dennyc

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.

So are we saying the original statement said that the Society paid off 200k but it has now been amended to say the club in fact paid over 180k? Surely they can't have got that wrong

At least two people have stood down recently "for personal reasons". Was announced on the Web Site so no secret. I assume Office Bearers who wish to continue have to be re-elected at the AGM. Just read the blurb again about the meeting in November. Given that it's a shared platform, I'm not so sure how much time or opportunity there will be for in depth questioning. Whether that's by design I do not know. I intend to send in a few questions and hopefully can get through to Motherwell to see if they get brought up. It's a pity we are not having a Q&A devoted solely to the Society as they really do need to clarify matters to be able to push on

When two positions on the Board became vacant several months ago, I understand someone who contributes regularly to this Forum contacted the Chairman to discuss taking up one of the positions. I am told the answer was " You can apply if you wish, but we have already identified the replacements". I have no proof of course, but I have no reason to doubt that what I was told is true. Just adds to the nagging doubts.

In a reply to concerns being raised on this Forum, someone from the Society came on and suggested that anyone could put concerns in writing to the Society and someone would be happy to respond. Not special treatment, just following their suggestion. And I have already fired money in. Before I fire any more in, I would like to know that it's not going straight out again. To be clear, I have doubts that it is actually building up a Contingeancy Fund for use further down the line or that that is even still the intention. All I read is that we...The Society... have to pay off Mr Hutchison. It took 3 Emails before I got the first response from Tom Feely

You mean I might not be welcomed with open arms at the forthcoming "let's reveal all" get together. Joking aside, I was actually quite encouraged when Tom Feely (Accountant) eventually got in touch saying he was happy to discuss the situation and had Board permission to share information. Was hoping for a good, constructive chat which would maybe allay the fears I have about the governance of the Society and lack of routine information being made available. Alas, my optimism was misplaced. Re the meeting. Could it not have been arranged to take place after a Home game making it more likely that fans who have to travel a fair distance might attend?

EMAIL received 20 October I refer to your e-mail sent previously to The Society and to Brian out Chairman. Firstly my apologies for the delay. I was in Canada for almost 3 weeks and then was in Portugal following my second team so I am only now beginning to catch up. And it has been left to me to pass appropriate details on to you. If you could pass on to me your home or mobile phone numbers , I will arrange to give you a call. I think that doing so and having a chat would be a better way of updating you. EMAIL received 28 October Apologies for the wee delay in getting back to you. I was holding of until our Board meeting had been held on Monday and I also knew that I had received an invitation to attend the Club Board meeting held after ours. The bottom line is that it is now accepted by all that we should be allowed to provide more information to our members. Previously the Club had regarded some details as being confidential and commercially sensitive. I will phone you later today for a chat and details are being officially released to all shortly. Speak to you soon. Above are copies of 2 EMails I received from Tom Feely of the Well Society. They were in response to several Emails I sent in early October following lengthy discussions on this forum and listed various concerns. The majority of the concerns related to Communication, Finances, the Relationship to Mr Hutchison and the Board's responsibility to Members. Despite the promises made, I have received no phone call from Mr Feely although I do acknowledge that a Members' meeting has now been arranged for this month. Hopefully The Society will be permitted (by Mr Hutchison?) to share some meaningful information. A firm indication as to when up to date Financial Accounts will be made available to Members and some clarification regarding the ownership of the debt to Mr Hutchison would be a good start. Goggles & Flippers is spot on....Communication has been woeful and the secrecy evident would put the Masonic Brotherhood to shame. You could almost believe that the Society is not allowed to make a move without the approval of Mr Hutchison

I accept that our fans can be impatient, but in my opinion they would a lot more patient with a youngster like Watt than they currently are with the dross which has featured at right back this season. As an example re youngsters, Thomas makes plenty of mistakes when he comes on and the fans don't get on his back. Law gets abuse the moment he steps on the park. Laing was just rank rotten and looked lost in an unfamiliar position. Most fans round me were disappointed Watt was not first choice at the beginning of the season and are keen for him to come in ASAP. Quite a few go along to the Under 20s and say he is a standout when selected. I honestly believe he is our best prospect (hate that word) and needs to be tested to progress. If not given his chance very soon, there is a danger he will go the way of McHugh and the like. More importantly, we must get the right back position sorted.

