dennyc

Decent Interview with valid questions asked and addressed. And he is now on record as not wishing to oust the Society. Further details to come but encouraging.

Les H did encourage Society sign ups by saying he would reduce the sum owed to him by the equivalent of any new funds collected by the Society. £1 for £1. What we were not told at the time was that Society funds would be used to repay the remaining balance of his debt at an agreed date. Effectively, for a period of time, all monthly payments to the Society were passed to him. My view is that fans who hand over hard earned cash are entitled to know what those funds will be used for. Not to the Nth degree by all means. To support the Club is one one thing and I'm all for that, but to support other causes (however worthy) is another thing. If I want to contribute to the Community Trust or any other charity I will do that separately. I'm certainly not questioning the merit, good work or value of the Trust. My biggest concern is that funds were to be loaned to the Club and not just donated. The Society would act as Bankers. Any Loans to the Club were to be shown as such on MFC/Society Accounts with the intention that at 'some time in future convenient to MFC' they would be repaid from income. This was essentially an exercise to ensure that if MFC failed, then legal priority would be given to repaying the Society ahead of Ordinary Shareholders and Creditors. Common sense. If that agreement had been adhered to, then the value of the Society would currently be well in excess of £2m. And available for a rebuild if need be. If the way the the Society is to support the Club has changed/is to change then fair enough. But at the very least Members should be aware of what the arrangement is. Through discussions I believe attempts are being made to return to the original model, driven by recent appointees. But if I am to continue to contribute then I need to be convinced that we are once more operating as originally agreed, particularly as those who oversaw the 'donations' still have influence.

Of course the Society exists to fund the Club in times of need. But, just like a Bank overdraft, those funds were originally intended to be repaid to the Society from the likes of transfer income or end of season performance payments. In that way Society funds would continue to escalate and be protected in a worst case scenario. To rebuild a new Club if need be. That is how the Society was sold to fans. Without Members knowledge that model was changed. First of all to repay Les Hutchison and subsequently funds were handed to the Club with no intention of those monies being repaid. So the current balance is way below where it should be given the total funds received from fans over the time the Society has existed. Recent appointees to the Society Board are hoping to see the original model followed in future and so see balances increase. Funds were also intended to be provided purely for the core business of the football Club. Although the Community Trust is a fantastic initiative I would question whether the Society should be utilising fans’ donations for that or any initiative which is not essential to Motherwell FC.

Selling talent is a key part of every Club, and always will be. I don’t think anyone believes otherwise. . But as u say other income streams must also be maximised. My concern is that for a while the sale of players appears to have been identified by the current Board as the only way to operate in the black, or close to it. With Society monies made available for projects the Club cannot fund. The Society is a good thing and hopefully will continue to grow but I wonder, if it had not existed, would McMahon etc been forced to come up with other ways to balance the books. By continually selling off our best players and their youth replacements, the quality on the pitch reduces…..as is evident on a year by year comparison…and so performance income reduces and the Club becomes less attractive to sponsors, new fans, tv etc. We then become even more dependent upon player sales and if they don’t happen we continue our quality decline. How long can that downward spiral continue? It’s fair to say that other Clubs are experiencing similar problems but they have an advantage over us in that they do have outside sources of income. Some that are even prepared to cover sizeable losses. Somebody helpfully provided a list earlier in this thread. I guess it might all come down to what level we wish to see Motherwell compete at. I hope we can find a balance that supports both outside investment and the Society as major shareholder. If not, I worry about where we are heading.

Exactly this. And also, despite income from youth players moving elsewhere, we still incurred losses some years. I repeat, it is a highly risky strategy. Relying on a Turnbull like sale every other year as a minimum. We would survive possibly were those sales not to happen, but at what level?

I'm not saying investing in youth should not be part of our strategy. But relying on sufficient player sales from that source is too risky. It is too tempting for young players to walk away when their contracts expire, or before they reach full contract age. Those sales should be a bonus and not a "get out of jail" card. Amongst other things, external investment on the correct terms could help us develop a stronger youth programme. That way we have the best of both worlds. So that is a bit more than a 12 month cycle. Bottom line is that we cannot continue as is. It does not work and leaves us exposed.

