David

They can certainly assist the current club board where possible. However, the responsibility clearly lies with the well-paid individuals who are experienced in such matters to actually do their job. Our new CEO hasn't been in the position for long. I would be more than happy to continue as we are and see what ideas and plans he has (why not set a date of July 1st for his plan?) Despite some reports to the contrary, we're not heading towards disaster without an additional £300,000 a year. You wouldn't think so with the amount of chat about "pressure" on the Society board. What about the pressure on the CEO and the club board to actually do the job?

That's how investment works, though. Nothing is a sure thing. The bigger question here is, is there interest in a club in Scottish football? For me, if the right kind of investor is approached, the answer is yes. It just takes a bit of "out the box" thinking. However, none of that should involve someone coming in and expecting to be given overall control. Or to have the Well Society holdings diluted below 51%. There's a ton of things that can be tightened up and changed on that side of things for sure. That's where I hope to see the current CEO step up and make some changes.

With recent resignations there will be places available on the board. Why don't you run and get the job done?

Is it, though? As others have mentioned, is it really the responsibility of a group of volunteers to create an investment plan for a million-pound business? Doesn't some of the responsibility for that lie with the CEO of the company? You know, the person who's being well paid to do that job? Or even the Chairman? Or is it a case of fans sitting back and saying, "Well, the club and board have voted in favour of the current offer from Barmack. Now it's up to the Society volunteers to better it, or we go with the sub-standard first offer"? Here's an idea. Why not hold the board of the club and the new CEO accountable for doing their jobs? The fact that they proudly voted in favour of recommending the current offer is alarming, to say the least. Here's a question. If the Society somehow came up with a way to raise an extra few million pounds for the club, do we want the individuals who saw fit to recommend the current offer from Barmack being in charge of how that money is spent? Sorry, but for me, this isn't on the Society. This is on the board. If they honestly believe this offer is as good as it's going to get for a club like ours, then we really need to be asking questions about their suitability for the roles they're in.

Although Budge has an emotional attachment to Hearts, correct? If we had a Lanarkshire version of Anne Budge we'd be laughing. There are ways to do it even outwith that scenario though. I've done it with companies I've worked with, and I've offered up assistance to the Society on that front. I will also say that they're a lot more receptive since the new board came into play. In my experience, anyway.

This is where it can get tricky. Tricky, but not impossible. We ideally need to find revenue streams from investors that don't involve us handing over control of the club.

This is crucial for me. In my opinion, many people are mistakenly assuming that a potential investor seeking a 49% shareholding means the Society retains control. This is not necessarily the case. The key point for me is that the Society itself must retain a minimum of 51% control. Could we negotiate to reduce our holdings from the current 71%? Absolutely. There is room for negotiation with the right party, but our holding simply cannot fall below 51%. That is my firm boundary.

To be fair, achieving success in business doesn’t automatically make someone unpleasant. Much of reaching that level involves building relationships and being trustworthy and reliable enough that others want to work with them. There are always bad apples in every industry and at every level of business. However, the stereotype of the evil, ruthless multi-millionaire who seeks only to make a quick profit at others’ expense is just that—a stereotype.

The thing is, we're not turning down £2 million investment. We'd be essentially turning down a £2 million offer for control of the club.

There are ways we can raise the required funds via outside sources without handing over the keys to the castle. It can be done, and it wouldn't be that difficult really.

I mean a business plan that would demonstrate to us, the Motherwell fanbase and Society membership, that the deal is of benefit to us long-term.

Ah, the classic "I don't actually have a business plan, so I'll just throw out a modern-business word salad in the hopes that the plebs are blinded by mentions of "Netflix" and "Los Angeles-based" operator"

Is that what's being offered? I haven't seen any concrete business plan to suggest that?

When we get right down to the brass tacks here, what we're effectively doing is giving away majority control of the club to someone for less than £2 million. If that's what some fans value the club at, then that's fair enough. I think it's laughable, though.

Safeguarded, for now. There's no mention of what happens to said assets after the initial six years have passed, and the Barmacks effectively control 49% of the club, and Erik has the deciding say on tied matters. At that point any agreement made now could be completely changed.

While we should all be very wary of that offer, and I certainly don't see the value in it at all, I would be keen to know exactly how the Barmack's arrived at the valuation they have of the club? I assume it's not just a number plucked out of thin air? So, while the offer should, in my opinion, be rejected, I'd like to know the workings of their valuation.

I don't have the documentation to hand, but I'm sure that I read somewhere that a club using access to international payments to "sweeten deals" for said player is illegal under UEFA rules? I'm not sure of the legal chit chat around it, but i doubt we'd be willing to cause that kind of scrutiny and potential issues for the sums mentioned.

Nope, that money will all go to the club.

Considering what we've been paying him, and what Rangers will likely be paying him, I'm sure he'd have managed during those tough two weeks without pay. Maybe a payday loan to cover him until that first Rangers wage hits the bank?

All depends if they fancy moving here permanently. Players say all the right things at the end of their loan spell, but it doesn't mean they want to come back.

I think Bair, at his age and with his physical attributes and a willingness to learn, should be worth around the £1 million mark. At least initially. I'd be looking to bake into the deal some sell-ons and performance-related add-ons if it was me. That means any buying club is at worst getting a "punt" for £1 million, which isn't much to a bigger team in a top league, and if they see success then we get a smaller percentage of that.

Or, more likely, we could look to sell for a relatively agreeable fee of £1 million initially and then add performance-related bonuses that double that or beyond. It would obviously depend on the player's value to the buying club and what scoring a decent haul of goals would be worth to them.

Yeah, the top league in Scotland. And he's scored like that for one season out of like seven seasons. If we get a million quid for him we're doing quite well considering what he's done thus far. I'd take that and move on to the next project.

It's a completely different market down south, and shouldn't be compared to our league. The only thing we have in common is the land mass we live on, nothing more. What it comes down to is the player's valuation in our eyes and whether he wants the move. We need to look at what he's done, which is one season of fairly prolific goalscoring in a career in which he's not done anything of note for most of it. Is his current deal structured so that we can add another year to it if we choose? And even if we can do that, if a move has turned the player's head, would it be wise to do so?

Were they okay, though? Really? The results wouldn't really suggest that. Blaney and Casey will stay unless someone comes in with an offer for them, which is unlikely, given our form last season. So they're both here for next season. For me, we should be looking to assess players with a number of criteria in the summer. That including: 1. Are they a sellable asset? Is it worth keeping them with the hope of selling at a profit in a year or two? 2. Are they on an upward trajectory? Or at least maintaining a standard of form that we deem acceptable? Looking at O'Donnell, he clearly doesn't fit the first category. And it's arguable that he's maintaining a standard of form that is acceptable. It could even be claimed he's on a downward trajectory at this stage of his career. At best he could be retained as a squad player and experienced head, but as I said before, his contract would need to reflect that. McGinn is a slightly different proposition in that while he doesn't meet the first category, he has at least maintained a level of form that is acceptable at our level. I would even say he should be our captain heading into next season. Mugabi meets neither of the conditions. If he is re-signed then it should sound some alarm bells. As far as waiting to see who we sign before stressing about who we've re-signed, it's worth noting that by that time, it won't matter. O'Donnell is here for the next two years. If Mugabi re-signs, he'll be here for the next year or two. For a club that consistently bangs on about having a smaller budget, we don't mind throwing money at people who don't really deserve it. Be it underperforming players being re-signed or injured players who will contribute nothing being signed under the category of "doing the right thing."