dennyc

Fair comment. Some decent suggestions. I am certain the record thing will now be a priority. Including monitoring when Junior Members reach full membership age so their membership can be upgraded with subscriptions and voting rights altered.

Not savvy enough to know what all that means but if the info is available it might help us to understand some of the reasons for such poor numbers. As we see on here regularly though, stats can be interpreted in many ways. I could argue that two out of three people who responded saying 'I would' without having sight of the options on the table is just as telling.

I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details. The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully every Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

When the Society was launched there was a membership option specifically aimed at Businesses. In fact, at the presentations which took place much was made of that option. Not sure if that still exists or if any Business actually signed up. I think it offered several business related benefits? Also not sure to what extent it was promoted way back then, but it is something worth pursuing. Re the records, did the Society not employ someone for that specific task several years ago? Or is that another task that fell by the wayside? I believe were paying a wage for a time to a guy who eventually packed it in? On a more general point, I don't think it reflects well that basic membership levels are the only indicator that the Society Board appear (or appeared) happy to openly share. Hopefully the planned online forums are a sign of a more open approach. Jay and a few others in the know do seem to have taken that on board. So no offence meant to them. Folk need to know the full picture if they are to part with hard earned cash. Having now disclosed that just 1500 (38%) of 3800 members actively subscribe, it is clear the enormity of the task that lies ahead if the Society are to provide the back up funds required to cover the Club's potential shortfall should performances targets/players sales not be achieved annually. And due to inflation, increasing Stadium costs etc, that potential shortfall will almost certainly increase. A 400% uplift in contributions from those 1500 members seems pretty unrealistic to me. I guess, as a positive, those non paying members and local Businesses do provide opportunities for growth. But Membership needs to rise substantially, and quickly. I really hope I am wrong, and not to downplay the efforts being made by Jay and others as they are much appreciated, but at the end of the day I think we will end up with two realistic options. Accept the external investment that may be offered if satisfactory terms that protect Club Assets can be negotiated, or accept that we need to find a level at which Motherwell FC can function within their income level. One option will likely surrender fan ownership. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of the look, I think we can now see why the Club Board felt it necessary to issue that video. The forthcoming Board changes also suggest all is not good.

Raith Rovers are in with a decent shout of automatic promotion and they have an artficial playing surface. Airdrie are pushing for a play off spot as well. So the opportunity to switch to an all grass Premiership might be further away than we hope. At worst we could have two new non grass pitches to cope with next season. I'll add Kelty Hearts surface to those that are streets ahead of Livi. Killie and Accies. If we cannot go to all playing on grass, then there should be standards that must be enforced regards the quality of artificial playing surfaces. And Livi and Killie are well below that standard. But we all know the Authorities will not get involved.

Thanks Kmcalpin. That is the figure I had in mind. Translates to around £150k per annum before expenses or donations. Hopefully that figure has increased as it suggests a massive increase is essential to cover potential shortfalls without diluting funds. I'm pretty sure up to date figures will be made available.

Good work I can see no reason why the monthly income of the Society from Member subscriptions should be a trade secret. Would a figure not be routinely included in the Annual Accounts anyway? From memory I think an amount was openly quoted during previous discussions. Cannot be sure of that figure though so hesitant to quote a figure, and it will be out of date anyway. To allow folk to consider whether the Society alone can continue to provide the financial backup required, the current income level is information required to arrive at a decision re the need for additional investment We have been told what the Club's shortfall is likely to be on a worst case scenario so it is a simple calculation to see how much is required each year to cover that potential shortfall, without draining existing balances.

Careful! you are letting facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. And one that just keeps growing. Any more of it and you will be carted off to Area 51 to join Elvis

The Community Trust does lots of wonderful and essential work. But I think the difference in Paisley is that funds flow into St Mirren from Kibble thus reducing overall Club expenditure. If I am wrong please correct me, but I don't think the MFC CT provides funding to the football Club. Not dissing them in any way, far from it, but I think it is a different set up.

Posted 11 minutes ago

With insufficient investment....from whatever source......does A not lead to B then C and even beyond until a sustainable level is reached. Clearly I would not expect to go beyond Championship level, but I bet Dunfermline fans thought the same.

