David
-
Posts
5,774 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
81
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by David
-
-
8 hours ago, Mortonhallwell said:
I'm sure we could recruit an equally talented shot stopper who is a better all round keeper than Kelly on the same or even less money.
I doubt it. While we're all over here slagging Kelly off, we conveniently forget the absolute bomb scares we've had previously.
That's the problem with having a few decent keepers over the past 15 years or so. Fans think that they're easy to come by.
-
On 4/6/2024 at 12:29 PM, weeyin said:
We did well to get the best from him when we did.
A quote we could very well be using to talk about Bair if we punt him for £750,000. Which is why the club will likely snap the hand off any club offering that kind of dough.
-
25 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
Personally I feel quite sorry for Theo because I think the criticism he was getting all over social media was a bit over the top - and at some point I think you get to a point where you wonder if it's going to have a negative effect.
For me anyway this season all over social media I've seen players and Kettlewell slaughtered really badly. More than I can remember.
It really comes down to the criticism and how it's delivered. I doubt that Bair would have any issue with anyone calling into question his record before he arrived at Motherwell or people questioning our signing him based on that record.
If we're honest, it was absolutely honking. He'll likely be the first to admit that. He's not an idiot. He'll know his record wasn't great.
Another key aspect is being critical of the player's performance and his record without getting personal.
But those same fans who were critical of him are now giving him his due credit, so it works both ways, doesn't it?
Social media is a cesspool anyway, and any player who reacts to that really needs to sort themselves out.
Once we step into the stadium, all that criticism should go out the window. It's at that point we support the team and the manager. I don't think booing or hurling abuse from the stands is acceptable.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:
Surely its acceptable to post that although a players record at his previous club is poor, you are happy to see what the manager can do with him and judge him then.
Or opine that without the full information regarding investment you dont have a position one way or the other?
These are both opinions.
Not everything is black and white.
Of course it's acceptable to have those opinions.
The difference is, it's usually the people who want to wait to see what a manager can do or who want to wait for full information on investment who are the ones telling others to basically shut up.
There's room for all types of opinions. That's the whole point of this website. We're fans. If we only ever discussed facts or waited until October or November to critique a player then this place would be a ghost town most of the time.
-
3 hours ago, grizzlyg said:
I also find all the talk about Theo very interesting. Cue start of season and the guy was being written off before he had kicked a ball. I confess I was also a doubt but I wasnt on slating him. I feel we are far too early to judge players though I guess all clubs are the same. Vale was criticised before signing and looking now like Halliday will be the next boo boy, it takes time for players to settle so let's all give them a chance. Remember.....shouting and booing a player is hardly going to help their confidence.
It should be pointed out that there's a huge difference between us signing a player, fans looking at his previous record and discussing how he's performed up until that point, how we think he'll do for us and so on, and actually booing him at a game.
The former is a large part of what being a fan of any club is all about. Chatting about speculation, looking at previous stats and so on and discussing how he's done until then and guessing how he'll fit into our squad and setup.
If we all stop doing that and only discuss players once they've signed and only strictly discuss how they do for us, and even then only how they do for us after an agreed-upon period of time to allow them to settle in, we'd be as well binning this forum and others like it.
It's like the investment thread and the individuals who keep saying, "Let's wait until something is concrete before discussing it."
What's the fun in that? If you don't want to discuss it, then don't log in. Go and wait in the corner for official confirmation before weighing in. Leave the rest of us to pass the time discussing signings, speculating about new owners, and generally talking shite. It's what fans have done since the game originated. Previously, it was only done in pubs and workplaces; now, it's done online as well.
It's all part of the fun of being a fan.
3 hours ago, wellgirl said:I boo no one. Never have and never will.
Thanks for letting us all know 😉
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, ropy said:
Did he get a pay off, i.e. have St Johnstone effectively paid his salary this year and we are topping it up with the buttons that was reported earlier in the season.
I imagine he's likely gotten anywhere between 30%-70% of the total value left on his contract paid to him.
