New Investment Options

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

My initial stake was £300 for full membership. I was happy to pay that as I had the money available and wasnt buying a season ticket at that time.

There were other tiers of membership with far higher subscriptions than mine. I think the top level was £1500 if I recall correctly whereby you got all sorts of other benefits.

The rules changed later to smaller monthly subscriptions to allow those who were able to give a little more often to join.

I now pay monthly, but didnt for quite a long time.

I contacted the Society several times about this situation over the years, but nothing was ever done. I'm sure quite a bit of potential income was lost as result.  As you say the initial plan was for members to pay in a lump sum or instalments until certain levels were achieved (Steel, Claret, Amber?). These levels attracted certain levels of benefit as you say. I'm exactly the same boat as you. 

Following the early launch, the Society moved to a monthly subscription model, but this was never communicated to original members. Those who had reached the initial levels were never contacted about the switchover. We were never told that we could, or would be encouraged, to contribute over and above the intial levels.  

Matters do seem to be improving now.    

[weeyin]

Looking through my old Society emails, I did receive one from Craig Hughes back in 2015 about the monthly subs. I think, however, that was aimed at international members as it also talked about making it easier for us to donate with the new Paypal option.

[santheman]

They've definitely missed out on revenues by not targeting members who paid the original lump sums to become a member and who would have probably been happy to top that up with ongoing monthly contributions.

With the new board focused on income generation hopefully that's one of the things they can pursue.

[santheman]

29 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I agree but surely it's pretty well known that members can pay monthly contributions. I've been paying a monthly contribution since 2018. 

Oh it's pretty well known but if you don't actively follow up on it on a regular basis then folks tend to forget about it which I think has happened. I make a monthly contribution but other than a couple of generic emails over the years I've never been asked directly if I would consider increasing my amount( which I would and have done)

If it was a charity you would be getting inundated with begging texts/emails but maybe the WS felt that they didn't want to keep going back to the same people all the time, I don't know.

Hopefully with all the recent publicity and investment talk and the need to increase WS funds more people who maybe paid the original £300 but didn't know about, or take up the offer of monthly contributions might consider it now.

 

[Kmcalpin]

16 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I agree but surely it's pretty well known that members can pay monthly contributions. I've been paying a monthly contribution since 2018. 

Yes, it is pretty well known now but it certainly was not widely known until a year or two ago. As has been said above, original members who paid by lump sum were never contacted about paying monthly contributions. The fundamental change from some members paying their subscription monthly to all members, irrespective of status, being encouraged to make monthly contributions was never ever advertised until very recently.  Thats was a huge and costly failing. The move away from a  dedicated website and lack of communication was at the root cause of this. "Lapsed members", like myself, for want of a better term were never contacted directly.

To finish on a positive note, things have certainly improved now, and thats the importnat thing. .

[steelboy]

I didn't sign up to pay monthly because I didn't want my wages going to repaying John Boyle and Les Hutchinson.

Even now if the Society wants more funds it's only to have the cash in reserve to give the club. For me if the club has enough money to afford Harry Paton, Jon Obika, Andy Halliday and Oli Shaw they definitely don't need any more of my money. It's like someone booking a week in Ibiza then asking for a tap because they're skint. 

[Spiderpig]

 , I'm not a WS member and never will be if it remains  in it current format. It sole purpose when formed was to ask the fans to contribute cash on a regular basis to provide an overdraft facility For the club.

Proper fan ownership would have seen the fans given the opportunity to buy actual shares in the club to raise cash they would then have a genuine say in how the club was run.

No doubt changes in the governance of the club will be forthcoming if the outside investment is finalised so there will be an opportunity to change the WS as well for the benefit of everyone, it might even persuade me to join if I wad becoming an actual shareholder and not just a source of funds.

[steelboy]

9 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

 

Proper fan ownership would have seen the fans given the opportunity to buy actual shares in the club to raise cash they would then have a genuine say in how the club was run.

 

I don't see how you could possibly have more say as a small shareholder than as a Society member?

Everyone is equal in the Society, it gives us a legal structure to pool our resources, no one can take money out of it and it could easily outlive most of us.

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, steelboy said:

I don't see how you could possibly have more say as a small shareholder than as a Society member?

Everyone is equal in the Society, it gives us a legal structure to pool our resources, no one can take money out of it and it could easily outlive most of us.

