New Investment Options

[weeyin]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Improving Bair, would that be Obika  passing on his vast knowledge of scoring loads of goals and top class striking techniques over the years, your right I'm not accepting that as a possibility.

How many golf tournaments had Butch Harmon won when we was coaching Tiger Woods to multiple victories in the Majors?

[steelboy]

2 hours ago, wellfan said:

My view of the ‘status quo’ is we carry on as we are, continue to be outbid on Premiership level players by our peers, and soon enough we’ll find ourselves struggling to keep pace with those peers. 

Our wage bill is slightly smaller than Killie and bigger than all the other non city clubs. 

If we see getting outbid for anyone it's because we have already committed the majority of our budget to guys who are well past their best. 

[bobbybingo]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

Improving Bair, would that be Obika  passing on his vast knowledge of scoring loads of goals and top class striking techniques over the years, your right I'm not accepting that as a possibility.

So, which prolific goalscorer at Motherwell did pass on their vast knowledge and top class technique to Bair?

[0Neils40yarder]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

Improving Bair, would that be Obika  passing on his vast knowledge of scoring loads of goals and top class striking techniques over the years, your right I'm not accepting that as a possibility.

Some of the best coaches in the world, were shite at their given sport.

 

Take a look at Freddy Roach...his own boxing career pales into insignificance when stacked up against what he has achieved in coaching 

[ropy]

If any investment is not transformational I would use that money for structural improvements sustaining the club for the future.  The playing side would be financed by what it can generate in gate receipts, sponsorships and prize money.  Lifting the cost base of the team above what is affordable once the investor is gone would be problematic.

[dennyc]

2 minutes ago, ropy said:

If any investment is not transformational I would use that money for structural improvements sustaining the club for the future.

With the information made available so far, I actually thought that was the plan. Structural stability supporting a productive youth system. In time that brings an end to operational losses and eventually leads to a stronger club with improved onfieldf rewards. The 'fix' is not going to happen overnight. 

Only on here have I read anything about Barmack's funding being used to immediately improve the first eleven. 

3 hours ago, wellfan said:

My view of the ‘status quo’ is we carry on as we are, continue to be outbid on Premiership level players by our peers, and soon enough we’ll find ourselves struggling to keep pace with those peers. That scenario will likely lead to an annual struggle to stay in the Premiership and with little much else to play for. 
 

Another point is that everything else in the world is so much more expensive now, and the only way to absorb that cost, let alone keep pace, is to seek more financial input/output than the ‘status quo’. That could be through external
investment or the Well Society pulling its socks up. Otherwise, I think we’ll play ourselves into the Championship in a few years. 

As for the Status Quo, I think this is pretty much spot on. The decline in quality over the years is already there for everyone to see. Other clubs have experienced similar issues, but it seems they have options available which we do not. I do believe the refreshed Society Board are trying to effect change and overcome the barriers they face. In reality that might not be enough though, making external support essential. On the correct terms of course.

 

 

[weeyin]

2 hours ago, dennyc said:

The decline in quality over the years is already there for everyone to see. Other clubs have experienced similar issues, but it seems they have options available which we do not.

 

 

They have had options, but it hasn't stopped many of them from being relegated anyway. Dundee, Dundee Utd, Killie, Hearts (for slightly different reasons), Hibs etc.

So even those extra resources don't guarantee league safety, never mind better performances.

[David]

6 hours ago, wellfan said:

My view of the ‘status quo’ is we carry on as we are, continue to be outbid on Premiership level players by our peers, and soon enough we’ll find ourselves struggling to keep pace with those peers. That scenario will likely lead to an annual struggle to stay in the Premiership and with little much else to play for.

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. 

[dennyc]

53 minutes ago, weeyin said:

They have had options, but it hasn't stopped many of them from being relegated anyway. Dundee, Dundee Utd, Killie, Hearts (for slightly different reasons), Hibs etc.

So even those extra resources don't guarantee league safety, never mind better performances.

Nobody is saying it does.

But it helps them to bounce back if demotion happens. Wonder how we would have done in  the situation they found themselves in. Hopefully we will never know. What we need is longer term stability. Having been in the top League for ages will be little comfort if we crash and burn. Other teams are moving forward.

Hopefully any investment we secure can help us to extend our superb record, and at the same time enable us to react if the need arises, without losing our status.

History is exactly that. Bask in it all you like, but we need to look forward.

[David]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

I personally don't think we can carry on as we are and I don't think the well society is the answer either. There has to be a mixture of fan investment and outside investment if we want to grow the club as far as I'm concerned. 

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. 

[dennyc]

7 minutes ago, David said:

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. 

Perhaps Growth could be better described as halting a decline rather than trying to achieve levels that put the Club at risk. Growing back to where we ranked only a few years ago perhaps?

Direct question David as I am genuinely interested. Overall, do you think the Club has been in decline in recent times.....on and off the pitch? Compared to say 10, 5 and 3 years ago. Motherwell specifically and not Scottish football in general. If you do, how do you see us rectifying matters or should we just continue as is, and accept whatever outcome that delivers? I think we must be proactive.

I do believe that is the dilemma the Board have. And although I have doubts about some Board members, I think on the whole they are genuine in trying to find a solution. As we all are I guess.