-
11 hours ago, wellfan said:
If Bair continues to improve and score more goals, his goal contribution alone could be worth more than £750K in cup runs and league placing next season.
The best-case scenario would be that he signs a one-year extension on improved personal terms until the end of season 2025/26, he performs like a Messi/Haaland hybrid next season, then is sold for 4x that figure next summer.
Or we sell him this summer for £750K, spend it on a few English lower-league jobbers, then hope that Moses becomes Messi(ah) next season.
That's a big "if" though, isn't it? As I said earlier, we don't know what our team will look like next season. Will Bair be as effective without the likes of Spittal in midfield?
What if he picks up an injury? What if, and I hope it's not true, this season is his "Van Veen season"?
£750,000 is a fair price for a guy who's really done nothing of note until this season. Any team paying that would basically be taking a punt on him. Sure, English teams can spend more, but would they spend more on a guy who has one good season in seven under his belt?
6 hours ago, wellgirl said:It's been said publicly in the press that he's one of our lowest paid players and that he took a drop in wages to come to us.
He didn't really take a drop in wages though. He didn't force a move from St Johnstone to join us, he agreed to terminate his contract by mutual consent with the club because they deemed him a waste of time and money and he wasn't getting much game time promised to him.
So, when he signed for us a month or so later he was basically earning nothing. I doubt there was a whole lot of teams blowing up his agents phone wanting to pay him more than we were offering either.
-
-
5 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:
There are lots of variable factors but Theo has scored 13 goals and prior to this season had a total of 8 senior goals.
That's the main factor I think. Like it or not, clubs down south will be looking at a player like Bair as a punt. They're always going to be asking "yes, he's done that in Scotland against the teams in that league, but can he cut it in the big time down south?"
We could keep him for another year. But there's always the risk that he returns to previous form depending on what the team looks like around him next season. Will he be the same player without Spittal in the side?
Not sure that's a risk we can take. We ideally need to bring these players in then move them on at a decent profit. Bair would fit the bill in that regard.
-
12 hours ago, dennyc said:
So why can't we strive to have a balance that incorporates outside investment on acceptable terms plus income from player sales plus a growing Well Society? Especially if that additional investment is used in part to fund a stronger and more productive youth programme. Then any on field performance above the level budgeted for results in growth and does not mean we just stand still at best.
So, all we're looking for is an investor who gives us money but doesn't want a controlling stake in how and where his money is spent, the ability to sell our young players for a profit that the club keeps, and more people joining the Well Society?
Sounds amazing, but incredibly unrealistic to me.
Again, we come back to this word "investment" when in reality what we want is someone to give us money to compete with other clubs who are spending outwith their means, and for that individual to find some vague, unknown way that they can see an ROI that doesn't affect the club in any way.
-
13 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:
There is a huge difference between increasing revenue streams and taking on outside investment.
This is it in a nutshell. There's a huge difference between increasing revenue streams and basically living outwith our means and hoping some wealthy individual will cover the shortfall.
-
13 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
I don't think the club is run badly but as I've said before. I'd like to see us be in the situation where we didn't need to sell our best players to survive and thats why I'm open to outside investment
We don't need to sell our best player to survive. Not if we're budgeting accordingly, and we're budgeting for that 10th place finish at worst.
Selling our best players should result in some financial leeway and a cushion of sorts, the way the Turnbull money did.
-
On 4/18/2024 at 2:42 PM, FirParkCornerExile said:
Exactly its a precarious operating model. We need more regular definite funds not funds that are rely on the exception rather than the rule. The WS need to tell us how they will achieve that.
It's not precarious if the club is run correctly.
We budget for finishing 10th and a few cup games, and anything else above & beyond that goes into the "rainy day" fund. Be it player sales, extended cup runs, top six finishes, whatever.
For example, we're sitting 8th at the moment, and let's say that finishing in 8th means getting £1.375 million instead of the £1.250 million the team finishing 10th gets.
That's an extra hundred grand or so that we didn't account for, so it's a little bonus.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, wellgirl said:
How I feel about the need for outside investment came long before anything to do with Bermack.
