bobbybingo

Ominous. I'll no sleep tonight.

Where's that?

I wanted to vote for Bair, but Jim McMahon forced me to vote for some guy called Barmack. So I hear.

The argument seems to be, if we get reasonable investment from one source, that source is going to demand control of the club. That's a logical argument. If we don't want to entertain that possibility, smaller amounts will need to come from multiple sources. If businesses etc are out there, ready and willing to hand money to Motherwell without any say in how it's spent, why haven't they come forward before now, and why hasn't anyone at the club or WS previously identified them? Failing that, we're looking at appeals for those extra donations, raffles or bucket collections - which only feed into the 'we're skint' narrative, apparently.

I'm not sure about this guy and I'd be naturally wary of any outside investor. But I don't think we can afford to dismiss this, or any other, approach out of hand until the WS have been given a go at finding more money, unless they have a very clear, realistic plan already formulated.

It sounds very like yourself, and some others on here, have taken the stance that any outside investor should be hunted, even before any discussions as to their intent, because their intent will inevitably be bad. You might well be right, but it can't be that simple. The Well Society is a large group of individuals, so not everyone will share that view, obviously. And the glaring questions remain - whre will the Society drum up substantial no strings attached investment, and why wait till now to start doing something about it?

If it's left to the Well Society to find additional investment, where would that come from, given the idea any investor is not going to want full control is laughable, in your opinion? Or do you want them to find thousands of new members willing to donate money on a regular basis?

That was my understanding too. All kinds of arguments and complaints can be made about the Society's lack of communication or lack of say in big decisions over the years, and folk can claim that certain people are set on engineering a certain outcome, but if the final decision has to be taken according to the result of a membrship vote, legally, then there's no getting away from that. That some folk won't like that decision is inevitable, whichever way it goes.

Can someone buy majority control without a vote from WS members?

Furlong and Butcher were decent for a period of a few months, that's all. Butcher's been out injured or poor all season, now he just looks done. Goss and Cornelius were part of a squad that got 2 managers sacked and was dropping like a stone towards the Championship. The team only started performing consitently - in a positive sense - after Kettlewell arrived.

Could you tell me which good level players you're referring to, leaving aside Van Veen, Johnston and the guys who are still here?

If he brings in players who play at a consistent level, you're not going to like the level. Look around the league, even the top 2 can't buy consistently good players. Bair has (to this point) outscored last season's top marksman, who cost Celtic £4.5million.

Ah, that's why I don't remember Armstrong, I had Hynd at Garrion. His speciality was hanging up kids' jackets, while they were still wearing them.

Good advice.

Don't remember the name. Sounds like I would have, though....

You're not seriously blaming this, or any other, Scottish government for the bigot brothers' inability to behave like rational human beings, are you?

And then he rolled up as my PE teacher. If he treated the players anything like he treated kids, no surprise he was sacked.

Me and my dad often talk about going to the Cowdenbeath game. The 3-2 comeback against Celtic in the 3rd round probably fired everyone up, and that team could easily have beaten anyone on their day - losing those 2 semis was an education on being a Motherwell fan.

JRP Gordon

Still, amusing to see Rangers beaten by the RC.

8 points ahead with 15 to play for should be enough for us, though the experimentation will need to wait for now. This is where our ability to rescue draws from the jaws of defeat will come in handy.

You said the past 10 years, so that's the figure I quoted. 6 out of 12 is better - since the introduction of the split, it's something like 11 times out of 23 we've made it, so more or less a 50% success rate over the years. Prior to that, our league finishes would also be a very mixed bag. It's perfectly reasonable to hope for top 6, to expect it is pushing things. If you based your expectations on our budget and attendances, we're definitely looking at bottom 6.

4 times in the last 10 seasons. Wouldn't be my definition of loads.

The number of defeats across the league adds more perspective. Barring a total collapse in our final 5, this season will see the fewest number of defeats since we finished 3rd.

Ah, right 👍