dennyc

Just surprised Chic Young has not been on moaning about the state of the Fir Park pitch against Thistle. Wonder what the crowd figure really was as it looked massive by todays attendances.

I don't think it's about how the police do or don't deal with trouble. I think it's more about forcing the clubs to take responsibility for identifying trouble makers within their own fan base, banning them and passing details to the police when requested. Celtic taking action against those involved in the Stranraer shenanigans is a prime example of how the game has changed. They certainly would have been less willing to act several years ago. Anne Begg's recent statements on behalf of Hearts is another sign that Clubs will act to protect their position. It'll be interesting to see if Dundee United are able/willing to identify those involved in destroying seats at the weekend. I agree it's harder to deal with several thousand fans belting out sectarian bile, and I don't see shit loads of police or stewards wading in any time soon. I do think Clubs, including Celtic and Rangers, will be punished though when it continues and they will be asked to identify those involved. Sadly, fining the Clubs will do little to stop those determined to carry on singing their little ditties. Whatever, it does feel like the football authorities are taking a much harder stance and clubs like Motherwell could well bear the brunt of that approach.

Two things strike about this whole fan behaviour thing. 1. The publication of the findings of the enquiry into the aftermath of the play off game has had little positive effect on the behaviour of fans of certain clubs, Motherwell included. Dundee Utd, Hearts and Celtic have had cause in recent weeks to publically condemn the behaviour of an element of their support and in some cases action has been taken against those that have been identified. I sense that the footballing authorities have had more than enough and the message to the Clubs is..... "If you do not identify and deal severely with wrongdoers, then you, The Club, will be hammered. No excuses, you are responsible." 2. Motherwell need to be seen to be heeding the warning given in the Report and to be taking action. However they are reluctant to actually ban any of the people who ran onto the pitch (viewing it more as a celebration rather than hooliganism), despite this being a requirement of the same Report. Perhaps they are using the ploy of being unable to identify those involved.....that excuse has certainly been successfully employed at Celtic Park on more than one occasion. However, and perhaps in line with my first paragraph, they are giving notice that they will have no choice in future and people will be identified and action taken. Time for fans to take notice or suffer the consequences. A word on the Bois. The support they provided at Hamilton was fantastic and you could see the players greatly appreciated their backing and the atmosphere generated. However, (just before kick off) there was an issue with smoke pellets. Admittedly only the once, but yet again a total disregard for the pleas of the Club. Fortunately, and despite much taunting, the Police and Stewards did not overreact and the situation did not escalate. I fear that common sense is not going to prevail and, remembering that MFC is effectively on probation, sooner rather than later the footballing authorities are going to take a much firmer line. Perhaps a sizeable fine which the Club can ill afford.

I think that when our full backs turn in a decent performance we see McManus at his best. Sadly, Saturday excepted, he has spent most of the season trying to cover the gaping hole at left back, whereas the other Centre Back often has had to cover right back at times. It is no coincidence that Hammell turning in his best performance of the season resulted in McManus also having one of his better games. I would definitely offer him another contract. McManus and Hall have done well together so why change a winning formula? Lasley continues to contribute, although McGhee needs to accept that asking him to play Saturday, Wednesday, Saturday is asking an awful lot. If playing time is managed properly Lasley is worth another season. Cadden's inclusion has helped but alas Gomis does not appear to be able to provide the support Lasley requires, particularly towards the end of games. Shopping list - at least one full back (even if Watt does eventually get given a chance), a central midfielder (please not Gomis) and probably a striker as Fletcher has not impressed although playing time has been limited.

Les (also John Boyle) holds Security over Fir park and all assets of Motherwell FC. So if the worst was to happen, he would be repaid in preference to other Creditors such as the Well Society. I hope he would not insist on the sale of Fir Park if all other means of repayment failed, but he does have the power....and the right....to do so. Hopefully he would find a buyer for his shares thus avoiding the need to sell off the family silver. At the Society meeting I pushed for the Society to be given the same Security protection as LH and JB, bearing in mind that the Society comes only behind LH in the amount of funding provided to MFC. At least the Society would then have some chance of getting it's money back in the (hopefully unlikely) event of Administration or a sell off to a third party. Money which could then be used to support any future ownership/reincarnation of MFC. Reaction to my suggestion was positive on the night, but to date no effective action has been taken. Apparently we are waiting until "the time is right". Apologies to all that are aware of the situation from other threads, but since there has been no progress whatsoever since the Society meeting I feel the points are still very relevant and worth airing. And yes G&F. You were correct after all. I am pissed off with broken promises. Fair play to you.