It should be noted that the ban Celtic imposed on the GB was only lifted after their embarrassing but financially rewarding European appearances ended for the season. The only reason they were banned in the first place was to placate Uefa who were very close to closing areas of Celtic Park, with the next stage being a complete European ban. Either of those sanctions would have cost them millions. Our authorities on the other hand will always turn a blind eye. All the shite Celtic spread around regards incidents at Fir Park, Easter Road etc forcing them to act for the good of football was just a smokescreen. Remember Rodgers saw fit to defend the youngster at Livi (?) who the stewards collared when he ran onto the park, the week before a swarm of them did much worse at Fir Park, even getting in the faces of our players. Toxic. We really should just ban them from Fir Park. Financial hit or not. I know that's not going to happen given our finances but it would at least highlight the issue and maybe force the media to have a serious debate.

Kibble fund certain areas of the Club in return for the benefits those areas can provide the kids Kibble look after. Think transport, training and gym facilities, physical and mental heath support and the like. All of this supports the kids and the football club/players. .They can also justify providing funding as those same kids regularly gain work experience within the Club. It is a win win situation and does support the football club financially, but not technically by charitable donations.

Thanks for raising this point. It is something I have been trying to calculate into the overall picture. And to Jay for his response. My basic arithmetic came up with round about the same figures to take into account the 18 month requirement. To add to your comments maybe Jay you could also investigate/clarify 1. What happens if we are not able to present the required confirmation? A Red Flag status was mentioned. What exactly does that mean and are things like a transfer embargo put in place? Or is it merely that, say, quarterly updates are required until red flag status removed? As I think happens elsewhere as a first step. I appreciate that is worst case scenario but if the WS is expected to carry the burden, then we need to know what the implications are of coming up short. Those implications might spur members to dig deeper or make external funding more palatable? 2. Are pledges/ standing orders taken into Account or is it only actual funds as proven by Bank balances? 3. Maybe a bit more controversial. Mention was made that the WS has assisted or funded various projects at the request of MFC. All very worthy causes but so far I think those projects coupled with donations to cover shortfalls have used up around £1.2m of member subscriptions. Leaving a net balance of £750k? To enable funds to appreciate, is it time to consider closely exactly what projects are funded for the foreseeable future? I know that may go against the ethos of being a Community Club etc etc, but the core business of MFC is football after all and it might help if projects/donations were concentrated on the core business of the organisation meantime.

I think Alexander had run his course, due in part to financial restrictions within the Club. I honestly do not think we would have been in a better position had he stayed or that he had any solutions. Also I think Kettlewell is more suited than either Alexander or Hammell to working within those financial limitations. In short, I don’t believe our on field issues are mostly down to whoever is Manager. I do respect your view though.

Wellgirl, sadly it mirrors life. Those that shout loudest and the most often always appear to be the majority when in fact they are not. And what do they do when their obsession makes little sense? They shout even louder and more often. Keep fighting the good fight. Common sense usually wins through. We will have to disagree on Alexander though. His time really had come to an end. As it does for all Managers in the long run.

Simple arithmetic says that 3500 members donating £20 pm generates income of £840k annually. Please check my calculations! As costs rise and if no meaningful sale of players or cup runs then that £750k shortfall rises very quickly. So the monthly subscriptions or member numbers need to also increase. I will need convincing that such season on season income is feasible given how much effort has gone into getting us to current membership levels/donations. That's the thing for me, it is not a one off, one season uplift that the Society must guarantee. Like many I love the status of being fan owned and would prefer that to continue, but for me, not at any cost. Just trying to be realistic. Also I suggested earlier that a majority holding is not required to Veto certain proposals by any new owner. There are protections available to safeguard our future existence… At Fir Park if that is what fans prefer. Those protections can be built into any Agreement if all parties agree.

We have incurred losses over the past two years….please correct me if I am mistaken….and are projected for another loss in the next set of Accounts. How long can the WS and MFC continue to absorb those losses? Latest projections are that in a poor season there is a £750k shortfall. How many David Turnbull’s are we likely to unearth? How much will an ageing Fir Park cost us in the next few years? The only measure I have to work on is that from quoted figures the Society has to date raised a net sum of £1.7m from fans. Not sure what is meant by ‘net’. Bank balance is projected to be 750k at year end so by my very basic calculation that is £1m of Society funds gone, either by way of donations or specific project requests from MFC. And only 1 season of shortfall available if required. So is the crux of the matter simply that we accept additional external funding to cover our £6m a year costs (and rising) at Premiership level or we refuse that external funding and accept we fall to whatever level will mean we balance the books? Basic as that. I appreciate and think it is only right that the WS are given the chance to provide their own funding proposals. But how on earth are they going to raise the funds required year on year? Possibly £750k a year and rising. It seems like a huge ask to me. And before anybody wades in. I am not suggesting we are going bust. But we need to decide at what level we wish to compete. And what is feasible in respect of the Society.