There is definitely strength in numbers and members donations being locked in is also a positive.

But the Club and others have been given Society funds on a permanent..not loan....basis. Contrary to what we were promised would happen when the Society was established. So Society funds are lower than they should be given total donations collected. A figure in excess of £1.25m is gone forever. The people who allowed that to happen are still on the Society Board. More recent appointees are looking to have better control over Society assets but it remains to be seen whether they will succeed. I genuinely wish them well and early signs are promising.

Given how Society funds have been managed up to now, the limited scope for increasing monthly income given our fan numbers and the fact the Club has failed to at least break even for a number of years .........for how long do you think the Society can continue to sustain the Club before funds run out? Having to demonstrate the ability to financially cover an 18 month period to appease the football authorities also comes into play.

I believe external investment is essential to ensure the future of our Club at the present level. Respect them or not, it is clear the current Club Board shares that view. And on that basis I think  they are acting in the Club's best interest. But we need to find the correct balance, which retains the Society as the major shareholder, does not make us overly reliant on the goodwill of any outside investor and protects Club assets. Not an easy task.

Until we are presented with the facts of any investment offer we need to keep an open mind. It would also help if meantime the Society would spell out exactly how our funds will be utilised in future. Are we returning to the original model and so longer being utilised as a piggy bank to be raided for whatever purposes certain people see fit. 

[steelboy]

38 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Given how Society funds have been managed up to now, the limited scope for increasing monthly income given our fan numbers and the fact the Club has failed to at least break even for a number of years .........for how long do you think the Society can continue to sustain the Club before funds run out? 

 

That's not true though. These are the figures during the period of fan ownership so far. When you compare it to other clubs during the same period we have done exceptionally well. According to Derek Weir at the AGM we are likely to break even this season which is impressive considering the dead weight in the playing squad.

16/17: (£104,000)
17/18: £1,720,000
18/19: (£436,000)
19/20: £346,590
20/21: £3,575,615
21/22: (£1,082,000)
22/23: (£1,605,000)

Net profit: £2,415,205

[steelboy]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

There is definitely strength in numbers and members donations being locked in is also a positive.

But the Club and others have been given Society funds on a permanent..not loan....basis. Contrary to what we were promised would happen when the Society was established. So Society funds are lower than they should be given total donations collected. A figure in excess of £1.25m is gone forever. The people who allowed that to happen are still on the Society Board. More recent appointees are looking to have better control over Society assets but it remains to be seen whether they will succeed. I genuinely wish them well and early signs are promising.

 

I agree with this and whenever (or possibly if) we have a Society meeting there are going to be a lot of questions asked about exactly that.

Going back to the very start of the Society one of the first things that happened was the Society bought 5% of the club for £250,000 without informing the members which led to complaints, a meeting and new rules being put in place. The share sale recently apparently involved selling 5% of the club for £10,000 which is hugely undervalued. My back of a fag packet calculations put this at a 90% discount for the buyers. I'm sure i'm not the only member who wants to know why this is considered beneficial for the membership and who exactly benefitted from the discounted sale.

 

 

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

That's not true though. These are the figures during the period of fan ownership so far. When you compare it to other clubs during the same period we have done exceptionally well. According to Derek Weir at the AGM we are likely to break even this season which is impressive considering the dead weight in the playing squad.

16/17: (£104,000)
17/18: £1,720,000
18/19: (£436,000)
19/20: £346,590
20/21: £3,575,615
21/22: (£1,082,000)
22/23: (£1,605,000)

Net profit: £2,415,205

Ok. so not a complete run of losses. Just the four loss making seasons out of seven and that includes the most recent two years which represent the biggest losses. A trend which should cause concern, and would in most Businesses. 

So my question about sustainability is still valid. How many £3m players can we unearth and profit on given current transfer rules? Strip that Turnbull fee out and the seven year Net Profit more than disappears. And in that timeframe we have also ingathered funds from a fair number of Development/Agreed Fees which failed to offset operating losses. The strategy of relying on such sales to survive is just asking for trouble.

 

[steelboy]

48 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Ok. so not a complete run of losses. Just the four loss making seasons out of seven and that includes the most recent two years which represent the biggest losses. A trend which should cause concern, and would in most Businesses. 

