StAndrew7

Yeah, agreed.

Some footballers, yes. Bair and SODs have probably had the worst of it from our support this season in my experience; they're model citizens on and off the park. Georgie Gent another one. The kid's what, 19/20? How does he warrant the abuse and vitriol he's had at points. People had made up their mind about Bair before he'd kicked a ball and based on what, exactly? In depth analysis of his time at St Johnstone, watching every minute he'd played? Nah. They saw an easy target and went for him.

... so the professional players, doing their job on the pitch, deserve/should be OK with being on the receiving end of all of that pent up rage? As much as I agree with the sentiment (I lose my shit a fair bit at games, as we all do I guess) surely there's a line that needs careful consideration and we need to remember that the people on the pitch are every bit as human/vulnerable as we are.

The irony of that tweet is not lost on me following the Casey/oor wee laddie Ross McCausland reaction.

Nae idea. The guy named is/was involved in Cambridge United purchasing their stadium back, based on what some StJ fans are saying on P&B.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cd1qzn95ez5o Double post but there's St Johnstone's deal gone through. Interesting to hear their terms/valuation.

Interesting at the end that they've apparently sold a 5% share of the club to Necaxa, as well.

I'm not sure he was ever going to progress that much with us given where we signed him from. He was signed to do a job, has done it relatively well over the time he's been with us but, along with the rest of our back line, has had an absolute nightmare this season and is (rightly, I guess) being judged on that rather than the body of his work. A clean break does make some sense, particularly if we want to bring in a "proper" centre back type to play centrally in the three and hopefully provide more leadership in the back line and the team in general.

I would absolutely be looking to retain McGinn; from what I've heard there's a deal there for him to stay and he's good with it, but wants to make sure we're staying in Premiership first. I'd also be keen to retain SODs, particularly if Kettlewell wants to keep the back three; I think he's a really good option as a right side wide centre back. I think his pace has slowed (he's never been the quickest, I'll admit) but he is still a capable and relatively reliable option/pro to have around. If it's a toss of a coin between Bevis and SODs, in our current system I'd probably want to keep Bevis and just tell him to get the ball to fuck whenever it comes near him to minimise his brainfarts. I can see us keeping SODs and losing Bevis, though. It's going to have a very busy summer, we essentially need to replace the entire spine of our team, including finding some creativity with Spittal going and Slattery's future also unclear. We're looking at a rough requirement for what, 2 goalkeepers, 4 defenders (2x CB, 2x WB), 3 midfielders, 2 or 3 forwards (striker, winger(s))? Now, that's assuming none of the current crop of young players break into the first team. I'm expecting at least one or two across those positions to do so.

Well his contract is up, so I guess that's part of it. A lot will depend on his recovery time post surgery; I could see us offering him another year with a (preferably club controlled) further option to extend.

To get back to us looking at signings, I worked in Accrington for just shy of 3 years and keep tabs on them as a club, as a few colleagues were fans and I went along to some games. They've got a winger there called Jack Nolan who I (think) is out of contract in the summer. He's scored 15 goals this year and could be in our price bracket. I guess it depends on other interest and what system Kettlewell wants to play next year.

He's also more of an established international than Bair and has scored 24 goals this season, including four in Europe. He's not worth £8million but he's probably getting on for being in the region of £3 - £4million as an overall package, maybe not in straight up fees.

Aye, I'd be inclined to agree with that. There are a lot more benefits as well; car schemes, accommodation paid for, performance related bonuses etc. so the equivalent "take home" is probably higher as an overall value but not so much in salary terms.

It's a natural progression to point to them, given that they're the ones who we're negotiating exclusively with right now. It was stated by the Chairman at the AGM that any of the potential investors discussed (including the "Americans" in this instance) would be making their investment in new shares i.e. diluting the value of existing shareholders' shares in the club to whatever level is agreed. As far as I'm aware it's the cleanest way for any investment to take place, as it removes the need for buying/selling of existing shares.

Nope, direct from the AGM in this instance.

This is a quote from me and others, based on my report back on what was said the AGM. Jim McMahon said that any new investments will be made by the issuing of new shares not the purchase of existing ones. Now, that may well change based on the discussions but that's as good a source as we have right now. @steelboy is correct in what he's saying.