And to be fair to him he has said nothing publicly about having to reduce the share to less than 51 per cent. That may well be his view. But he hasn't stated that. Other people have. Like Gavin McCafferty.
I don't care about Netflix either or Hollywood connections. I don't even have a TV and I don't watch Netflix. I just wont write off someone wanting to invest in my club at this point
Yeah, and that's all well & good. And you're entitled to that opinion, but the truth is that the majority of people do have televisions, and have had Netflix at some point in their lives. So it will have an effect. It adds credibility in some ways, doesn't it? That's why the media have mentioned it a few times. It's only natural that people hear about an investor and want to know what he's done. The fact he's not been with Netflix for quite some time doesn't really matter.
And I wouldn't expect him to say anything of real substance about the investment publicly, not if he's a savvy operator. Only an absolute fool would come in and say "yeah, I won't be investing unless I get total control." And he doesn't strike me as a fool. The reason people like McCafferty are saying it is because as journalists they'll know how this kind of thing usually works.
As I've said a few times, if he comes in, puts in a fair chunk of cash and does so without wanting to have majority ownership and thus final say over what happens to the money he invests then I'll be pleasantly surprised. He'll be a unicorn of sorts in the investment world.
Because investors only really come in for a few reasons. The first is a financial return. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the reasoning behind this venture. There's typically not a lot of ROI in Scottish football.
The other is because it's a useful asset to have as part of a portfolio of companies, which is where the control factor comes in. It's not quite as useful if the final say on important matters rests with a fan group. Such a framework is usually seen as a roadblock more than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually find out that the Society retaining majority ownership is a deal-breaker.
Again, we'll see how it plays out. It should be interesting. All I know is, if someone is wealthy enough to invest in the club and we hand them majority control, they won't need my regular monthly subs. I pay that amount because we're a fan-owned club and the fans are majority owners.
As @steelboy has said, I fully expect that we'll be told that having a 30% holding or whatever alongside his investment is the best of both worlds. And it might very well be. It could all work out fantastically.
I guess it depends on if we want to take the risk that it might not.
-
4 hours ago, wellgirl said:
But fans have the option to say no
Of course they do, but as I said, there's quite clearly (in my view) a drive to funnel the fans down the avenue of us desperately needing outside investment. It's not an overt drive, but it's definitely there.
And I personally think it's succeeding. I believe if Erik Bermack, positioned as the "Netflix guy" with "Hollywood connections" as we've seen in the media so far, is officially positioned as wanting to come in and take us to " the next level" but only if the Society drops to less than 50% control that the fans will vote in favour.
4 hours ago, wellgirl said:Asking for outside investment isn't the same thing as giving up fan ownership - the fans get making the decision as to what happens with the well society
Again, as I said, asking for outside investment of a level that will make any real difference will most likely come with giving up fan ownership, for the reasons I mention. Very few successful businessmen are going to come in, risk their own money, give up their own time and expertise, yet remain answerable to a fan group.
It's incredibly unlikely to happen. These types of guys are used to calling the shots. And this will be no different in my opinion.
-
5 hours ago, steelboy said:
Even McGinn knows the team are dog shit.
I think they are the worst bunch of players we have had in a long time but there's still zero chance they are getting relegated now.
The thing is, you're in the investment thread talking about how the Well Society has been a success. If you think the team as it is is "dog shit" then you're not going to be any happier next season or the season after if we remain as a fan-owned club.
Because we simply do not have the money to increase spending on players I don't think.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:
As for David’s post above I don’t agree that we are being drip fed info via the media designed to get us to give up control. As for the WS will need to give up control narrative, again I disagree as the clubs not a loss making enterprise - our profit/losses over the last 7 years pretty much even out but future ground improvement’s are needed and will put us into loss more over the next 5-10 years no matter player sales - and although could survive without investment all be it probably in a poorer fashion.