As folk have said, 2020 is the projected date for the transfer of LH's shares to the Well Society. All being well. In the period up to then, MFC (or the Society) have to meet the repayment schedule highlighted on Page 65 of the "Well Society or Not" thread. Over the next 15 months.... £80k is due in June, £20k in December and £190k June 2017. The payments due increase as time goes on. Two more defaults and the deal is off. The payment for which MFC had funds set aside... as per the Well Society meeting... was the payment due last December, so on a positive note we should be up to date as it stands. We just have to hope MFC will be able to meet the payments as they fall due, otherwise the Well Society will be asked to meet the payments. Will the Society have sufficient monies available if called upon? Deep down, I fear it will not take until 2020 to find out the answer to that question. At the Society meeting, it was agreed that there would be an up date each month confirming Membership Numbers and also, more crucially, the balance of funds held. The idea being that people seeing an increase in both might be more likely to contribute. If that information has been published, can someone point me in the right direction as I must have missed it? It was also agreed that a list of Questions and Answers from the evening would be published to include additional E-Mailed queries which were not addressed. Again, has that happened? Unless of course some cash rich Premier League ( or Chinese) Club would care to purchase any of our superstars for a few million. In which case, crisis avoided.

18 months in as you say. But already one default by MFC on the agreed repayment schedule. Another two defaults and LH has it written into the agreement that he can void the 5 year arrangement and scrap his plan to sell the club to the fans for £1. in effect he could sell his shares to whoever he could find to purchase them. Next repayment due in June.

Maybe not such a surprise that Derek Weir has stepped down......on basis Companies House records are accurate. He was one of the old guard and took a step backwards when Les H took over. Not sure what impact it will have. What I do find a bit strange is that there has been no announcement from the Club, given that his resignation was with effect from February 1. When McCafferty and others before him left, a statement was put out immediately. Usual MFC communication...or something more sinister?

Absolute nonsense. Several people have made well intended, supportive suggestions. In particular a post I made on 21 October Under the "Issues With Stewarding On Tuesday Night " thread. Page 12. Don't know how to copy it over to this thread but maybe someone more able than me could fire it across for you to have a read at. Thought you might have remembered that discussion though, as it followed post after post by you trying to justify standing side by side with your Green Brigade allies. And as if by magic. On the weekend before a Fans' Petition questioning the merits of the Legislation was due to be discussed at the Scottish Parliament, a number of your Celtic supporting friends decided to undo any progress achieved by disgracing themselves yet again at their cup tie in Stranraer. The media loved that one - Pyrotechnics, fighting with police/stewards and sectarian singing. A full house. No wonder the Politicians feel justified in supporting the legislation.

t you'll No, stayed to the end as usual. Think if you reread my post you'll see I said their keeper had only one save to make BEFORE Pearson scored. I might be wrong but I thought the saves you mention were after our goal. Suppose my point is that I expect our players to show some fight and passion throughout the whole match and not just the last five minutes. On that score, County were miles ahead. Just remembered the Cadden shot Fox shuffled round the post first half. That makes two fairly comfortable saves in 85 minutes.

Cutting through all the sentimental crap Kennedy was the better of the two full backs that started for Motherwell and sub Chalmers wasn't the only left back that couldn't pass, couldn't tackle and repeatedly got caught out of position. Lasley and Pearson....last 5 minutes excepted.....left it to a guy drafted in from the U20s to try and grab the game by the scruff of the neck and drive the team forward. Shameful. Yes, Cadden lost his man for the first goal, but don't ignore whose careless pass gave the ball away to set up the County attack which led to the corner. In the second half County looked like scoring every time they attacked. Until Pearson scored, their Goalkeeper really only had one save to make (Moult's header). Without several Ripley's saves, our goal would not have given us an outside chance of scraping a draw. The overall performance was flat and only McDonald of the senior players tried to gee things up. Too many players seemed to accept early in the second half that it was game over. If Plan A doesn't work anymore because Johnson is knackered or our opponents have us sussed, we need a Plan B.

Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that teams in the EPL will receive an average in excess of £10m for every league game played next season. if that's true then even paying £1m could be a punt worth taking from their point of view. On his day Marvin can tear teams apart....the problem being consistency. I'm pretty sure his agent could put together a pretty good DVD making Marvin look like a worldbeater. Looking at the way Bournemouth like to play, Marvin could fit into their system fairly easily. And if it did not work out, I'm pretty sure he could easily find another club in the Championship or Div 1. Smaller EPL clubs are willing to gamble relatively small sums in the hope of unearthing a gem. For instance, Mahrez only cost Leicester £400k and could be on his way to Man Utd for upwards of £20m. To a degree it would be the same on us taking a £50k punt on an unknown from Kidderminster. And if we were to get an offer remotely approaching £1m there really is no option but to accept it.

Ripley is a young keeper who is improving with every game he plays. Like every youngster he is prone to the odd error, but it appears he is willing to learn from his mistakes. Give me that any time if the only options are Samson or Twardzik, both of whom have a history of errors, have reached their peak and give little encouragement that any improvement is likely given game time. If possible, keep Ripley beyond January and do a deal to terminate Twardzik's contract.

Attended the meeting last night and came away with a mixture of positive and negative feelings. The first part of the Society portion was devoted to a promotional video and then Jim McMahon explaining the history of the Society and detailing how the involvement of Les Hutchison had impacted both MFC and Society. He confirmed the Society had committed to inject an additional £350k to the Club and also Guarantee the Loans provided by LH. It appears the Board had little option but to agree, if LH was to come on board. In truth there was little new information but at least some things were confirmed. The rest of the meeting was devoted to questions from the audience. My feeling (but those that were there will have their own opinion) was that the panel members were a lot less comfortable with that, unscripted, part of the evening, on at least one occasion disagreeing amongst themselves which looked poor. Questions were answered, but sometimes only after persistence from the questioner and at times it appeared to me as if there was an uncertainty about how detailed an answer should be given. Also, once or twice, panel members seemed to take matters personally which didn't help. Probably just me, but I couldn't help feeling that, in the mind of some of the Board, the meeting was about answering criticism rather than a genuine effort at open communication. The wee dig at Online Forums leaps to mind. I was surprised at how little involvement the Chairman had in the discussions. I thought it was fair enough to prioritise audience questions, but unfortunately that resulted in there being no time left to cover the questions submitted by those unable to attend. It might be that those questions were covered anyway, but maybe not. As I was leaving I suggested that answers to all questions whether asked during the evening or by EMail should be put on the web site as soon as possible. So what was confirmed? As far as I can remember, and in no particular order, - 1. The Society has fulfilled it's initial obligation under the Hutchison agreement by providing a Loan of £350 to MFC. There is no requirement to inject further funds, so the Society balances will grow month by month. When LH is fully repaid, all shares will be transferred to the Society for £1 in total. Society Funds grew by £9k last month. 2. MFC are responsible for all payments to LH. Only if the Football Club is unable to make the scheduled payments will the Society funds be utilised under the terms of the Guarantee. The next payment is due in December and the Club will have no difficulty in meeting that obligation. 3. The Society has loaned MFC £500k to date. In an attempt to protect Society funds in the event of MFC entering Administration, the Board undertook to investigate whether it would be possible to Secure the loans by way of a Charge over the assets of MFC. Les Hutchison and John Boyle are protected in this manner so it seems fair and reasonable that the Society be given the same safeguard. 4. MFC are gradually and carefully reducing expenditure so as to maintain stability, particularly player budget. Should be breaking even in around a year's time now that the correct structures are in place. The return of Rangers next season will assist greatly re gate income and sponsorship monies. I was a bit uncertain as to whether the sale of one player a year was essential to a return to profit or whether that was the icing on the cake. Jim McMahon seemed to start by saying it was essential and then suggested the budget changes would take care of it given a reasonable season on the field. 5. LH wants to see 1000 "active" Society Members to demonstrate sufficient support for fan ownership. The Society Board see 2000 "active" members as a target to aspire to. Nobody was able to really identify what exactly qualified as an "active" Member and how success could be quantified in that manner. Some of the audience felt that total funds collected allied to the number of members was a more meaningful measurement of success. The Board undertook to publish both Membership uptake and funds collected on a monthly basis for all to see. 6. 60% of Season Ticket holders are not members of the Society. They are to be specifically targeted by way of phone calls and EMails. The majority (I think) of those that joined the Society at the outset do not contribute on a monthly basis. I'm not sure of the exact numbers quoted so perhaps someone can confirm? 7. MFC were forced to sell Jamie Murphy on the cheap to ensure the payment of player wages. Sheffield United knew the situation and used it to their advantage. However, a sell on clause was agreed and resulted in the receipt of an additional £180k when Jamie moved to Brighton. Bearing in mind that he was soon to be out of contract, it wasn't really that bad a deal. 8. Doubts were raised regarding the viability of the Society taking over the ownership of the Club in the absence of a considerable Reserve Fund to cover short term Cash Flow difficulties. Say, for instance, all Society monies were required to repay Mr Hutchison. Jim McMahon indicated that he felt a balance of around £1m would be advisable and he suggested this was possible, providing MFC returned to profit and Society membership grew. As I said, my take on things and I will have missed something. But there you have it. Will I be setting up my Monthly Direct Debit? Not quite yet but I may do so depending on what steps are taken following the meeting and whether the promised improvement in communication and openness takes place. Time will tell.