Only pre season I know, but Watt looked far and away the best right back we have. Able to control a ball, tackle, could beat an opponent One on one going forward and did not get ruffled. Compare that to Law and the nightmare that Laing dished up. Time to give him a chance or else what is the point. Maybe if he had not gone battling on a night out he would have been in already. Oh, nearly forgot, he can also shoot which is a novelty in this team

As a well intended suggestion - If you want to effect change, first get your own fans and Club on board, then other fans and other football clubs, then the media, then the Football authorities and then (dare I say it) the Police. Only then will the politicians listen when you approach them. It will be a long, frustrating journey but worth it in the end. You could start by asking fans to sign a petition at our home games. Like minded fans of other teams could do the same. I'm sure most would be happy to support a carefully worded statement. Gather enough names and present that to MFC to open discussions and secure their support. And so on and so on up the line. If you have already tried petitioning at Home games, then I must have missed it. The action you are taking at present only alienates those whose support you require to be successful. It also gives the Media a chance to distort your intentions and provides Politicians with validation for the Bill.

Had not seen any of the newspaper reports regarding the protest so just had a quick search online. Sadly, the impression given in the three examples I read is that the Celtic fans (supported by supporters of Motherwell) were demonstrating against a Bill trying to eradicate Bigotry from football. I know that is not an accurate description and doesn't tell the true picture, but many people reading the articles will get entirely the wrong impression of The Bois' intention. I did not see any mention of over enthusiastic stewarding/policing or criminalisation of people for very minor offences. Nor did I see any explanatory comments from a Bois' representative. You are not going to get a fair hearing from the Media following such a protest and in fact I fear your justifiable cause may have been damaged. As for everyone talking about it. On this Forum I would suggest most people are talking about your bed partners rather than the particular complaints you wanted to highlight. In fact, most posters are already aware of the way fans are treated and witness it week on week. Also, you may well have given the Authorities more ammunition to use against you. Genuine causes for complaint. But I fear the demonstration did more harm than good on several fronts. I also get the horrible feeling you guys have been "used".

Dee, Most fans of all teams...certainly those who attend games on a regular basis...would agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say. The heavy hands stuff is spot on and the actions of some stewards and some police at some clubs are excessive. So by all means highlight that fact. However, the Legislation itself was not brought in to stop you guys banging your drum or supporting your team through thick and thin. The legislation was brought into being to specifically address the vile behaviour of groups such as The Green Brigade. You are protesting against the same legislation but with a different end picture in mind. By all means join forces with right thinking fans of other clubs, but please do not associate The Bois name and that of Motherwell Football Club with such a poisonous group.

By all means protest against the legislation if you feel justified. But let's not pretend that The Green Brigade are driven by the same good intended motives as The Bois. The Green Brigade wish to be allowed to legally display their vile, sectarian banners and to openly celebrate murderers and terrorists. By standing beside them the Bois will be looked upon by many as supporting their cause. And in direct answer to your comment, It's not odd at all. it's just that most folk who know anything about football in Scotland know exactly what the Green Brigade are all about.

Accepting that it was not the intention, standing side by side with The Green Brigade gave the impression that the Bois support that groups right to display vile, offensive banners, chant repugnant songs and generally cause havoc at away grounds. Someone compared today to an own goal. Spot on. Not intended but still a self inflicted wound. The legislation was brought in because all is not as it should be and unfortunately lesser legislation has proved ineffective, particularly in the west of Scotland. Just maybe it's not the Law which is wrong, but the over zealousness of Police/Stewards to enforce it coupled with a determination of some fans from various clubs to challenge it. Without The Bois, Fir Park would often be a soulless, depressing place for our team to perform in. I fear that if the present trend continues then their absence is inevitable.

24.1.76 Scottish Cup Motherwell 3 Celtic 2. Come back from two down at half time with Willie P streaking away and battering in the winner right in front of us. No segregation so surrounded by Celtic fans. So fed up at Half Time that we downed our substantial carry out before the start of the second half. From what I can remember I really enjoyed that 45 minutes and being in their midst just made it all the sweeter. God knows how we got out alive. Think they had cuffed us at Fir Park a few weeks earlier so we had been written off. Reading other posts, I can remember most of the games and in truth any one of them would make my list. Privilaged.

Quite honestly I don't think any official of Club or Society does anything without Les Hutchison's say so. No hard proof, just a nagging doubt. With the football club I can almost understand it being the case, but no way should it be the same with the Society. Somebody from the Society please prove I am wrong

John Boyle still has a Charge as it would seem he is still owed £350k. It also appears that in June of this year the Club and the Society between them could not cobble together £40k to meet payments due to Messrs Hutchison and Boyle in reduction of the Loans secured by Fir Park. The Standard Security was registered in January 2015 and there does not appear to have been any change since.