The question is how is he going to get a return on his investment? The options I can see are either through a % of player transfer fees, some sort of media involvement or a combination of both. These don’t require total control of the club but more a clear contract which states where and on what his investment can be spent, what % of transfer fees he gets (if this is even on his agenda) and what is expected from the club and society.How he gets a return on his investment is simply one part of the equation. I actually think the biggest bugbear for someone who's relatively self-made with a ton of cash will be having to run things past a group of unqualified individuals in the form of fan ownership.
I have absolutely no doubt that someone of that standing would happily accept an element of fan input and would be happy to listen to ideas, but they'll want to be the decision-makers.
In my experience, investors and operators at that level don't really like taking orders from anyone. They call the shots.
I'd be willing to put my life savings on Erik Barmack coming in being contingent on the Well Society ceding majority control.
1 hour ago, santheman said:tbf I haven't really read anywhere except on here that there's a targeted attempt to give up fan ownership.
Nah, the whole drive from the club of late has been with the angle of giving up fan control. From the marketing video to the lengthy interviews we've seen on YouTube to the question asked via the email poll.
Everything has been geared towards convincing fans that giving up majority control is the way forward. Which is fine, if that's what the majority eventually vote for then I hope it goes well.
I won't be putting another penny into the Well Society once that happens, though. At that point, I'm a customer. The guy who owns the club is the one who finances it. He doesn't need my monthly contribution.
-
Interesting reading here for sure, and as much as it surprises me to be saying this, SteelBoy is on the money with a lot of what he's saying in my opinion.
In my experience, people with the financial clout to invest heavily in a football club aren't the type to accept a situation where they have to run their decisions and plans past a majority holding group made up, for the most part, of people who have nowhere near the same level of business experience as they do.
If they're putting a considerable amount of money into any venture, they'll expect to make at least that and more back on the other side. That's simply how it is. They're not coming and giving up time and money for nothing.
This suggests to me that they'll want majority control and will not be answerable to the Well Society. No serious investor would accept risking their capital in an industry that is difficult to profit from at the best of times without having majority control over how that entity is run and, more importantly, how their money is spent. The Well Society and any votes in the future would simply be seen as inconveniences and roadblocks to the real professionals doing their jobs. Which is maximising profit for the owner on their investment.
The most concerning thing for any football fan is that most owners who do not have an emotional attachment to the club they own often see it as just another business venture.
Venture is the key word there. Defined as "an undertaking involving chance or risk" or "a speculative business enterprise," which in most cases means that the investor takes a chance, and has an amount of money they're willing to lose before declaring the venture a loss. At that point, they cut it loose and let it sink.
It happens to companies every day. It's just that those companies ordinarily don't have fans.
I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong on that count and see a unicorn in the form of someone with a ton of cash and no real emotional attachment to the club happy to throw cash into the pot and basically cede overall control and direction to the Well Society. I don't see it happening, though.
As has been mentioned already, fan ownership gives us many things, but the most important is that it gives us our club.
If the Well Society loses majority control (if it happens), it will no longer be our club—it will be the new owners' club. At that point, we will be just customers.
Most of the noise surrounding this issue seems to be paving the way for a change in majority ownership. Again, this is just my opinion based on what I've experienced in the past.
Losing majority control of something like a football is a hard sell to fans. The only way to really accomplish that is to convince said fans via various PR means that there's not really any other option moving forward. Vague mentions of financial issues and a drip-style media campaign that gets fans used to the idea of giving up control.
Again, I'm not saying this is what is happening, but it looks a lot like it from the outside.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
-
5
-
-
14 hours ago, wellfan said:
I'm just not a happy clapper.
I don't think anyone will ever confuse you for that. Happy? Very rarely. Clapper? I doubt you clap much at Fir Park.
10 hours ago, wellgirl said:I would personally give the young boys a chance once we are mathematically safe.
So would I, if they're good enough. Even once we're mathematically safe, we should push to finish as high up the table as possible. The difference between finishing 7th and 9th could be something like £125,000.
Considering we're pushing for outside investment and needing cash, that money should be a priority.
-
I remember the Record back in the day when, even if I didn't agree with what they posted, they had actual journalists writing the content and reporting the stories.
