dennyc

Have the Club announced the PATG prices for next season yet? If not, it is impossible to work out how many matches you need to miss to hit that point where the Season ticket is actually more expensive then going PATG if you are likely miss a few matches. You might also have to factor in what specific games you intend to sidestep. I'm sure I read somewhere that the Club were thinking about charging a premium price for certain matches....eg Rangers, Celtic , Aberdeen and Hearts (also Hibs had they been promoted). In that way they can maximise income from those teams that bring sizeable numbers to Fir Park. The downside is that PATG home fans will have to be charged the same price to meet SPFL rules and regulations. Guessing here, but £25 to watch Motherwell v Celtic against £20/22 to watch Motherwell v Ross County? An extra £5 a head from several thousand visiting fans for 8 games a season soon adds up. £200k if the average PATG number is 5000 combined home and away fans. Even if cheaper concession tickets were available for those games, a premium could still apply. As a business, Motherwell must look to increase income from those away fans, particularly with Rangers being around once again. Buying a Season Ticket might save you more than current estimates. The price per game argument is valid however, and the deal at Accies seems exceptional. Dundee Utd fans on the other hand are being asked to pay top division prices for watching their team in a lower division. Hardly good value in my opinion.

Don't know if there is any truth or not in Hall being wanted by Hibs. But I am sure Hibs will have identified players they would like IF they get back to the top division. So it would make sense for those players to hold back on signing new contracts with their present clubs to see what, if anything, is on offer from Hibs. Unfortunately money talks and a top flight Hibs may well be able to offer a better deal than a money conscious Motherwell. That said, I would hope the Craigen/ Robinson Irish connection might play a part in any decision Hall makes and also the fact that Motherwell have shown faith in him by giving him his chance might be a factor. However, if his Agent can secure him a better deal and Hall elects to move on, so be it.

Both full backs, whether it by Law and Hammell or whoever else has played there under Mark McGhee, mostly position themselves within the penalty area , tight to the Centre Backs. At the Meet The Manager event, MM was challenged about having everyone back for corners. He actually got quite animated and explained that less goals were conceded if the defending team swamped the box. He quoted statistics to back up his argument and advised the audience to watch the upcoming Madrid v Barcelona match and note how they defended corner kicks. I just wonder if our full backs are sent out with instructions to play within the penalty area for the same reason....to limit space in the box. Maybe it's also to compensate for their lack of pace and inability to deal with a one on one situation. Midfielders are then tasked with filling in the wide areas when we are under pressure. Having listened to MM, I'm pretty sure he would not accept players ignoring his instructions and he does not seem to get too upset when the full backs position themselves as they do. Although we continue to lose goals from the wide areas, in the main results have improved and less goals have been conceded. Recently teams such as Inverness have been unable to punish us although most teams do appear to target the full back positions. But it was a different matter against Celtic. The quality and movement of their players was too good and if it hadn't been for Ripley we could have been five down at half time. What I also found worrying was that at one point we had our top goal scorer filling in at right back, our most creative player doing the same at left back and two midfielders trying to cover the back four within the penalty area. No wonder we couldn't muster a worthwhile attempt at goal in the first half......Cadden's duffed shot excepted. I get as upset as anyone when I see opposition players in acres of space being able to play balls into the box under no real pressure. But, until we manage to replace both full backs, I don't see the situation changing and we will continue to tie ourselves in knots attempting to compensate for their lack of pace.

Yeah, that's what I thought. We took the gamble and beat them to it. Otherwise Marvin could well have been serving his apprenticeship in Division 1 or even the Championship instead of being the subject of debate on this forum. In some ways I agree that Jamie was a more rounded player...he certainly covered back more effectively although that is an area where Marvin has improved. Both were /are frustratingly inconsistent at times. In my opinion, the advantage that Marvin has over Jamie is his strength which means he does not get pushed aside as easily as Murphy did in his spell with us. It is in that area that I think Murphy improved (and needed to) in his time at Sheffield. As a comparison, if both players were to reach their maximum potential I believe Marvin would just shade it. Hence he would cut it at Championship level. It's all about opinion though and I understand that many may disagree. Whatever, if managed correctly, Marvin could well turn out to be the financial boost the Club has been seeking for some time.

