David

When people talk about “investors” in the context of clubs like Motherwell, it is important to be clear about what sort of investor is actually being discussed. The reality is that Motherwell does not appeal to most modern football investors, and that is not a criticism of the club. It is simply a reflection of economic reality. The type of investor who might be drawn to Motherwell is usually motivated by values rather than financial return. These are typically people who are already financially secure and are interested in stewardship, legacy, and being associated with a proper football club with deep roots. They are not looking to double their money. What they want is a club that is well run, stable, and still standing decades from now. The attraction lies in authenticity, community, and involvement in something that genuinely matters at a local level. They also tend to be patient and knowledgeable about football. They understand the constraints of Scottish football and accept that relegation risk is part of the landscape. They recognise the need to keep wages under control and know that chasing ambition without the resources to support it usually ends badly. These investors are not imagining regular European qualification or Premier League style valuations. Their focus is on sustainability, sensible player trading, and maintaining competitiveness without putting the club’s future at risk. Where Motherwell can make sense is through minority or carefully structured investment. This suits investors who do not require full control, who are comfortable with influence rather than ownership, and who prioritise protections over power. That approach aligns far better with a fan ownership model than someone arriving with the intention of running everything themselves. So why do most investors avoid clubs like Motherwell? Firstly, there is no obvious growth narrative. There is no major upside from television deals, no vast global fanbase waiting to be monetised, and no realistic path to becoming a regular presence in European competition. For investors focused on scale and rapid growth, Motherwell appears constrained from the outset. Secondly, the downside risk is severe. Relegation would significantly damage revenues and confidence, and a swift recovery is never guaranteed. From an investment perspective, this often looks like limited upside paired with substantial downside, which is enough to put many people off immediately. Thirdly, revenues have a clear ceiling. Matchday income, sponsorship, and broadcasting all have hard limits that even excellent management cannot fundamentally change. You can run the club better, but you cannot transform it into something it is not. Governance is another concern. Fan involvement brings many positives, but investors often worry about slower decision making, internal politics, and blurred lines of authority. Most investors prefer clean structures and the ability to make decisions quickly. By its nature, Motherwell does not operate in that way. Finally, exit options are unclear. Most investors want a clear sense of how they might eventually realise their investment. With clubs like Motherwell, there is rarely a straightforward answer. There is no obvious queue of buyers, no flotation on the horizon, and no guaranteed uplift in valuation. The honest position is this. Motherwell is not for those chasing big returns. It suits realistic, patient people who care about stability, community, and preserving a real football club that can remain competitive over the long term. If the club is ever presented as something it is not, investors will spot that immediately. But if it is open and honest about what it is, there will always be people willing to get involved. They just will not be the ones you see featured in Netflix documentaries.

Can't agree there, Kelly got tons of grief when his form dropped.

Christ almighty.

I have literally never met a Motherwell fan who wanted us to merge with Accies. Ever.

Anyone got Ellery Balcombe's number?

Known in Lanarkshire circles as "the cheap option."

I would be more worried if we'd brought in a manager who had started talking about "good honest professionals" who "run their socks off." Personally, I want modern and new dimensions. As I've heard people say in the past, if we're going to be pushing for top six/finishing 7th-9th, let's at least make it exciting for the people who part with their hard earned cash to watch.

Not at all, I think the more discussion and ideas being exchanged, the better.

Can you provide some examples? Don't feel like you have to, I just found this comment interesting.

And I would have been very surprised if you'd said anything other than that.

It really depends on what the club wants. If it wants pragmatic solidity, clear structure, and safety-first organisation that grinds results, Neilson is your man. If they prefer high-intensity pressing, rapid transitions, attacking fluidity, and a knack for developing youth talent, someone like Wimmer offers a more modern, progressive style.

If we're looking for adventure, I'd rather we looked overseas. The idea of having Brown, who will be under the media spotlight as a "former Celtic man" throughout his tenure with us isn't really the kind of adventure I want. He'll never be "Scott Brown, Motherwell manager," he'll always be "Scott Brown, former Celtic player and scourge of Rangers." If we're looking at hiring a Scottish manager, I'd choose Neilson over Brown.

Personality is all well and good, but I’d take a manager who knows how to get results any day. Neilson might not light up a press conference, but he’s shown he can win games in Scotland. A win rate of 51 percent across more than 400 matches as a manager. He guided Hearts to the Championship title twice, once in a league that included both Hibs and Rangers, and again in a season with Dundee in the mix. He also led Dundee United to the title. He’s taken a team to a Scottish Cup final and secured a third-place finish as well. If we’re judging Scottish managers purely on achievements and consistency, I’d say he’s well ahead of Brown at this stage.