So my question about sustainability is still valid. How many £3m players can we unearth and profit on given current transfer rules? Strip that Turnbull fee out and the seven year Net Profit more than disappears. And in that timeframe we have also ingathered funds from a fair number of Development/Agreed Fees which failed to offset operating losses. The strategy of relying on such sales to survive is just asking for trouble.

 

Bringing players through is part of our business model. We have Lennon Miller now, there will be more. 

Focusing on 12 month cycles rather than the medium term would be cutting our own throat. A lot of annual losses over the years have just been investing the profits from the previous year. 

[dennyc]

1 minute ago, steelboy said:

Bringing players through is part of our business model. We have Lennon Miller now, there will be more. 

Focusing on 12 month cycles rather than the medium term would be cutting our own throat. A lot of annual losses over the years have just been investing the profits from the previous year. 

I'm not saying investing in youth should not be part of our strategy. But relying on sufficient player sales from that source is too risky. It is too tempting for young players to walk away when their contracts expire, or before they reach full contract age. Those sales should be a bonus and not a "get out of jail" card.

Amongst other things, external investment on the correct terms could help us develop a stronger youth programme. That way we have the best of both worlds. So that is a bit more than a 12 month cycle. 

Bottom line is that we cannot continue as is. It does not work and leaves us exposed.

[steelboy]

3 minutes ago, dennyc said:

 

Bottom line is that we cannot continue as is. It does not work and leaves us exposed.

7 continuous years in the top flight and £2 million in the black. It does work and it is sustainable. 

 

[santheman]

11 minutes ago, steelboy said:

7 continuous years in the top flight and £2 million in the black. It does work and it is sustainable. 

 

So far and only because of the Turnbull money.

Next season you've got both Dundee clubs with owners seemingly happy to pump millions into their playing squads.

Hibs with 5m American investment.

Kilmarnock with Billy Bowie and his blank chequebook

Hearts hoovering up all the better players in our league with 15m sitting in the bank from their foundation and Budge and Co happy to keep putting money in.

Ross County with Uncle Roy's blank chequebook.

Aberdeen with a rich chairman putting his money where his mouth is (not that its helped this season of course)

St Johnstone with a potential American buyer with money to burn by the sounds of it.

Even St Mirren have Gilmour putting money in albeit in the form of soft loans.

Old Firm take care of themselves. 

That leaves us and with no form of outside investment unless you class the WS as that.

Money doesn't always buy success of course but it makes it a damn sight easier.

Do we sit back and hope that the teams with more money than us manage to keep  f*****g things up and we keep "punching above our weight" and continue to get lucky with bargain basement buys to stay in the top flight.

I'm still of the opinion that the WS retain control of the club but if we want to keep competing at this level in light of whats happening at other clubs we need to look at every option otherwise we might find ourselves in the never ending cycle of trying to avoid the dreaded bottom 2 places every season and the type of football that brings

 

 

 

[steelboy]

The Turnbull money wasn't a fluke. We invested in our academy and got the reward. It's the same with Max Johnston, Allan Campbell, Chris Cadden, James Scott and Jake Hastie. We've had other players who we've had training compensation for who didn't even make the first team.  It's at the core of the club. 

 

[santheman]

7 minutes ago, steelboy said:

The Turnbull money wasn't a fluke. We invested in our academy and got the reward. It's the same with Max Johnston, Allan Campbell, Chris Cadden, James Scott and Jake Hastie. We've had other players who we've had training compensation for who didn't even make the first team.  It's at the core of the club. 

 

I didn't say it was a fluke but without it we would be in a far worse position. There's no guarantee that we're going to produce a Turnbull every other season.

The fact that we have money in the bank and the WS and yet Kettlewell had to drastically cut the playing budget tells a story.

[dennyc]

17 minutes ago, santheman said:

I didn't say it was a fluke but without it we would be in a far worse position. There's no guarantee that we're going to produce a Turnbull every other season.

The fact that we have money in the bank and the WS and yet Kettlewell had to drastically cut the playing budget tells a story.

Exactly this. 

And also, despite income from youth players moving elsewhere, we still incurred losses some years.  I repeat, it is a highly risky strategy. Relying on a Turnbull like sale every other year as a minimum. We would survive possibly were those sales not to happen, but at what level?