For me, Marvin has the talent and to play at Championship level and just needs to gain consistency. If he can master that, then he would have as good a chance of success as Jamie Murphy had......and that transfer seems to have worked out not too poorly. And a couple of advantages with Marvin.....his contract is not about to expire and he is a known quantity in England given that other clubs were interested when we sneaked in and signed him. So, as this is an ins and outs thread, hold out for a decent bid and make sure good add ons are a part of any deal. Same goes for Louis.

Just hope Killie start their survival run with a victory over St Johnstone. That way we are top six and can watch the scrap from afar. United's thugs going down automatically appeals and that becomes all the more likely as well with a Killie win on Saturday. Fingers crossed.

Brazilian, you make a lot of sense in what you say and, mostly, I agree with both the content and the sentiment. Much of our prolonged debate has really been about the use of certain words...eg Own and Run. I certainly agree you have a right to express your views. To clarify, I have never ever said that the Society should have declined Les' recent offer nor that the Club should not have gotten involved with him. He was the only realistic option and it seems great progress has been made under his ownership/control. The abruptness of his departure disappoints and worries me and I reserve the right to express that fact I have only ever requested financial information from the Society in an effort to provide proof positive that progress has been made and that proper care is being taken of funds donated by folk like me and you. Folk whose passion for the Club ends up with them on this Forum endlessly debating back and forward. The fact that promises, which were made in public, to provide basic,meaningful, relevant information have been broken equally annoys and worries me. I had hoped that publishing details of a healthy, growing bank balance would encourage many of those with doubts to invest in the Society. As you say, the need for those funds could be even more imperative given the latest turn of events. Several months have passed since the Society meeting and we have yet to see any improvement in communication and information sharing. At the end of the day I genuinely believe we want the same things. That is, the Club and The Well Society to thrive. Otherwise we would never have signed up in the first place. Ok, you think I am too negative and I can accept that. But then, maybe I believe some people are too positive in the absence of hard facts. Ok,can we now agree to differ on those aspects where we differ. And move on.

And do his bidding....does that not infer he was effectively running the show then? Maybe not licking the stamps to put on envelopes, but making all the important decisions. Again, not saying that was a bad thing. In fact, the progress achieved is to be applauded. We might not be that far apart in our thinking, just debating the exact words to describe the set up.

And of course, having appointed the 3 directors, he then sat back and let them get on with it. You believe that, fine. That's your view and you're entitled to it. Others believe otherwise as they are entitled to. Let's just agree to differ.

Does Les H run the Cub due to his owning 76% of the shares? Technically, of course, the Board are in charge of day to day affairs but surely we can all agree that in reality Les pulls the strings. When it owns the very same 76% of shares is it not realistic to expect the Society via its Board to pull the same strings. Or does anyone out there really think that Les H hasn't run the whole shooting match since he appeared on the scene? And I'm not saying that was either a bad or a good thing. It was probably both.

Glad we're not really that far apart in our thinking. Re the legal agreement and the revised repayment schedule. Let's hope it will allow the Club scope for repayment of some of the monies due to the Society, rather than concentrating solely on the repayment of Les and John Boyle. Their Loans, after all, are secured which should provide them with the comfort required to be patient. That would at least assist to build up Society funds for emergency use.