Not at all. My point is that we need to move with the times. Look at the other leagues in Europe. They see foreign coaches all the time, it's commonplace. But in Scotland, we still look at a foreign coach as something exotic and risky, when in truth, it's not any more risky than appointing someone like Pressley or Neilson. I was more questioning your logic behind the notion that a less-than-stellar experience with Wimmer would represent a need to return to the status quo. I don't agree with that at all.

This is what I heard also, although not in any official capacity. And as you say, that is a private matter. What I am confident of is that it wasn't a case of him arriving at Motherwell and deciding he missed his family. He knew exactly what would be required, in the short-term at least, when it came to that side of things.

So, going by your reckoning, and as weeyin says above, a new manager who we recruit from the south of England would fall into the "unfamiliar foreigner" category.

I know a few things have been floated out there, but I don't believe that Wimmer left because he missed his family. There was more to it than that.

The Wimmer situation was simply a case of bad luck. These things happen. What’s baffling is that some people still view overseas managers as though they’re strangers from another world, like we’re stuck in the late nineties. Football is more international now than it’s ever been. We should be focused on finding the right person for the role, regardless of where they come from. Their nationality shouldn’t matter.

I’m actually with you on a lot of that, especially when it comes to Scott Brown. I didn't really like him as a player, but I’d be kidding myself if I said he wasn’t a real leader. The man was a proper competitor, and he’s clearly serious about making his mark in management. What he managed at Fleetwood under difficult circumstances, and now at Ayr, deserves a bit of credit. If he were willing to buy into what this club stands for — the community, the youth setup, the Society — then I’d absolutely be open to it. That said, I think the whole analytics thing often gets taken the wrong way. It’s not about choosing a manager because a spreadsheet says so. It’s just another tool to help guide the decision-making, not to replace gut instinct, not to ignore interviews or understanding what the club’s all about, but to add to that picture. Saying the data would have pointed to Kettlewell at the time is probably true, he was doing well by the numbers. The issue came later, when there wasn’t a structure around him to turn short-term results into something sustainable. The data didn’t get it wrong. The problem was, in my opinion, that the club didn’t use everything it had in the right way. People always bring up Cathro, but that was more about Hearts throwing someone with no real experience into the deep end. Critchley didn’t set the place alight, fair enough, but he wasn’t picked purely on stats. He had a strong background with youth players and links to a top setup at Liverpool. Again, it’s more about whether the club gave them the proper support than about any numbers someone ran on a spreadsheet. The truth is, some of the most progressive clubs in the game, including Brighton, Brentford, and even Liverpool, all rely on smart data alongside strong football minds. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. So aye, bring the candidates in. See who really understands what Motherwell’s about. But I’d want the Board to have every possible insight in front of them before making a decision, especially in a league where the margins are razor-thin. As for Brown, he’s more than earned the right to be part of the conversation. Let’s just make sure we’re not going for anyone based purely on name or sentiment. Whether it’s Brown, someone from overseas, or a name that’s not even on the radar yet, it’s got to be the best possible fit for where we are and where we’re trying to go.

If the same thorough and analytical process the club used to identify Wimmer doesn’t point to Foster, Neilson, or any of the names currently being linked in the press as the right fit, then they won't be considered I'd imagine.

Celtic have been wearing hoops on their home shirts since as far back as 1904. While the shade of green might shift slightly from time to time, or there may be a faint pattern woven into the hoops, the core design remains instantly recognisable around the world. Newcastle have stuck with black and white stripes since 1894. The width of the stripes has varied, and the trim has seen changes over the years, but the overall look has stayed the same. Now compare that to us. Is the message here that our home kit doesn’t really have an identity of its own beyond the colour palette? From a branding perspective, the approach we take is baffling. We’ve got a distinctive colour combination, yet we’ve never settled on a consistent design to anchor it. There’s nothing wrong with tweaking the details (a different collar, a shift in trim, even the size or placement of a central band), but let’s not kid ourselves. Clubs like Celtic and Newcastle have a look that’s unmistakably theirs. We don’t.

Looks to me like they’ve tried to cram two different designs onto the same shirt. I just don’t get why we can’t stick with the amber shirt and claret band. It’s distinctive and people recognise it as ours. Do other clubs mess about with their traditional look as much as we do? Take Celtic, for instance – they keep their hoops. You don’t see Manchester United randomly switching to stripes, do you? Maybe one shirt in the last twenty years had a “V” on it, but they mostly stick to their main design and colours. There are still two other kits each season where you can be as creative as you like.

The only positive in that appointment would be to play the drinking game every time a Scottish journalist or media personality described the move as "box office."

Wait, you're saying that me wearing the latest shirt while shopping at Wishaw retail park isn't going to help G4Claims land new business?

The club has made clear that it's using the same approach and framework as the one that brought us Wimmer, so unless Pressley falls within those parameters, I doubt we'll see him anywhere near the job.