Ok. so not a complete run of losses. Just the four loss making seasons out of seven and that includes the most recent two years which represent the biggest losses. A trend which should cause concern, and would in most Businesses. So my question about sustainability is still valid. How many £3m players can we unearth and profit on given current transfer rules? Strip that Turnbull fee out and the seven year Net Profit more than disappears. And in that timeframe we have also ingathered funds from a fair number of Development/Agreed Fees which failed to offset operating losses. The strategy of relying on such sales to survive is just asking for trouble.

There is definitely strength in numbers and members donations being locked in is also a positive. But the Club and others have been given Society funds on a permanent..not loan....basis. Contrary to what we were promised would happen when the Society was established. So Society funds are lower than they should be given total donations collected. A figure in excess of £1.25m is gone forever. The people who allowed that to happen are still on the Society Board. More recent appointees are looking to have better control over Society assets but it remains to be seen whether they will succeed. I genuinely wish them well and early signs are promising. Given how Society funds have been managed up to now, the limited scope for increasing monthly income given our fan numbers and the fact the Club has failed to at least break even for a number of years .........for how long do you think the Society can continue to sustain the Club before funds run out? Having to demonstrate the ability to financially cover an 18 month period to appease the football authorities also comes into play. I believe external investment is essential to ensure the future of our Club at the present level. Respect them or not, it is clear the current Club Board shares that view. And on that basis I think they are acting in the Club's best interest. But we need to find the correct balance, which retains the Society as the major shareholder, does not make us overly reliant on the goodwill of any outside investor and protects Club assets. Not an easy task. Until we are presented with the facts of any investment offer we need to keep an open mind. It would also help if meantime the Society would spell out exactly how our funds will be utilised in future. Are we returning to the original model and so longer being utilised as a piggy bank to be raided for whatever purposes certain people see fit.

Why is it such a big deal for you that he supposedly paid for the video? I can imagine your comments had he used Club funds bearing in mind our financial situation? Do you think we don't need external investment? I suppose it all adds to your conspiracy theory though. If you have concrete evidence that McMahon is not acting in what he believes to be the best interest of Motherwell FC, then share it. And I'm pretty sure the request for investment was not limited to America. Did you have the same issues when a former Director personally funded a players wage deal?

When he came on at Dundee SOD did everything that Devine didn't. Suddenly the midfield had an option moving forward out wide other than Gent and Dundee were stretched all across the park. As a result Spittal started to contribute more, Bair had space to run into and Gent was not double marked. And Kettlewell deserves credit for making that change, despite the concern about SOD carrying an injury. His performances throughout the season have more than earned SOD another year.

Disgraceful. Clearly the pitch is currently unplayable. But hey, why don't you guys buy tickets and set off anyway and we will tell you whether the game is on or off as you pass Perth. Fans are the lifeblood of the sport and get treated like crap. All because the powers that be did not want to be accused of bias by insisting Rangers and Dundee play midweek before an OF game. But then it is the Clubs that allow the cretins on the SPL Board to run the show. Nothing changes.

It will not matter whether we agree or not. The game will be played wherever and whenever the authorities decide it will be played. Same as kick off times for tv, cup ties etc. Fan convenience and player welfare are not considerations sadly.

And we have sold you as many tickets as possible, for which no refund will be available. Surely this is a time when PATG is the solution.

I think the tail has been wagging the dog ever since Hutchison insisted the established model be altered. Only the recent additions to the Society Board gave me hope that order might be restored. And I believe Jay and his colleagues are working to that end. But, sadly, nothing I have read recently suggests to me that anything meaningful has changed.

I think I'll patiently wait until details of the proposed investment are officially released rather than listen to conspiracy fantasists with an axe to grind. Then I'll make up my own mind as to whether any proposal gets my support. It was only a matter of days ago we were told that no CEO discussions had taken place since December and that no effort was being made to fill the position. All part of the Board's devious masterplan. And apparently that was also from a solid ' In the know' source. In truth it was just more made up nonsense. But I guess that if people shout loud enough then then their fiction will be taken by a few as gospel. After all, that's how ludicrous conspiracy theories gain traction. Quite revealing that a certain Donald Trump was mentioned. He is not really interested in facts or evidence either.