Bob Crampsey. Football encyclopedia

Yeah, Tom feely as mentioned in a previous post. And it is good news that some of the Club's debt to Mr Hutchison has been repaid. Which of the Loans was actually partly repaid does matter though. It is in the Society's interest to see the arrears eliminated ASAP as that is one of the three strikes required to allow Mr Hutchison to opt out of his agreement to sell his shares to the Society for £1. Alternatively, if his additional Loan is not secured, it is in Mr H's interest to have that more at risk Loan repaid ahead of his protected Loan. He may of course have agreed to disregard the defaulted payment from June in view of the recent sum handed over. We don't know though. Just struck me. John Boyle was due (I think) £10k in June under the same repayment programme. Wonder if that payment was made. A question for next week perhaps

I was told the full £180k was part repayment of additional funds provided by Les Hutchison. I believe the "extra" he put in was around £350k. No mention was made of the arrears, although hopefully that has been sorted out in view of the 3 strikes threat. Unless I missed it, we just don't know. It looks like the priority is repayment of the monies not specifically covered by the original Security over the assets. Another 3 or 4 Lee Erwins and we might see some repayment of the help provided by the Society.

Correct. The Society has not yet made any direct payments to Mr Hutchison. But I think the point is that the Society Board committed to do so if the Club are unable to stick to the agreed repayment schedule. Admittedly, a gun was held to their heads. And almost immediately after that guarantee was given, MFC (and the Society?) default on the relatively small payment due in June...per Mr Hutchison's own press release to the Daily Mail. We can only assume that the arrears have since been paid..( The £180k payment, however welcome, was totally unrelated). We are left to guess whether MFC and The Society are still in a default situation as that has not been clarified.....via the Daily Mail or otherwise. And remember, three strikes and Mr Hutchison reserves the right to take whatever action he deems appropriate. Communication!