But that's the whole point. Although it was originally planned that any funding would be short term, to be returned to the Society as soon as possible, that has not worked out and the outstanding Loans are now "medium term" per Jim McMahon. No advice to what term that actually means. If it had worked out as planned, there could be upwards of £500k sitting in the Society account available to help the Club when needed. The "empty coffers" refers to the fact that, although the Society may be owed a substantial sum from MFC, we have no idea how much ready cash is currently available for support. It might be a sizeable sum, but why not just tell us and put the speculation to bed? Agreed, monthly contributions will be growing the balance available. So why not keep us advised as to how that is going....in financial terms and not mere numbers of active members. This is particularly relevant given Les has taken a giant step backwards. See my previous post. Oh, and the outstanding loans are not secured or protected in any way...unlike any monies owed to Les, John Boyle, Derek Weir and Jim McMahon. If a disaster were to happen ( hopefully unlikely as we are told MFC are close to breaking even) the Society would have to stand in line with other Creditors hoping for a return of so many pence in the pound. That was an oversight by the Society Board which is unlikely to be rectified soon, although we are told it is "in hand". When are the existing Loans likely to be repaid? Who knows! When money came in from the sale of Erwin (and the add on from Murphy?) the funds were either required elsewhere or used to repay part of the additional finance provided by Les. Maybe some repayment has been made in the past, but is that cash still available or was it used to help fund the final payment to MFC which Les insisted upon? I agree, it is fantastic that the Society have been able to support the Club through hard times. But the Society funds are not unlimited and with the Club unable to repay the existing loans at the present time I would just like to clarify how much support the Society would be able to provide, say in the upcoming close season. Not an unreasonable request I would suggest. And before you ask. I am an existing Society member and I do like the concept of the Society providing support when required and I do wish the whole thing can work as proposed. I would just like some clarity before contributing further.

That's a fair point. From Les's comments we can work out an estimate we can work out monthly income. Now if only we could estimate monthly outgoings we would be in a position to calculate monthly growth. From what we know there is one salary (for the admin assistant). I think Les was meeting half of that cost but is that to continue after he rides off into the sunset? There might also be ongoing costs for promotion materials, admin expenses, professional fees and I recall mention of Insurance. From there all we then need is the starting balance to work out the present situation. Now, that sum might be fairly substantial (again hopefully) but we simply don't know. But let's assume a build up of £8500 per month (and rising hopefully) or around £100k per year. Is that enough to cover, say, the payment of players' for a couple of months if short term problems crop up? It's not that long ago that MFC were forced to sell off Jamie Murphy on the cheap to meet that month's wages. The Board's words, not mine. The answer is fairly simple though. if the Board supply the information their would be no need for any speculation whatsoever. Look, as you were at the meeting. you'll know that I asked for financial information to be made public in the hope that positive news might encourage folk to join/return to the Society. Is that unreasonable? Am I pissed off that promises made at the meeting have not been kept? Yes, and I don't think that is unreasonable either. But this thread is supposed to be about Les. So can you tell me why you think he has chosen now to move on, bearing in mind his comments that MFC is almost at the stage of breaking even and that the structural and personnel changes made have had a positive effect on finances? The only concern seems to be the slow take up of Society membership, which can reasonably be expected to grow over time and as MFC is seen to be on an even keel. Why not see out the five years, as promised, and influence matters from the inside? My own view, and it is speculation, is that the Society situation coupled with the fact he has had to provide MFC additional funds on a regular basis has really got to him. Perhaps he sees walking away as a blunt, and probably final attempt, to force fans and local businesses to join up. Perhaps Derek Weir's departure also played a part.

At the same meeting it was agreed that the up to date balance and growth would be published monthly. Where are they? Also the figure quoted as the monthly increase was argued back and forward within the panel. By no means convincing and that is why I asked for the correct figures to be published. Les's figures are a .....very recent.....step forward

Agreed, in an ideal world that's the way it would work. Unfortunately the situation for several years has not been ideal and the Society has been funding the Club, almost from day one, to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds. How much has been repaid and is the current balance held by the Society anywhere near the figure of £1m which Jim McMahon (in his professional opinion) stated was the minimum sum required to make the whole set up feasible? He also confirmed that the vision of short term support had proven optimistic and those temporary loans were now regarded as medium term loans. If the Club is almost at the stage of operating at a profit (see comments on BBC website) that will help and support might not be required right away. However there are periods in the year when income can dry up for any number of reasons. Who do the Club turn to if, as some suspect, the Society coffers are almost empty? Yes, the same boring old question! But not one person from the Society Board will volunteer what the present balance is and at what rate the monies are growing each month. That is worrying.