May I suggest that the initial question should actually carry three options. Not everyone is a definite no or yes at present. That should be reflected. I for one will only decide when I see the detailed proposal and have had a chance to ask questions. eg. 1. No 2. Yes 3. Undecided but open to change if the terms are suitable and safeguard MFC. That would possibly give the Club Board some more negotiating power if the majority were open to change, but not at any cost. If it is a majority no, then end of. Discussion now is good. But we are all speculating regards what will be proposed. Unless we have a Corporate Lawyer in our ranks, then how much of what we assume is actually correct? Somebody mentioned St Johnstone. What they may or may not do ground wise is no indicator of what Motherwell may or may not do. Each Club needs to do what is in their own best interests. Based on their own circumstances. . But if St J are sitting on prime development land which they can sell for a fortune, move to a new ground and still have substantial funds left in the kitty to secure their future, then lucky them. On the 51% red line that folk mention, I get that being the majority shareholder carries power and enables ‘ fan owned’ bragging rights. But a simple (amateurish) internet search reveals Companies often have clauses build in to their Corporate Agreement that permit a Shareholding of only 26% or so to veto certain proposals. It might even be an automatic right? Veto rights it seems can be drawn up to cover almost anything. Like the sale of Fir Park for instance. So a 51% Majority does not grant freedom to do what you like. I could vote for a % reduction if I was convinced MFC was protected against asset stripping and such. Whether any investor would agree to such veto powers is for those whose task it is to protect the Club to investigate. In essence I understand there are terms that can be drawn up to protect against much, if not all, of the concerns that folk will rightly have. But I am no expert so will happily leave that to the Professionals to deal with. Also, it was clearly stated that potential investors were not looking to take a Charge over Fir Park or have the Club provide Guarantees which would put Club assets at risk. That for me is huge and suggests a long term involvement rather than an effort to make a quick buck. My request to MFC and the WS is that when more details are known and we are asked to give our input, then please provide straight answers to straight questions. If the answer is not known, then say so.

Thanks Jay. I am actually encouraged by what you have just said. I was extremely pissed off when Les had the operating model changed so Club access to Society funds was much simpler. From memory (correct me if wrong) that adjustment was made without referral to Society members and to my mind should never have been allowed. But he held all the cards I guess. Can I take it from your comments that any funding the Society provides is no longer on a Loan basis? Getting ahead of myself, but moving forward that might be something to consider. To protect fan contributions and continue to grow the emergency funds.

Thanks Jay. I bought into the WS at the outset on the basis that any funds ingathered were for emergency use only and would be provided to the Club on a short term loan basis. They would not be used for day to day funding. A lender of last resort when required. The intention being that all funds would be protected, grow and be available for rebuild if the ultimate disaster happened. Not sure that is how it operates currently but it is a model that might suit a fair few fans if/when things change.

Thanks again for placing some figures out there. helps us understand the overall situation. Much appreciated.

Thanks StAndrew's7. A much needed update of where we are currently at. Lots to digest and ponder. Initially my thoughts are in line with a good few in that the status quo is not really a long term option. So one way or another things will change whilst at the same time providing required investment. Couple of points struck me. 1. If I understand correctly, no investment would be secured by charges over Club assets such as Fir Park or Guarantees that would put the existence of MFC at increased risk. For me that stipulation is essential in any Agreement that is entered into. To a degree that protects from an investor simply pulling the plug, taking priority in the realisation of Assets and walking away with no loss incurred. They would basically be in the same boat as Shareholders although perhaps on a Preferred basis? So less likely to walk away. For that reason I understand why a major new investor would want a controlling interest. 2. It was news to me, but makes perfect sense, that the Club has to demonstrate to Auditors and the Football Authorities that it has sufficient funding to cover the following 18 month period. Any Club folding mid season would raise all sorts of problems fixture wise. I assume that has been the case for some time and thankfully has not been an issue for us. looking to the future and without knowing how much is required or what the present Bank balance is, I wonder if the Society could raise sufficient funds at short notice to demonstrate that safeguard, and to repeat that exercise on a regular basis if need be. From what we have heard for some time, finances are tight and indicators on and off the field support that position. The Club Board have openly accepted that further investment is required if we are to continue at our current level and are doing their best to resolve matters, whilst respecting the ethos of the Well Society. I accept that Communication might have been better but I would think that there are confidentiality issues that must be respected, particularly during ongoing discussions. In truth I am surprised that we were told as much as we were last night. It is good news though that parties are seriously interested enough to enter into discussions. I was not sure that would be the case. One question I do have. If the WS members voted to accept a minority shareholding, would the WS continue to ingather funds and would those funds be protected and separate from Club finances? Available only as emergency fund as I believe was the original intention way back then. Not for day to day outgoings.