Andy, I get where you're coming from but this is the where doubt lingers regarding ongoing donations. Your assumption is a big one. When considering starting up my £10 payments, one of the concerns I raised a month ago was about this very aspect. I asked for clarification regarding... 1 What is the Current Balance of WS monies. 2. How much has been ingathered in total. 3 How much has been provided to MFC and how much has been repaid to date. To date I have received no answer which worries me as the figures should be readily to hand and should surely be open to Members. Formal Accounts are only available up to June 2014 and as such provide no clarity regarding the ongoing position. If funds have been provided to assist Cash Flow, then well and good. But is it still the intention that these loans are to be repaid ASAP? That question also remains unanswered and the change to the Society objectives confuses matters further. It must be remembered that the responsibility of the Society Board Members should first of all be to the fans and NOT the Football Club and/or Les Hutchison. The more that basic questions remain unanswered the more it seems that there is a blurring of the lines. To stimulate take up of Membership I just cannot understand why the Society Chairman will not publically address all the concerns raised by fans with the best interest of the Society and Football Club at heart. A month ago I was told plans were in hand for a meeting within two weeks to publically address whatever issues Members wished to raise. I was also advised that fans who could not attend could submit questions online and a full Q&A response would be posted on the Web Site. Again, nothing, which does little to inspire confidence that all is well and above board Without doubt, transparency is an issue. I can only reiterate, I too want to start providing funds on a monthly basis and for the Society to be a success. However, Unlike Andy P, I will not do so until such time as I am convinced that any monies collected are being utilised in the manner promised when the Society was established. Probably just a coincidence, but since I submitted my questions to the Society I have received no phone calls asking me to consider starting up a standing Order. Prior to my EMail, I received at least one phone call per week and several Emails.

Good words. However - 18 September - EMailed Society as a concerned Society Member asking for clarification on a few concerns (following discussions on SOL). 21 September - Prompt response from Craig Hughes. Chairman and Accountant on trips overseas but questions will be dealt with upon return. Also advised of plans to hold meeting within 2 weeks or so to discuss fans escalating concerns. 07 October - No further response so chased up. 12 October - Response from Craig Hughes apologising for delay and promising to push for answers to my concerns ASAP. So almost a month and no meaningful response. Ok, I understand the Football Club has had a busy time of late, but surely just one Society Board member could find the time to respond. The points I raised were fairly basic relating to membership, finance, objectives and ownership of Mr Hutchison's repayment. My request was also before it became apparent that John Boyle had perhaps not been repaid as many had believed and that the aims of the Society appeared to have been altered as Steelboy brought to our attention. Hope my concerns are misplaced and I do eventually receive some clarification. But meantime the doubts continue.

Whether or not you agree with David's rather extreme approach to effecting change, there is a great deal of truth in what he says regarding the way the Club and the Society are being run....directly or indirectly by Mr Hutchinson and in the performance of some players. Do I want attendances to dwindle even further? No. Do I want us to wither and die? No Do I want David's grievances addressed? Yes.

Initially when I heard about the transfer arrangement I thought it was out of order and would result in a conflict of interest. But really I think it all depends on the strategy of the football club and how determined they are to get the correct manager to carry that strategy forward. For instance, if we brought in a Manager who could attract players from lower league clubs for relatively small fees, develop them and sell them on after a few years for a substantial profit then I could live with him getting a small percentage of the profit generated. Maybe even be able to negotiate a lower basic salary on the basis of a "bonus" coming when his projects move on. Where I would have a problem, and where I think it went belly-up at United, is where the Chairman decides to sell at a critical time in the Club's season....such as just before a Cup Semi or Final. I'm pretty sure MacNamara would have wanted to keep the players until the end of the season but had to fall in line with his Chairman. I think it is much more unethical for a Club Chairman to benefit from player sales. Oh that we were in the position to be able to sell players the way United have over the past few years.

The artificial surface had nothing to do with our defeat. In fact, the players looked more comfortable on it than they have in any of our games on it in recent years. That might be down to the improved surface installed in the close season. Our defeat was down to not closing down one cross, a defender being unable to defend the cross, a forward being unable to put away chances and a referee refusing to give a last minute penalty. Compared to previous games against Accies, we were more competitive, refused to be bullied and were actually a bit unlucky to lose. The two players who usually make us look like amateurs....Crawford and Imrie....had their moments but were nothing like as effective as last season.

For info from an EMail I received today after sending in a few questions. I have passed your questions on to chairman Brian McCafferty. Brian is travelling at the moment however will send on a response as soon as possible. Our board member Tom Feely who deals with the accounts will also be able to provide you with full accurate figures as soon as he returns from holiday in Canada. We are also arranging a Q&A over the next couple of weeks. We are looking at having one event where members send in their questions for the board which will be recorded and put on our website and another live event. I will keep you posted on the details.