David

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."

I'm in the camp of being happy to have O'Donnell and McGinn mainly as squad players, but the caveat to that is that they should be on reduced terms. We obviously have no way of knowing that. I wouldn't have brought back Slattery, and I wouldn't bring back Mugabi. if Kettlewell decides that both of them are in his plans, he best hope they perform.

I'm not really sure what's hard to understand. We didn't do well last year. We played poorly for much of the season, and aside from Dundee who took a beating from teams following the split, we were among the highest goals conceded teams in the league. In fact, I think we were joint-worst outside of the bottom two. The defence was a problem. Even the most optimistic fans can see that. This is why it makes little sense to approach a summer when we would have the opportunity to revamp the defence by re-signing many of the players who caused our defensive issues. By re-signing O'Donnell, McGinn, and possibly Mugabi, we would now have those three, along with Blaney and Casey, under contract. What scope does that leave for significant additions to the defence beyond a couple of loan players? If we go into the new season with largely the same individuals in defence, and we start seeing the same results, then it only makes sense Kettlewell will be under pressure from the off. I could understand that if we had to go back to those players later in the summer after failing to get other players in, but that's not the case. We offered Mugabi, O'Donnell and McGinn new contracts as soon as the season finished, so how do we know who we could and couldn't get? 100%. Which is why wasting money on players like Mugabi will see questions being asked, and rightly so. This situation has nothing to do with investment. It concerns our immediately offering new terms to players who didn't perform well last season.

Okay. Do you want to see Mugabi back next season?

What was the point, though? That we're Motherwell, and we should just be happy to re-sign the players who were part of the issue last season?

That's our only choice, right? We either re-sign the same players from last season or bring in top-tier English Premier League players to replace them. Personally, I'm fine with O'Donnell and McGinn getting new contracts, but I understand why some fans might not be pleased given our team's performance last season. Being Motherwell doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to improve. Butcher played fewer than 20 games for us last season, so his departure doesn't significantly affect our starting defence. I don't mind the re-signing of O'Donnell and McGinn, as long as there's a clear plan for their roles this coming season. Mugabi's situation is puzzling because he was a significant part of our poor defence last season. Offering him a new deal is baffling to me; he's simply not good enough. There's a good chance we'll start next season with a team that looks much like the one that finished last season, with a few new loans and punts added in. If that's the case and we continue our poor performance, Kettlewell will have no grounds for complaint when the pressure mounts early in the season.

I can understand why some members of our support are feeling nervous right now. While keeping O'Donnell as a squad player isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's a concern that we'll re-sign some players as "squad players" only to have them end up as regular starters once the season begins. Having almost the same defense, along with our former backup keeper as the main goalkeeper, doesn't really inspire much confidence, whether justified or not.

100%. The key is in the actual hard facts of the proposal. So we'll see what he puts forward. If there are fans who think finishing 9th and 7th over the past two seasons isn't good enough for a club our size, especially given the managerial and upper management upheaval we've experienced, they might need to reassess their expectations. Understanding the context is crucial in evaluating our recent seasons. We've gone through multiple managers and lost a long-time CEO, who was challenging to replace. Now, if we finish 9th again next season with a more stable backroom and corporate staff, then questions may be warranted. For me, progress for a club like ours goes beyond league placement. It doesn't tell the full story. For instance, we finished 5th not long ago, and those same fans still felt it wasn't good enough. Personally, I want to see improvements in our youth development, player recruitment, and the reasoning behind new player contracts. As you mentioned, the past few seasons have been subpar, according to some. Yet, people seem satisfied with bringing back players who contributed to our lacklustre performances. One thing I'd point out is that every time we approach a summer where many underperforming players are nearing the end of their contracts, we see it as a chance for a fresh start. However, we often choose not to make changes. This ties back to my earlier comment about refining our processes and moving forward as a club. We either believe that these players, who haven't succeeded recently, are actually good enough (which is alarming), or our recruitment team isn't capable of finding better replacements. The fact that we've offered new deals to so many players who contributed to our past seasons' shortcomings is a bigger problem than anything else.