My word, what a lot of reading. A few nerves appear to have been hit but at least it's good to see such passion. Kind of suggests that we all want the same thing at the end of the day. I also think the majority of fans are aware of the situation when Mr Hutchison came on board and are thankful he did so. However, A few questions specifically for "wearemotherwell" 1. Do you think it's reasonable for current/potential Members to enquire whether the Football Club is either trading profitably or on track to do so, before donating more of their hard earned cash? You correctly state that the Society are the fall back should the Club fail to meet the scheduled Loan repayments to Mr Hutchison. However, IF the Club are continuing to incur losses on a monthly basis, then any additional funds collected by the Society are likely to disappear very quickly and I wonder how much would be available to meet the defaulted Loan payments. Confirmation that Society funds are likely to grow now or in the very near future, even if it is to facilitate repayment of Mr Hutchison, would surely encourage people to invest. 2. Do you think it is reasonable for Members to expect that any loans provided by the Society to MFC should be protected against the possibility of the Club entering Administration? A horrible thought, but a situation that must be considered. Mr Hutchison made damn sure he was covered against all eventualities by not only taking security over the Club's Assets but also insisting that any Society monies would revert to him if the Club could not meet it's commitment to him. Belt and Braces as they say. I accept the Society had no real choice given the circumstances at the time and that Mr H was in a very strong position to dictate his terms. John Boyle's Loan of £350k is also secured. I understand that the Society has loaned around £650k (apologies if that sum is not exact) with no repayment to date. However, unlike others, the Society has no security whatsoever and, in the event of Administration, it is debatable whether anything could be recovered. I think the Board should have acted in the interest of their Members and insisted that all loans be secured in the same manner as was insisted upon by Mr H and Mr B. It can still be done retrospectively with the agreement of Messrs Hutchison and Boyle. Confirmation that Society monies could be recovered in the event of Administration for use by future owners would also encourage people to invest. 3. With regard to Secrecy and Lack of Information, would you agree that it is unusual for those subjects to be discussed at Board meetings of both The Society and MFC, the decision being taken by both bodies that more openness was required? That is the reason for recent, more detailed Communications from the Society/Club Chairman and Les Hutchison. One thing cannot be denied, following discussions on this forum and elsewhere more information has become available. Hopefully that trend continues as the perception of secrecy and limited information release does little to encourage investment. And yes, some people will continue to make donations no matter what because of their love for our Club. I respect them for that. I just wonder how much more could be collected if potential donors were reassured regarding points 1 to 3?

Fair enough G&F and understandable. I'll just have to wait and see if Tom Feely's willingness to listen and attempt to effect change is shared by his Board colleagues. That's the real test I guess. I'm not ready to give in just yet, but thenI've not had the kick in the nuts you got.

Finally had a discussion with Tom Feely regarding my concerns. Have to say he came across as a genuine guy who shared many of our frustrations. Some of my questions regarding finances and Governance he was able to answer and others he needed to check out. We also discussed my (and some others) perception of the Society and the Board. There is a Society board meeting tomorrow and he promised to get back to me to supply more detailed answers and respond to a few suggestions/observations I made for Board consideration. When I hear how the Board respond to my comments I intend to share both my suggestions/comments and their response. Meantime, I can pass on the following information I was given which may be of interest. Doesn't answer everything, but it's a start. 1 Both Society and Club Boards recently agreed that more openness was essential. Some information is commercially sensitive, but wherever possible more effort will be made to keep us informed. The recent Chairman's update being a first attempt at this. 2 The payment of £180k to LH came from Club income and definitely not from Society Funds. Possibly transfer funds. 3 John Boyle is still owed a substantial amount (£350k?) from a Loan he provided. As long as the Club is adequately funded he is not looking for anything other than the agreed repayment schedule. He no longer holds any shares in MFC. 4 Les Hutchison and John Boyle hold Security over the Club's Assets and repayment of their loans is as laid out on schedule posted on this thread previously. 5 The £42 k donation from the Society to MFC related to a payment for benefits taken up by Society Members. The Club were due reimbursement from Renewal Fees as per an arrangement set up by Ms Dempster. A one off payment. 6 Several Loans have been made to MFC by The Society. None have been repaid as, when income has been received, it has been required elsewhere. It is still the intention that all Loan monies will eventually be returned to the Society. (Roll on Marv's £3m transfer to Arsenal!). I suggested that the Loans could no longer be regarded as short term and should therefore be Secured ASAP with The Society being included in the Bond and Floating Charge. We discussed Board Responsibilities, Perception, Communication, MFC's return to profitability and Mr Hutchison's influence. I followed up our meeting with a comprehensive Email which Tom agreed to present to the Board tomorrow. OK not an answer to everything and some stuff we either knew or suspected. But I was encouraged by Tom's willingness to listen to my concerns and take them forward. It was also positive to hear him say I could share our discussion with you guys. More to follow hopefully.

