off the field and a refreshed team on it following early transfer dealings. In short, this is not a panic situation. We have time to restructure and secure outside investment on terms which will not bring about the likely demise of the Well Society. The Society vision is a good starting point but it is not a competition between the Society vision and the Wild Sheep proposal. Despite what some would have us believe. We are voting solely on the proposal by Mr Barmack in the knowledge that other options are and will be available.

My understanding of the answers to a few of those questions. Anyone know any different please correct. I am not close to anyone on either the old or new Society Board so my comments are based on responses to E-Mails and from having joined the Society at the outset and attended several presentations. Apologies if the response is lengthy but the questions are worthy of a detailed reply. 1. Around £2m total provided to date of which £850k was by way of Loan. Originally all funding was to be Loan only (secured by a Standard Security over Fir Park) but that model was changed at the request of the Club Board supported by certain Members of the then Society Board. I believe around £1.2m of that £2m was passed across never to be returned. Les Hutchison was integral to the 'donation' as opposed to the 'loaning' of monies. Part of his Agreement which drained Society monies. Jim McMahon chose to continue a similar funding model, again supported by some Society Board Members. Barmack wishes to do the same. No doubt someone can confirm the average annual income of the Society. Multiply that by the number of years the Society has existed and you will see why I am talking in millions rather than thousands. Another simple measure is to confirm how much in totql the Society has collected over the years and compare that to the total of current Bank Balance and outstanding Loan. Less expenses, they should match but I guarantee there is a sizeable shortfall. Donations made over the years. The reasoning for Loans only and a Charge over Fir Park was that if the Club were to collapse, all monies due to the Society were protected and would receive repayment priority upon a Club Administration or Liquidation. Those repaid loans providing a basis for the formation of a new Club. Starting over if you like. Worst case scenario but a valid consideration. There was no real intention for the Loans to be repaid, so as not to affect Club cash flow. Plus the Security over Fir Park offered other protections of the major Club asset. 2/5. Funds were originally to be moved across to cover short term funding gaps covering a range of expenditure relating to core Club activities and Community engagement. Society funds were not to be regarded as a piggy bank to be raided on a regular basis. In that way Society funds would gradually build up to a sizeable reserve. Millions was the hope.. In more recent times the Club forwarded a funding request to the Society and the Society Board would assess and decide whether to provide the funds. But not always on a Loan basis for some reason. When I asked for what purposes those funds were provided I was told "Projects". Pretty vague to be honest. Members were not asked for their agreement to the change in the manner funds were provided. When changes to the Society Board took place last year, driven by the new Appointees, it was decided that the Society should return as close as possible to the original funding concept. To build up Society assets. Also far more scrutiny was made of funding requests from the Club, and not all were passed as a matter of course. That does not appear to have been received well at Exec Board level and two Society Board members who seemed more aligned to the Exec Board have stood down, those Members having supported the Wild Sheep proposal against the majority view of the Society Board. My personal view based on responses I have had over the years is that a complacent Exec Board, under it's two most recent Chairmen, sidelined the Society and treated Society monies as the Club's own. To be utilised for whatever purpose and whenever they decided. Supported by some but not all Society Board members. Basically, It was easier to turn to the Society for finance as opposed to seeking solutions elsewhere or addressing inefficiencies within the Club. The new Society Board have addressed that situation, seeking to be respected as majority share holders and exercising more control over the monies provided by Society members. The Barmack proposal will utilise all Society funds over time and eventually lead to the Loan being repaid/written off. Almost certainly leaving the Society with no assets. Oh and with a much reduced shareholding and with little power in the Exec Boardroom. With no Loan in existence, the Security over Fir Park could be cancelled leaving Fir Park free to be used by a Barmack led Board as Security for outside Loans to fund his various projects. There is a recognised funding shortfall in his latest plan. Why is that? As I said, my take on things. Folk closer to the situation please confirm or disprove my understanding.

Out of curiosity how many Ordinary Shares to Messrs Dickie and McMahon currently hold? Enough to make a difference if transferred? I understand Companies have to provide an up to date list of Shareholders to Companies House every three years or so as a minimum. Last return I found listed for Motherwell FC was dated 2015. They also provided details in earlier years but I could find nothing after 2015? Maybe Shareholder details are reported differently nowadays? In the 2015 return William Dickie (Father of Douglas?) was recorded as holding 10,000 Ord Shares so possibly they will still held by his family/son. If so, I think they represent around 3% of the total Shares currently on issue. So significant I suggest. And they could carry the option to purchase additional shares under the Barmack proposal. Les H was also on the list at that time but no doubt he will not be listed on any up to date Register. Also listed in 2015 are a Douglas Dickie and a James McMahon but with only 12 and 10 shares respectively. Up to date details might be revealing. From the names listed, I think there are a good few who contribute here and on P&B. Anybody who wants a read type " Motherwell Football Register of Shareholders" in Google and click on the top item. Some other documents in there and on associated pages were a tad more interesting than the Euros. The early game anyway. Page 3 for the last shareholder return I could see.

Well done to all involved in the creation of a structured, comprehensive and credible plan outlining the vast potential of our Club and Community. This document needs to land on the doorstep of every Business and dwelling in Lanarkshire (impractical I know but we all need to spread the word in any way we can) As a byproduct it certainly points to how complacent the current Executive Board have become over the years. And great to see Grimmy has not lost touch.

I believe the Boards should work in Partnership, with the Exec Board responsible for the day to day running of the Club. They are the Professionals and, in some cases, employed for that purpose. CEO as a prime example. Sadly there has been little evidence of any Partnership in recent times. So yes, but only to a degree, the 'hands off' arrangement you outline. But far from passive which I acknowledge is your concern. The Society should and must be involved in strategic planning, driving aspects of it and so recognising their status as majority shareholders. But the existence of the Society should not absolve the Exec Board from strategic responsibility. Or preclude them from having input as their experience and knowledge could be of great value. Working together I would hope they could come up with a far better long term proposal than we have before us at present. And one less frantically cobbled together. As I say, a Partnership which appreciates and respects both elements, and welcomes input from both. The exact opposite of the relationship which has evolved under the current Club chairman.

So three wins and two draws as a minimum then.

And no midweek trip to Dingwall or Aberdeen over the festive period! Clearly there will have to be an investigation leading to a re draw. Maybe VAR will intervene..

I would like to see any agreement, whether with Barmack or someone else, state that Fir Park may not in any circumstances be used to secure external funding and that only the WS may provide funds based on a pledge involving our Stadium. If that is legally possible would need to be checked out as it might not be, or may be worked around. The best safeguard may be to ensure that a sizeable Loan remains in place under current terms as registered at Companies House. We do not need it repaid. Folk can maybe see why I am so suspicious of the requirement to reduce the outstanding Loan. What next? An offer by the new Barmack controlled Board to repay any outstanding balance, perhaps to enable the WS to meet it's agreement to match his financial input. In effect, we hand the money straight back leaving the coffers empty and with no monies owed to the Society. Hopefully the independent legal advice the Society is seeking will clarify the implications of having no monies owed to the Society by MFC. Edited to add. There is a world of difference between ' no ground can be sold' and using that ground to secure a Loan. I agree with 'weeyin'. These folk are clever and any words they use are carefully chosen.