David

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.

This perspective always intrigues me. What is the status quo? From what I understand, the current approach is to live within our means, which we should always aim to do, regardless of any external financial support. It seems that we budget based on finishing in 10th place, without any significant cup runs, relying on television and gate revenue, supplemented by smaller income streams. If someone injects money into the club and the wage bill increases beyond our sustainable budget, we risk significant financial trouble. No business would operate by spending beyond its means, and football clubs should be no different. It's crucial to recognise the financial constraints of our limited fan base. We cannot rely on the volunteers of the Well Society board to magically generate more funds. This underscores the need for us to be even more responsible in our financial decisions. There are some opportunities to increase revenue, but there is no magic solution that will allow us to compete with teams backed by wealthy owners who spend beyond the club's actual means. It's important to learn from history. The overspending approach has historically led to problems, not just in other Scottish clubs, but even within our own. This should serve as a reminder of the necessity of financial responsibility.

No, I think most fans would be interested in investment. However, what we're often discussing isn't true investment. Instead, most fans are talking about someone giving us money to spend on players we can't really afford. If someone is serious about investing, they need to clearly state how much they plan to invest and show exactly how they expect to get a return on that investment. That's the key aspect for me. By definition, an investment must provide a tangible return for the investor. What I find concerning is the lack of specificity in the proposals we've seen so far. For instance, the individual we've been linked with seems to rely on vague terms like 'narratives ', 'connecting dots ', 'TikTok ', 'building value ', and 'passion '. These are industry buzzwords that don't provide a clear plan of action. I hope I'm wrong and that we get something solid from this guy, but if I had to guess, I'd say we're not going to get a straight answer about his plans. If he were a serious investor, his answer to the BBC and any other media outfit contacting him about the potential deal would have been "no comment."

I'm not sure I buy (excuse the pun) into that, really. It makes sense that if a kit goes on sale in June, it'll sell more than a shirt that goes on sale in August, simply because it's available those extra few months in the summer. I know at least three people who every single year say that if the kits went on sale before they went on holiday, they'd buy a shirt for themselves and also kits for their kids to wear. When they come back and it goes on sale in August? It's a case of they'll "get around to it", which often means they don't buy it at all or eventually get it in the sale. I just find it mental that we often have our new kit go on sale after the summer. And if Macron can't be arsed putting ours together early because we're not as profitable, then we maybe need to look elsewhere.

Or we could just bring our kit out from June? Imagine if we had pre-orders available now? And a new kit available from the first few weeks of next month?

I never said that we "sign a league." I said that when we sign players from the lower reaches of the English game our fans tend to complain a bit, despite the quality being comparable with the Championship, if not better. Of course, it always depends on the player. But scoring goals in the Championship isn't an indicator of their ability to do it at our level, as evidenced by Shields's time here.

Not that every Championship-level striker will do as badly as Shields, of course. But the gulf in quality is there for us to see when the playoffs happen each year usually. Some fans complain when we sign a no-name player from the lower reaches of the English league, but I'd hazard a guess that the leagues we're signing from down south are likely better quality overall than the Championship up here.

I wonder if this will be another year where we don't release our new strip until the last kick? And lose out on potential sales that could be made during the Scottish summer, school holidays and so on?

Worth remembering the last guy we signed from the Championship who had hit double figures in that league. He proceeded to come to us and score 3 goals in around 50 games. Saying that, I'm not against the club putting out some money on a transfer fee if the chances are good we could bring them in and get a season or two before selling them on for a profit.

Yes, but my question is, why re-sign so quickly with a club where you've only played two games in two years? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider moving somewhere else where you could also be a backup, but perhaps closer to home? Maybe a place where the manager sees your potential and might even give you a shot at the first team, even if you start out as a backup? It's a weird situation.

May 28th. Someone is getting a head start on the competition in the doomsday/naysayers championships.

I believe it ultimately depends on several factors, such as the player's salary and contract demands, as well as their expectations regarding playing time. For instance, if O'Donnell is willing to accept a contract that reflects his age and acknowledges that his playing time will likely be limited, then it makes sense to keep him. His experience can still be valuable to the team. However, I would have released Mugabi and Oxborough. We would have entered this summer without any senior keepers in our squad, so perhaps Kettlewell is thinking he could secure one good player for that position, but getting two would be unrealistic. In that context, I completely understand why we would want to re-sign Oxborough for another year. What puzzles me is why he signed so quickly. I could understand if he resigned himself to being a backup at Motherwell after not receiving any worthwhile offers elsewhere, but he didn't even wait for his current deal to expire. This suggests to me that he has possibly been promised something that made him forego other opportunities he might have had as a free agent this summer.

One reason he probably wasn't dropped is that the manager didn't seem to have much faith in the backup keeper. Kelly's role as captain undoubtedly played a significant part, as it should have, but it doesn't appear that Oxborough made the decision difficult for the manager. Let's be honest, if Kettlewell had rated Oxborough, he would have been given more opportunities during the cup. The fact that he played two games, conceded three goals in the first, and was essentially sidelined for the rest of the season before we got into August says a lot. I'm hoping Oxborough has re-signed to be the backup, although I'd be surprised if that's the case, as he could likely secure a backup role elsewhere under freedom of contract. The fact that he signed up so quickly suggests he's received some assurances for the coming season, which is concerning. It indicates a significant downgrade from Kelly and a cheaper option. It's also worth noting that Oxborough isn't a young prospect. At 25 years old, he has played around 51 games in his entire career. For comparison, he's only three years younger than Kelly, but Kelly has played 275 games.

Let's hope you were correct though. If we're offering Butcher terms for actual sporting and football reasons it means a few questions need asked.

Let's hope there's a relatively young keeper down south that we can bring up on loan who can do a job for us. As you say, there must be good keepers down south who can't get regular football who would be a better choice than Oxborough or Lewis.