A few points on what you've said there: I believe this applies to Scottish football as a whole. The quality has declined as other leagues have grown financially and attracted the best young players. This trend has impacted many leagues of similar standing, and unfortunately, no amount of investment will change that. Are our peers moving in the opposite direction? How many times have we heard that before? Would it be that surprising if next season, we discover a few hidden talents and finish fifth or sixth while teams like St Mirren, Dundee United, and Kilmarnock struggle? If someone told me that's how the next season would unfold, I wouldn't be surprised. This league is notoriously unpredictable. I also don't believe we're just lucky. In the past 10 years, we've only been seriously threatened by relegation once, finishing 9th, 7th, 5th, 8th, 3rd, 8th, 7th, 9th, 5th, and 11th. That's not luck. Claiming so disrespects the managers and players who have worked hard to achieve those league finishes. That's your perspective. I'm not going to predict where we'll be in the future because that's purely speculative. I'm focused on what we've achieved so far and our current position. We've experienced a lot of upheaval recently, including having three different managers the season before last. Despite all that, we never faced a serious threat of relegation. Now, we have more stability with a talented young manager in charge, and we boast one of the best young midfielders in the Scottish game. Let's see how Ross County, St Mirren, Kilmarnock, Dundee, St Johnstone, and even Dundee United perform next season. I'm sure there will be some surprises, and we'll be right in the mix. What is the current funding model? Certainly, that’s not always the case. If the person negotiating with the club had a deep emotional connection to it, my perspective might be different. Such connections can motivate someone to willingly lose money on a football club because they genuinely want to make a positive impact. Now, if someone like Barmack, who has no real attachment to the club, comes in and is willing to defer to the Well Society on major decisions and is happy to actively lose money, then fair enough. I’d admit I was wrong. However, I would be very surprised if that happens for several reasons. First, individuals like him don’t typically amass their wealth by giving away money or investing in ventures with minimal return potential. Second, they rarely invest significant amounts of money without retaining control over how the business is run. This is especially true when the majority of decisions are made by a group with little to no business experience at this level. Do you really think someone like Barmack would be content to play second fiddle to the Well Society? As will I. I just hope no one is swayed by his rhetoric about synergy, passion, narratives, and value creation. I want to see a straightforward plan that clearly outlines what he stands to gain from this deal and how it will generate a return on investment for him while also providing value for us.

Well, ten years ago, we had just finished 2nd during that weird time there was no Rangers, but we were heading into a season that would see us finish 11th and survive a play-off to avoid relegation, which highlights the unpredictable nature of Scottish football. We had just signed Dan Twardzik, Josh Law, Lionel Ainsworth, Scott McDonald, Nathan Thomas and a returning Stephen Pearson all on free transfers. Our average home league attendance was 4,176. Five years ago, we were heading into a season where we'd finish third, but we had just come off a season where we finished 8th, which is a role reversal of the situation five years previously. Notable signings include Declan Gallagher, Liam polworth, Casper Sloth, Christian Ilic, and later in the season we signed Bevis Mugabi and Tony Watt. We also sold James Scott for a decent profit. Our average home league attendance was 5,246. Three years ago, we were heading into Graham Alexander's first full season and would finish 5th after coming off a season where we finished 8th. Notable signings include Kevin Van Veen, Kaiyne Woolery, Liam Kelly, Sean Goss, and Sol Johansen. We lost Tony Watt in January. Our average home league attendance was 5,142. I throw all of that information into this reply because it would help suggest that we haven't really declined all that much. Ten years ago, we had a great season followed by a shit season where we survived by the skin of our playoff teeth. Five years ago, we were just off a really good season and would have a decidedly ordinary season the next year. Alexander took us to 5th, which was great, but he wasn't the manager we wanted, and almost everyone wanted him out. Over that ten-year period, we've signed some right shite, and we've unearthed a few gems. We've lost good players for nothing and gotten good fees for some of them. I'd have to say that I don't think we've declined, really. We've done what we always do, which is bounce around the top to middle half of the bottom six, with the occasional foray into the top six itself. You're right about us being proactive. But I don't think money is the answer to that. There is a lot that can be cleaned up and changed about how we spend the money we currently get. I believe that is more important than hoping some American Netflix guy is going to come in and solve all our problems. Again, if some investor can come in and tell us as a majority ownership group of this club exactly how they plan to invest money into a Scottish football club and make a return on that investment that not only benefits them but also the club, I'd be extremely interested to hear how that can be done. As will virtually every other Scottish football club outside the two Glasgow clubs.

The outside party involvement will depend on a few points though, won't it? For example, will they want majority control? Or, will they be happy to put their money into an entity yet have no overall say on club decisions? It's also worth asking exactly what 'growing the club' actually means? Scottish football is such that there's a definitive ceiling for any club not called Celtic or Rangers. So, what is growth? Top six finishes? We already manage that on occasion, and we've seen clubs who have thrown a lot more money around than us not manage to nail down top six as a given every season.

I'm not so sure that will be the case. I remember much despair when we were outbid for Van Veen in January. How did that play out? I remember when we were essentially priced out of the services of Tony Watt. How did that play out? There are clubs who have outbid and outspent us regularly and who have all tasted life outside the top division of Scotland. How many times have we dropped down a division in recent times? For me, it's more about being smarter in what we do. We need to implement better strategies for recruitment, both on the playing and coaching side. We need to be finding those players who are on their way up before other teams around us even know who they are. For the above, we don't really need a sizeable injection of funds. In my opinion, we are fortunate to have a manager in place who is a superior coach compared to some of the teams around us, despite what some of our fans may say. He's managed to extract far more from certain players than other coaches have been able to. An example would be Van Veen. Are we to believe he's suddenly regressed to the point where he's of no use to a side like Kilmarnock? Or, was it the case that we have a coach in place who knows how to get the best out of him? The same goes for Bair. There are ways we can increase the club's income without engaging in the kind of involvement we've seen mentioned (I refuse to call it investment until I see actual evidence that it falls within the parameters that make it worthy of that term), but it would take a fairly drastic change in the way the people in charge of the club think and do things. As we've seen elsewhere in our game, when you have the same old way of thinking, no amount of "investment" is going to really make any difference.