dennyc

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.

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