ropy Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 I would honestly encourage people to get in touch with Craig via Twitter, email or whatever. Yes I sent him an email towards the end of last week and got a response yesterday answering my query. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 If you know any competent, professional people willing to put in the necessary hours, I'm sure they will be happy to accommodate them. The bottom line is, if they were available, they'd already be working for the Society. If people are really unhappy, there are mechanisms available in the Society rules to remove the people they are unhappy with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 Hahahaha. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted May 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 ????? I don't understand either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 I made 2 points. 1. That I believed that any competent people who wanted to work for the Society would likely be working for them already. 2. If any member wasn't happy with the Society leadership there are rules in place that allow for emergency resolutions to vote them out. I can see how people might disagree with my first point, but If the implication was those 2 statements are somehow contradictory, I'm not sure I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 I made 2 points. 1. That I believed that any competent people who wanted to work for the Society would likely be working for them already. 2. If any member wasn't happy with the Society leadership there are rules in place that allow for emergency resolutions to vote them out. I can see how people might disagree with my first point, but If the implication was those 2 statements are somehow contradictory, I'm not sure I see it. 1. You are a regular contributor and read these boards, you can't deny a number of people have been ignored, passed over, walked or will have nothing to do with the WS. 2. The rules you cite. The articles of the WS were changed without discussion or vote. As soon as anyone has instructed a DD and any payment has been received (even £5) opposed to having full steel membership costing £300, they can vote. Therefore it makes getting 10% of adults and calling an EGM much harder. Of course this was covered around Autumn last year, maybe that has drifted from the memory. Complaining is all fine, but feel free to share your ideas. Assuming you think of everyone being amateurish, I suspect you have a great deal of competence that would possibly steer this into the right direction? Again, feel free to share... Also, as mentioned already, if you know someone 'competent and professional' you should be getting in touch with the WS. This argument rears it head all too often. Just because you are unhappy with something you are barred from voicing your displeasure unless you can shore it up with a proposal in triplicate, filed on the 5th Wednesday of the month when there's a full moon. It doesn't need someone with a Communications and Media degree to determine things are repeatedly failing and need addressing. To be able to do so we have to be furnished with reasonable disclosure to be able to formulate an adequate solution, so far the board have treated the information dissemination to the membership on a need to know basis. So even if people were inclined to follow your advice they'd be hard pressed to deliver. So now the rank and file can only raise concerns or complain if they can provide a plan B? Come on. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Everyone voicing concerns I feel has legitimate reason to do so, ask what are their motives? I've not seen any trolling, just many wanting more clarity and professionalism from what will ultimately call the shots at the 7th biggest club in the country. They want to see this work but recognise it won't in it's current state. The WS could have nipped a number of criticism's in the bud with a more engaging and proactive approach. Alas things were left to fester and Chinese whispers and hearsay ensue. I know I'm moving increasingly into the "why bother" camp when a number of apologists on here keep on having selective memory and advocating the lowering of expectations as to what we as a membership should accept as satisfactory. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 I can see how people might disagree with my first point, but If the implication was those 2 statements are somehow contradictory, I'm not sure I see it. "The society will have all the good people it can working for it, I'm sure of it." "You know you can remove them" My apologies, the juxtaposition of these two statements, within a day, just seems faintly ridiculous to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted June 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 "The society will have all the good people it can working for it, I'm sure of it." "You know you can remove them" My apologies, the juxtaposition of these two statements, within a day, just seems faintly ridiculous to me. I'm sure Weeyin can and will speak for himself Graeme but I can't see what is contradictory about these 2 statements. The first relates to his opinion about the calibre of people involved. The second spells out members' rights in respect of changing office bearers. I fail to see what is contradictory, let alone ridiculous as you put it, about these 2 statements. In fact I would go as far as to say that your term "faintly ridiculous" is more contradictory. Something is either ridiculous or it isn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONeils40yarder Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 pretty face, horribly hairy arm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 If anyone has any spare indigestion tablets kicking about, please can you forward them to thisGRAEME. He appears to have swallowed a thesaurus... Fucking juxtaposition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 pretty face, horribly hairy arm Womp womp. Chk. Chk-Chkaaah. If anyone has any spare indigestion tablets kicking about, please can you forward them to thisGRAEME. He appears to have swallowed a thesaurus... Fucking juxtaposition! Using that degree every day min, evvverrryyy day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 "The society will have all the good people it can working for it, I'm sure of it." "You know you can remove them" My apologies, the juxtaposition of these two statements, within a day, just seems faintly ridiculous to me. Again - the first statement was my opinion (regardless of whether you agree with it) that I believed the society had likely co-opted the best available people. The second statement was aimed at people who disagreed with me, pointing out that if you do have a different opinion, there are mechanisms in place to vote out people you don't like. I didn't state, or even imply, that I wanted to vote anybody out. I'm not going to press the point any more, but I still think it was pretty clear. First statement was what I thought. Second statement was aimed at people who thought differently. If that's still not clear, then I have run out of different ways to express it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 The cream doesn't always rise to the top in a democratic system. Popularity or association triumphs over merit and ability. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 The cream doesn't always rise to the top in a democratic system. Popularity or association triumphs over merit and ability. See labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 I thought we said it wasn't democratic though because people had already been picked for the board positions before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 I understand completely why the natural assumption with these kinds of things is that those who offer up their expertise, skills and time voluntarily will automatically be utilised - you'd probably think it would be crazy for the Well Society to do otherwise, so it's a completely fair assumption to make. But as I've already said, it's a completely inaccurate assumption. I can think of five individuals off the top of my head who have either been requested to actually do something specifically by and for the Society only to be completely messed about, or have actively offered up suggestions or professional expertise and experience to the Society only to be either ignored or made to feel completely unwanted or, again, just messed about. Everyone is entitled to make up their own minds on this but for me, based on the experiences I have had and those of people I know, this is pretty clear cut. People have offered up their time to the Society but the Society has either been completely uninterested or is just absolutely incapable of treating people in an acceptable way. There are 1,300 adult members of the Well Society - the majority of whom, I would imagine, are passionate 'Well fans. Is the suggestion here seriously that of that number, only the very few who have been involved with the Society actually came forward to help out or give a couple of ideas? That's simply not true. We're talking about an organisation that, as of last week, had never even considered making the minutes of their AGMs available to the wider membership. The idea that they are completely incapable of utilising and treating correctly the people who have offered to help out is hardly a great leap.As I said previously in the thread, fan ownership remains an exciting and interesting prospect but until the Society actually start engaging Motherwell fans and make them believe that, the whole thing will just continue to be the uninspiring shambles it has been for years.I have been in contact with the Society many times over the last couple of years, particularly since starting the podcast, including e-mails (I concur with the above that Craig Hughes is very good at responding) as well as meetings and telephone calls with Board members (not to mention having Society reps on the actual podcast itself) - so it's not like ranting about the Society is just something that gives me kicks without, according to some on here, the required attempts to make suggestions etc. I genuinely want to see it succeed but the only thing the Society seems consistent in is mediocrity and until those involved see that, it's knackered. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Question: If you seriously think the WS will be in the position to make sound strategic decisions on the direction of a business with a turnover of 3.5 million, responsible for the livelihood of 80 permanent and a further 100 part-time positions when run like a Bowling Club rules committee ... raise your hand. This is the seriousness of what we are talking about. Its the future governance and sustainability of our club, why I don't get why people are happy to shrug off the string of failings to date, is there a hope things will click into place and improve the closer we get to full fan ownership? I have no fear of the daily running, it's in good hands with Flow. But the 5 year and 10 year plans which are steered by the owners (essentially the WS board) .... gives me the fear come 2020 or whenever they are given the reigns. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 According to the Sunday Herald, a Qatari group are looking to gazump the imminent fan takeover at St Mirren. Wonder if they many any approach to Motherwell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del_Superwell Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 If a group from Qatar would look at a club like St Mirren then it tells me if you put the club up for sale then it would surely generate the same sort of interest. Id say we are a more attractive option than St Mirren as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Boyle tried forever to sell. The issue he had was finding a buyer with the club's best interest at heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 A steamy pile of shit is a more attractive proposition than St Mirren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 Boyle tried forever to sell. The issue he had was finding a buyer with the club's best interest at heart. would any well fan really mind if some group with cash to burn bought the club and invested a few quid. At least we would have proper business men running the club and not the bowling club committee that is the WS board. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 What businessmen? With what suitability to run a football club and with what aims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 What businessmen? With what suitability to run a football club and with what aims? Exactly. With a club like ours, you need a rich fan who is happy to run the club at or around breakeven, with no expectation of ever making a profit. Otherwise you might end up with an asset stripper who will sell the ground and piss off to Colombia before a new ground is built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.