My mistaken use of words as covered in earlier reply to which I would ask you to have a look at if you will. Running/owning aside, with a 76% stake I don't really think the Society through their Board will be far removed from every day involvement. The points about the timing and day to day financing still apply, People being on both Boards might just be another indicator

Thanks guys. Thought I must have been going mad in my old age, Unless I'm mistaken (again)it was about 20 minutes in,nil nil and Cummins was having one of his better games. Given our approach to games at Ibrox way back then, you're right, it probably did not alter the end result.

Good point. But I can remember getting all fired up about McCulloch basically assaulting one of our youngsters in a game at ibrox, and that turning the whole game around.

Stand corrected. So what game am I thinking off where McCulloch used his elbow on one of our guys? Can definitely remember that happening but must have got the games confused.

Hopefully one of the "upgrades" that Les introduced was monthly Management Accounting in an effort produce accurate figures on a more regular basis. Waiting until year end figures are produced to effect any required changes to Budget/Control only adds to risk. Better to act as early as possible. Fingers crossed, when the 2015 and eventually 2016 year end Accounts are published, the Club's Accountant can provide a more up to date indication of how things are going.

My humble apologies. The Society do not run the Club. My mistake. As major Shareholders they appoint a Board to do so and then The Society fund any shortfall which arises. Same concerns though re timescale and challenges. Is that correct? And yes, there are millions of shareholders in lots of Companies worldwide. But how many own 76% of the Company, don't receive any dividend and are expected to set up a monthly standing order to enable the company to function? Anyone owning 76% of a Company's shares has a massive say in how that company operates whether directly or indirectly.

Scottish League Cup at Ibrox. McCulloch blatantly elbows Hutchison ( I think) in the face. Game changer as Motherwell looking fairly comfortable until Hutchinson forced to go off. Motherwell get trounced. Assault clear as a bell on TV coverage. No media/pundit witch hunt.

What has changed is that The Society do not have 5 years to get their act itogether before being presented with a football club to run. If the Club is now breaking even ( do you really think that is the case?) or they manage to sell on players all well and good. But if neither of these two things happen very soon, how does MFC/The Society fund the shortfall on a monthly basis until Budgets/Costs can be reduced sufficiently? What funds are currently held? No-one is telling us that basic fact. Les has said he will continue to fund the club for a couple of months, which suggests we are currently running in deficit. Hopefully the situation is more stable than many suspect. But previous advice (J McMahon at Society meeting end 2015) that a progression to profitability could not happen overnight and that a minimum reserve of £1m would be required by the Society certainly adds to the uncertainty. I agree the proposed end result and the manner in which MFC must operate remains the same, but the abrupt change of timescale brings fresh concerns. Some real, meaningful clarity is urgently required.

At the Society/Manager meeting, when pushed, Jim McMahon commented that in his professional opinion the Society would need around £1m of working capital to be viable. That was after taking control of the Club, having REPAID Les H and John B. It was envisaged that it would take 5 years to get to that stage. On that basis we need a total approaching £3m (LH £1.5M, JB £0.35M, Capital £1m) to pay the debts and then run the Club. And that is only if the Club is not making any further losses, which seems unlikely as LH is quoted as saying he will provide additional support over the next couple of months. I just don't see how that is possible without some outlandish sum coming in very soon from player transfers. Even if LH and JB are wiling to wait years for repayment, where is the basic £1m which is required coming from? Despite several promises, we have not even been told what funds the Society currently hold. I agree, some clarity as to how this whole thing is going to be funded is urgently required. Would be fantastic if LH just wrote of the monies owed to him, but I very much doubt that is going to happen.

Re writing off his debt, I don't think so. The statement mentions short term funding over the next few months and deferred Loan Repayments. The early years of fan ownership will be critical so let's hope Les is willing to spread those repayments over a substantial number of years to minimise the financial pressure on the club. Also "other Board Members continuing" suggests his daughter is continuing in her role which might encourage Les to be patient regarding those payments. All a bit sudden, which suggests to me that Les tired of his football project. He was so adamant about what had to be achieved before any transfer of ownership but all that now seems to have gone by the wayside. Coupled with Derek Weir's departure, I just don't know if this latest turn of events will prove good or bad news.