By “giving it a good go” my view was that within the restrictions in which we exist….fairly small active fan base, the financial set up of the Premiership, the lure of the OF and such….. it was always going to be a big ask to make our fan ownership a success in the Premiership. A worthy aspiration though. i think everybody involved from day one has attempted to tweak and improve how we operate. And good on them for recognising that need. New approaches have been tried and the current WS is not the model that was unveiled at the Launch. As examples. Where is the local Corporate buy in? It was identified early on that individual fan membership would not in itself be sufficient but even after all these years I wonder if any Businesses have taken out corporate membership? We heard nothing after those initial meetings. Does that option still exist? I have asked but without reply. The aim was also to go forward with no Bank debt whatsoever and within a few years we would be operating within Budget. With Society funds (protected) available for short term finance ( short term loans if you like)or heaven forbid to provide start up Capital were MFC to go under. Recession and CoVid were unforeseen barriers of course. My gut feeling is that those in charge recognise that our model is not sustainable at our current level, have done what they can, but feel that change is required if we are not to decline further. By that I mean in status. The recent plea for investment only served to convince me of that. Perhaps they have run out of ideas for generating finance at the same time as carrying forward the ethos of the Well Society. I am not convinced the two are compatible. I hope and pray I am totally wrong and that our Board …or new Board if it comes to that…identify a way forward that suits us all, reduces risk and maintains us as a top level Club. For me continued Fan Ownership would be nice but is not the most important criteria. Somebody mentioned the word Romantic. Perhaps it will come down to a choice between that and Reality. Finally, it is fantastic to read that so many of us love our Club. That certainly comes through even though we may have differing opinions about the way forward.

From day one I bought into the fan owned set up and signed up right away. The positivity around the Club was fantastic and it was brilliant soaking up all the fine words that our wee Community Club attracted. Even as the fan model was adapted over time, that enthusiasm continued for a while. The community aspect still gives me a buzz. So I understand why folk want to persist with the current structure. However, the reality is that for financial reasons we have been in decline for a good few years with results falling away and the quality on the pitch lessening season upon season. No amount of "it was planned for" or "exceptional expenditure"will convince me that the losses incurred in recent times are not worrying signs. Simply put, a fan base of 4000 cannot alone fund a Club at the level we all aspire to. It has already been highlighted how the set up in Scotland does nothing to assist our income flow. Any temporary slow down in that decline has been due to a few decent cup runs coupled with player sales, particularly of players developed through our youth development programme. My worry is that as player quality continues to reduce and youth development continues to stall, the likelihood of such income reduces considerably and that downward spiral will persist. I'm not saying mistakes hastening our current situation have not been made. We all have our views regards current and former Board members, Managers, player recruitment etc etc. But stepping back and looking at the bigger picture I am not convinced that anybody could have brought about a different position to where we are at as of now. Money talks. So looking forward? As I see it we can stick with the current "feel good" model until such time as we find a league position that matches our current funding. And I don't think that will be at Premiership level looking to the rate of our decline and the investment I see other Cubs attracting. I do appreciate and accept that some fans would choose that option. Or we can move on from the fan owned majority holding if need be in an attempt to attract sufficient outside investment to maintain our Premiership status. Either option carries it's own risk and there will be differing views expressed by the fans. Existing fans will likely follow our Club no matter what level we are at, but what of future generations? It is tough enough attracting new blood but I wonder how much tougher that would be if we were playing the likes of Annan every week. For me, we gave the fan owned thing a good try. But it is not working and sadly it is time to look at other options. Or Taylor Swift and her boyfriend might come to our rescue just for the hell of it.