A thought provoking presentation which clearly took a sizeable effort, both in research and in the putting together of a reasoned, constructive argument. The fact you received no feedback, whether positive or negative, is shocking and must have been soul destroying. Perhaps the novel, inventive approach you were championing was far too radical for your audience and may even have left them feeling threatened in some way. Whatever, you deserve credit for at least trying to be of help. Given that the initiatives you outline require a joint approach from Club and Society, I wonder if you might receive a better welcome from some of the Club Board. Someone with Business experience outside the football environment and a willingness to challenge routine, outdated practices. Dare I say it, Les Hutchison or maybe Derek Weir if he is still an active member of the current set-up. Worth a try? Anyway, good effort and thanks for sharing

I think the constitution might have been amended in that I understand it now requires 10% of the Membership to call for an EGM whereas previously it was 5% of Membership. That seems reasonable enough given that it was agreed that anyone signing up would have immediate voting rights once their first monthly payment went through. For instance The Society could have been open to an organised group signing up and after one month calling for an EGM. Increasing the % reduces that possibility. In actual people terms 5% of Adult membership is not that much and at £5 a head it was possible, if unlikely. I understand the aims listed on the Web Site were amended as Steelboy suggests. I think to include the bit about helping the Club to pay it's Loans. I don't have a copy of the original Aims and Objectives, so regarding the change I am working from memory. Apologies if I have got it wrong on that front

In June this year, between them the Club and Society could not cobble together £40k to meet a loan repayment.....so said by Mr Hutchison to the Daily Mail. According to a previous post, when Security over the Club's assets was registered in January we owed Les £650k and John Boyle £350k. In the recent statement Les confirms that his debt rose to over £1m for the good reasons listed. No mention of JB having been repaid. On a positive note, £180k has been repaid to LH recently. Perhaps from Erwins transfer fee, perhaps from SPL income or perhaps with help from the Society. It seems unlikely the money came from week to week operations so that suggests we will need another Erwin like boost before the next sizeable payment falls due. Remember the repayment schedule was drawn up when we owed Mr H "only" £650k. Have the payments due gone up in line with the increased debt? That is relevant to Society members as the Society has responsibility for making sure payments are made on time. Now, I know we cannot expect miracles and it will take time for the Club to return to profitability on a regular basis. But are we getting there, are we on track, are we close to breaking even? Are monthly operational outgoings covered by regular monthly income? I don't know the answers to the financial questions, but it appears The Society Board and Les want the fans to dig deeper without the reassurance that the Society funds are likely to remain relatively untouched (and therefore grow)in the near future. One other point to consider, originally we were told loans by the Society would be short term and repaid as a matter of urgency. That was a massive selling point to many fans. Has the short term nature of the funding now been abandoned in favour of repaying Mr H? I had hoped to clarify some of the above during the phone call I was promised from Tom Feely, hopefully setting my mind at ease. Not to be it seems.

If I do have an axe to grind, it's not with the concept of the Well Society or the original ambition of establishing a Contingeancy Fund to support the Club through difficult times. That's why I was happy to contribute early doors and, following Les' assistance, was seriously considering contributing further on a monthly basis. However, following extensive discussion on this site and elsewhere I had doubts as to whether the original idea of a back up fund still existed or even if that was still possible. For Society monies to accumulate, the Club has to return to profitability and, in an ideal situation, be able to repay Mr Hutchison without recourse to the Society. Are we anywhere near that situation or are we at least "on track". Projections must have been produced when Mr Hutchison came on board. My concern is that the Society Board appear to have taken ownership of the debt and that repaying Mr Hutchison is their only real objective. Meantime, the Club continue to operate at a loss and therefore Society funds continue to be drained for day to day survival or to support the loan repayment schedule. Before I contribute further I only wish to be convinced that our original objective remains and is realistic. I also do not want any further contributions to disappear almost immediately, possibly never to be returned. One of my basic questions was " What is our current balance and by how much is it increasing each month?" Does anyone really think that is information we are not entitled to? So setting aside the broken promises and lack of meaningful communication I am actually still on board....just. Regarding the meeting in November, I was told that because of the volume of questions that current and prospective members had. A meeting was being arranged to address ALL issues. I do accept that having a joint meeting will in all likelihood attract a greater audience, but it will restrict discussion on Society matters and is not what was originally suggested. So, not the rankings of a paranoid, disaffected Member, but I instead genuine concerns from someone who wants both the Club and Society to prosper in the not too distant future.