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

Youth development should always be at the core of the club. But if we had more money we could make more choices. We should not have to rely on selling talent to survive 

Agree about the importnace of youth but selling our talent on has been a key part of our financial plan ever since I began supporting the club and that wasn't yesterday. It won't change, but I wish it would. We do, however, have to maximise our income and finances from other sources. We should only sell if the price is right for us.

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

Agree about the importnace of youth but selling our talent on has been a key part of our financial plan ever since I began supporting the club and that wasn't yesterday. It won't change, but I wish it would. We do, however, have to maximise our income and finances from other sources. We should only sell if the price is right for us.

Selling talent is a key part of every Club, and always will be. I don’t think anyone believes otherwise. . But as u say other income streams must also be maximised. My concern is that for a while the sale of players appears to have been identified by the current Board as the only way to operate in the black, or close to it. With Society monies made available for projects the Club cannot fund. The Society is a good thing and hopefully will continue to grow but I wonder, if it had not existed, would McMahon etc been forced to come up with other ways to balance the books. 

By continually selling off our best players and their youth replacements, the quality on the pitch reduces…..as is evident on a year by year comparison…and so performance income reduces and the Club becomes less attractive to sponsors, new fans, tv etc. We then become even more dependent upon player sales and if they don’t happen we continue our quality decline. How long can that downward spiral continue?
 

It’s fair to say that other Clubs are experiencing similar problems but they have an advantage over us in that they do have outside sources of income. Some that are even prepared to cover sizeable losses. Somebody helpfully provided a list earlier in this thread.   I guess it might all come down to what level we wish to see Motherwell compete at. I hope we can find a balance that supports both outside investment and the Society as major shareholder. If not, I worry about where we are heading. 

[Stuwell2]

I find it quite puzzling that folk talk about the WS (as main shareholders)needing to stop putting money into the club at the same time extolling the virtues of Bowie, Budges, Gilmour and other investors at other clubs. 
I’m sure that if a rich Well fan was willing to do to same - or Boyle had been able to find a buyer willing to do that - then the WS would keep the cash it raises through membership or wouldn’t even exist.
Unfortunately or possibly fortunately this hasn’t happened so the WS, as owner of the club, has a responsibility to keep the club going and put money into things deemed by the club board as important to the clubs future. I’m sure the the WS board look at every request and the case put to them by the club board before handing over any cash.  

[dennyc]

Of course the Society exists to fund the Club in times of need. But, just like a Bank overdraft, those funds were originally intended to be repaid to the Society from the likes of transfer income or end of season performance payments. In that way Society funds would continue to escalate and be protected in a worst case scenario. To rebuild a new Club if need be. That is how the Society was sold to fans.  Without Members knowledge that model was changed. First of all to repay Les Hutchison and subsequently funds were handed to the Club with no intention of those monies being repaid. So the current balance is way below where it should be given the total funds received from fans over the time the Society has existed. Recent appointees to the Society Board are hoping to see the original model followed in future and so see balances increase. 
Funds were also intended to be provided purely for the core business of the football Club. Although the Community Trust is a fantastic initiative I would question whether the Society should be utilising fans’ donations for that or any initiative which is not essential to Motherwell FC. 

[Stuwell2]

Did Les get his money back? From memory there was an initiative where he matched fans cash with his up to the £1m he had put in initially. Was a bit of a gimmick to encourage fan to join the society. 
From my point of view having the community trust means we engage with our potential support which in the long term brings in income through youngsters asking to be taken to games and local businesses giving something so they are seen to be helping the community. Also I think that the CT gets grants from the governments and other agencies as long as they can invest a % which is where the WS helps out when there is a shortfall.
Folk might see this as wasted cash but I think the indirect return to the club is probably more than what the WS pays to the CT. 

[Spiderpig]

18 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:

Folk might see this as wasted cash but I think the indirect return to the club is probably more than what the WS pays to the CT. 

Would any potential investor be happy to see some of the cash they would be putting into the club used to finance projects / initiatives etc not connected with the club etc from which they would see no return? I think not they want a financial return, not a story in the Motherwell Times saying what nice people they are.

The WS are also investors, the members are commiting lots of cash each year without the expectation of a financial return, but to hopefully benefit the football club to make it better ie governance, infrastructure, players, results etc. They don't put up their cash to fund community projects etc.