It's a shadow of the publication it once was.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
The Rancid is reporting that SK is trying to fix up Georgie Gent and Jack Vale for next season. I hope he can pull that off ,but fear its a pipedream. .
The Rancid put out a report today that mentioned Rangers had already beaten Dundee and taken three points from Dens Park "last night."
The fact they don't even seem to know what day it is makes me question anything they have to say regarding us.
-
1 hour ago, grizzlyg said:
There will be folk who will never be convinced but I really like the guy.
It's worth remembering that certain people who will remain nameless have been greetin' about every manager we've had for years now. Those same people were moaning about Robinson, Alexander, McGhee, Baraclough, McCall, and on and on.
And if and when Kettlewell moves on, they'll do the same about the next guy. Some folk just get a kick out of being negative.
I personally think he's a very good coach for us. Sure, there are better ones out there, but we're Motherwell. I'm not sure many better managers would be throwing people out of the way to get to Fir Park and work with our budget.
If we make the top six this season, considering the squad we have? I'd say that's pretty astounding. It won't stop some people from focusing on the teams who didn't make the top six, though, and saying that it wasn't because of us being decent.
-
2
-
4
-
-
38 minutes ago, stv said:
If it was easy everyone would be doing it no just like us typing opinions with no consequences.
Its up to him to sort out the first half performance thats our obvious weak spot. What your using as , reasons , applies to all the other teams in the leauge as well.Would be interesting to see thetimes this season we started the second half at least goal down or not in the lead . Its glaringly obvious he has to do something to improve the first half performances. Maybe hes still learning but i still think its overthinking tactics and what opposition will do before a ball is kicked.
Of course it's up to him to sort out how we start games. But that doesn't mean that the reasons I provided are any less valid, and yes, other teams in the league do face the same issues.
We'll start some games well, and we'll start some games badly. Like most other teams in our league. We're a small club with a small budget, and the players we sign will very likely be inconsistent, which is why they're playing for Motherwell and not a bigger club.
-
54 minutes ago, stv said:
Over the season his starting tactics have generally been crap. How many time do we loose the first goal and are shite in the first half. But fair play to him he has changed a lot of games by tactical switches but thats usually when hes seen the game pan out and when we are down by a goal or two. Think how well we would be doing if he could manage the first half of a game better. Hence so many draws.
How about giving the halftime talk before kickoff.
If only it were that simple, eh?
The current manager has probably had to work with one of the smallest playing budgets our club has had in recent times. That's clearly reflected in the players we have.
There are a lot of reasons why we don't start some games all that well. Factors such as early goals, injuries, or unexpected opposition tactics all necessitate on-the-fly adaptations by the manager. That applies to all managers of all teams, of course. There are times when we start a game really well, and it's then on the opposition coaching team to work out a way to combat that. I mean, generally, one of the two teams in any game has to start off as the better side. So there's a 50/50 chance it will be us.
Many people seem to overlook the fact that the opposition's response adds another layer of complexity. We don't operate in a vacuum. It's not just about what we do. The opposition plays a part in the game as well. They may make tactical changes during the game, requiring the manager to react accordingly, which Kettlewell has shown on a few occasions he's more than capable of doing.
How many fans of clubs do you hear moaning about no "plan B"? Well, that's not really a problem for us, as Kettlewell has shown he has the ability to read and react to a number of circumstances, which considering the quality and budget he has available, is admirable on its own.
I'd go as far as to say that a top six finish with the current squad we have would be nothing short of astounding.
-
4
-
2024/25 Ins & Outs Discussion
in Club Chat
Posted
If Kelly was just as good at commanding his area, distribution, and coming for crosses as he is at shot-stopping, he wouldn't be at Motherwell.
Players who are competent in all areas and who consistently play relatively well will draw interest from further up the food chain.
I'm not saying we should retain Kelly or that he's worth what he's getting at the moment, but the notion that some fans have that we can simply let him walk and find another keeper who's just as good or even better for less money is unlikely.