He did. He's here until the summer or 2026, most likely to be sold next January or the summer of 2025 I would imagine.

The Companies House thing happens every year I think, if you look back at previous accounting periods. There's nothing out of the ordinary there. I suspect this year it will also be dependent on the changes to the board structure agreed at the AGM. And agreed, the WS is essentially a piggy bank right now. Far removed from what it was initially set up to be. I believe that shift was part of the deal with Les; although as I'm not a member I can't confirm if that was ever voted on?

This is it exactly for me. The club has always (since administration etc. anyway) operated under a model where we need to sell a player every other year to keep the books balanced, or sell a Turnbull every three or so. The WS' funds essentially became a way for the club to keep things balanced in leaner times after Les came in, and that's absolutely worked and kept the club afloat. I would argue that's not necessarily true fan ownership, which is why I'm intrigued to see what the new WS board have to offer in terms of growing that to something even more meaningful. However, there's also no reason that the work they're doing can't be done alongside an investor who wants to work with the WS to do that, using their own business experience and skills to supplement what is already there. My line in the sand for all of this has always been 51/49 ownership in favour of the fans. If it goes beyond that (even if it takes years, or is performance based etc.) it's a no from me. Also, there is far, far more to any potential takeover than can be acutely summarised on a forum like this. Like I'm enjoying the debate and discussion but we also need to know a significant amount of what we're reading here and in the press is speculation. e.g. The actual, financial valuation of the club and its assets (rather than the emotional one we as fans put on it) calculated by forensic accountants/finance specialists and then adding in any potential clauses the WS want around ensuring that if they lost majority ownership, there is first refusal on the investor's shares if/when they choose to go or sell up. This is all, of course, dependent on it getting to the stage of there being an actual offer for the club that the Exec Board deems worth considering. Exclusivity of negotiations doesn't guarantee that will happen. One (final, I promise) point; none of the potential investors we have attracted so far are offering to put "transformational" amounts of money into the club. So whatever happens in that regard, I believe the WS will have to continue in some capacity to support the club in leaner times. Like you said @joewarkfanclub we need to be very careful when coming to a decision. Personally, I think there is a model where the WS and any investor(s) could work together (whilst the WS/fans retains majority ownership under whatever structure is negotiated) to build the former and help the latter get a return on their investment, leaving the club in a stronger position than it was. There is nuance to that which will take time to work out, if it is indeed an option, but the devil, as always, will be in the detail.

The chat I've heard is he's happy to stay and has a deal essentially agreed but not until he knows we're staying in the Premiership.

From what I can remember, it was part of this interview Derek Weir gave. I don't have time to find the right section though.

And that's your prerogative, but don't criticise others because they chose to question what, in their eyes, is a poorly constructed article written by a Motherwell fan because it's written by a Motherwell fan.

No, but if someone has told them the details of the deal, they have. So he is potentially accepting information from a commercially sensitive negotiation which is under exclusivity and I would imagine non-disclosure agreements. And yes. It's telling us those things. Without anything to back up the first point, stating the obvious in the second and telling us something else we already knew. Pulitzer prize stuff, this.

Because that's not how journalism is supposed to work? That article is pure speculation with quotes from an interview he didn't conduct. He published nonsense about the accounts/Kilmarnock earlier in the year and his points were very quickly shot down by the Club/Weir in an interview in January. If anything I'm questioning his motives more because he's a Motherwell fan, rather than taking him at his word. Also, Barmack is an ex-VP of Netflix and has actually gone on the record about things, why not take him at his word? Edit: for the record, if it does turn out he's after majority ownership, he can get in the sea. But we haven't had that "confirmed" by any means.

There is literally nothing in that article that backs that up, other than the opening paragraph and it saying the WS voted it would consider it. I would hardly say that it's "confirmed" because of who his dad is/was. Because if that is the reason he's in the know, that's undermining the potential outcome of an ongoing commercial/financial negotiation and would be incredibly unprofessional from both of them. But y'know, it pushes an agenda.