Sadly five subs but no Theo. Canada won 2-0 and both strikers scored. So hard for him to force his way in. At least no injury…..so far.

Nil nil at the half. No Bair as yet. Apparently the first choice striker has something like 25 goals in 45 games. So Theo will have to bide his time.

Nah, he'll be too busy cheering on Craig Gordon at the Euros.

We will not even get the worthless apology is my guess. Wagons have been circled.

As we all knew it would be. A cover up and no accountability.

You could well be correct. But as I said, based on caution and suspicion. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not based on any evidence we have seen so far. Anyway, that's Hibs problem so we can wait and see. I imagine similar discussions will take place if we secure any sort of offer.

I get your suspicion. Understandable. The challenge is sorting out the good from bad. And care needs to be exercised. The protections Hibs appear to have inbuilt suggests to me to that this is not the raid that some are fearing. Time will tell of course, but there is no evidence of ill intent so far. The opposite in fact. And speculation about asset stripping, feeder club is exactly that. Speculation based on a distrust of the deal or that the share purchase reduces fan ownership percentage. But I take your point.

What needs to be addressed is that two of our most experienced officials either do not know the Laws of the game or chose to ignore them. Both options are shocking. Yes, the time taken is nonsense. Yes, all teams have benefited or lost out at times,us included. But the arrogant refusal by the Authorities to address incompetence (at best) is an insult to every single fan who pays hard earned money to support football. Ourselves, Hearts, Hibs, St Mirren, St Johnstone have all suffered decisions that go way beyond simple human error or interpretation. But nothing changes.

I know we have had our differences on a few things but I think this is so spot on. For a good while my concern has been that our long term strategy is largely based on substantial income from player sales. That is just not sustainable and so full of risk....Admittedly Covid interrupting youth development did not help. We are now seeing exactly what happens when lack of a major sale coincides with poor on field performance. The current "get out of jail" card is clearly Lennon Miller who, but for injury, would likely have been sold by now. How that would have affected our fight for league survival nobody knows. And let's not forget that we have actually benefited from players sales in this time, KVV as an example. It is just not enough. in my opinion the Club's entire operating strategy needs reviewed and one positive of the forthcoming Board changes is that such a complete Club review should happen. Time for new blood and fresh ideas. My sense is that our departing Board members have simply run out of ideas. Hopefully whoever constitutes the new Board can come up with a solution that enables us to at least break even each season. Also, and this understandably will not go down too well with many, there has been too much reliance on Well Society funds. What was intended as a back up facility appears to me to have become the go to option when it comes to "projects" the Club and others wish to undertake but cannot afford. A Piggy Bank to be raided. Couple that approach with the dilution of Society monies to appease Les Hutchison and it explains why Society monies are over £1m down on where they could have been. Thankfully, from Jay's comments, that is a situation that should not continue. Hopefully all Society Board Members, new and old, will now adopt the same approach. I hope the WS continues to grow and can become the asset that was originally proposed. But if the Club is to thrive at our current level then I believe that outside investment is required to fund the year on year football operations. As discussed previously, that Investment must come with legally binding guarantees that protect the Club, and from investors that recognise the true purpose of the WS and are prepared to work side by side on that basis. Not an easy find. Not related to Motherwell. so apologies if not thought relevant to MFC. . I was talking to a Hibs fan yesterday who informed me that their American investor (Foley) is actually introducing £6m per year for each of the next 5 years. I had not appreciated that the deal involved such an annual input. Also, a colleague of Foley is in discussion regards the input of a "one off" £10m. Only time will tell, but the terms they have negotiated don't appear to threaten the assets the Club owns or intrude massively in day to day operations. Fans will talk about "feeder" clubs but there is no evidence as yet to support that, and even if it is the case, where is the harm in players switching Clubs given that rules exist re value for money. As we have seen, non affiliated loan deals can cause bigger issues.

So not any suggestion then that folk could debate? Very easy to pick holes in the Club's choice but unwilling to risk your own credibility by coming up with an alternative. Fair enough.