[David]

40 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Direct question David as I am genuinely interested. Overall, do you think the Club has been in decline in recent times.....on and off the pitch? Compared to say 10, 5 and 3 years ago. Motherwell specifically and not Scottish football in general. If you do, how do you see us rectifying matters or should we just continue as is, and accept whatever outcome that delivers? I think we must be proactive.

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. 

[dennyc]

Thanks David

I do get where you are coming from. I agree with some of that but not all. 

As a Club I have watched us put poorer and poorer quality on the pitch season after season. And yet I still go along each week 😀. For context compare each position over that same time period. You appear to disagree and I respect that. But eventually imo that decline in quality on the pitch will have disastrous results. We have escaped such punishment so far but we are riding our luck. Especially as most of our so called peers (who have experienced similar decline but which in a perverse way has helped us) are now heading in the opposite direction, or are taking steps to do so. Folk may not like their various solutions but at least those Clubs are trying to move forward. And not just Clubs currently in the top league. Unless we do something similar I can see us falling further and further behind. 

I am not privy to the inner workings of the Club....or Society....but my feeling is that the current structure and funding model is a barrier to improvement. I sense that the Club does not run as efficiently as it once did and I have less faith in our Board than I have had in the past. I think that ties in with the operational/financial clean up you believe is essential? We differ in that I don't think a tidy up is enough.......or is likely. I was being given those same assurances way back when the Society was initially established and also when Hutchison appeared on the scene.

I also have been told that there is friction between the Society and certain Club Board members. May be bullshit of course but it is what I was told from someone I pay heed to. ( I sound like Steelboy now)  If we wish to stay at the top table I believe substantial change is required across the board. I do hope the Society can continue to play a major role, preferably as the majority shareholder.

You often make play of the fact that, as you see it, any major Investor will insist upon overall control and a financial profit on their input. Investment being the word you highlight. No doubt that is often how it works, but there are situations where that is not exactly the case. Again you or others shoot down any examples that are quoted. I'll wait and see what any offer from Barmack entails, and then I'll cast my vote. 

 

 

 

[David]

A few points on what you've said there:

58 minutes ago, dennyc said:

As a Club I have watched us put poorer and poorer quality on the pitch season after season.

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.

58 minutes ago, dennyc said:

We have escaped such punishment so far but we are riding our luck. Especially as most of our so called peers (who have experienced similar decline but which in a perverse way has helped us) are now heading in the opposite direction, or are taking steps to do so.

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.

58 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Folk may not like their various solutions but at least those Clubs are trying to move forward. And not just Clubs currently in the top league. Unless we do something similar I can see us falling further and further behind. 

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.

58 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I am not privy to the inner workings of the Club....or Society....but my feeling is that the current structure and funding model is a barrier to improvement.

What is the current funding model? 

58 minutes ago, dennyc said:

You often make play of the fact that, as you see it, any major Investor will insist upon overall control and a financial profit on their input. Investment being the word you highlight. No doubt that is often how it works, but there are situations where that is not exactly the case.

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?

58 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I'll wait and see what any offer from Barmack entails, and then I'll cast my vote. 

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.

[Cameron_Mcd]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

 I'll wait and see what any offer from Barmack entails, and then I'll cast my vote. 

Quite possibly the most sensible thing I've ever read on here.

[santheman]

9 hours ago, Cameron_Mcd said:

Quite possibly the most sensible thing I've ever read on here.

Seconded.

Soundbites and clichés are all very well and our potential investor makes them paint a pretty picture but I'll wait till we see the actual amounts he intends to invest, how it would be used and what he's looking for in return before I make my mind up.

[Dossertillidie2]

The longer it goes on and the more things he tweets, the less and less enthusiasm I have for his bid. Don’t believe now it’s worth as much as we would like it to be

 

private investment with someone and a society partnership is still my hope though. 

[David]

7 hours ago, santheman said:

Seconded.

Soundbites and clichés are all very well and our potential investor makes them paint a pretty picture but I'll wait till we see the actual amounts he intends to invest, how it would be used and what he's looking for in return before I make my mind up.

100%. 

The key is in the actual hard facts of the proposal. So we'll see what he puts forward.

9 hours ago, wellgirl said:

That's completely correct but there are fans who don't think the league position we achieved in the last two years is good enough.

Or the quality of our squad. I saw someone I think it was on here say that last seasons squad was the worst they had ever seen as a Motherwell fan. Personally. I think we will always struggle to make fan ownership work given the small numbers of core fans we have. I do appreciate the league is tight and there's not much points  difference between places at times. 

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.

[grizzlyg]

Just got email from well society , looks like Netflix offer binned.  What they were offering didn't seem an attractive proposition 

[bobbybingo]

Update on investment available. Or would be, if the links worked.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

This link works for me:
https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/06/10/investment-update/

And the Well Society's response:
https://thewellsociety.uk/

[wellfan]

The investment offered by the Barmack’s over 6 years appears to value the Club at less than Lennon Miller’s worth alone and proposes the Well Society lose majority shareholding of the Club with the Barmack’s gaining the majority shareholding. 

I can't believe the negotiations have come this far on those terms. It reads like McMahon is trying to sell us cheap and run.

As a longtime Well Society member, the deal on offer is unacceptable and so it can get in the bin. I note the Society has emailed members to that effect.  

[Electric Blues]

2 minutes ago, wellfan said:

As a longtime Well Society member, the deal on offer is unacceptable and so it can get in the bin. 

Fire it directly into the sun, and McMahon along with it.

[steelman1991]

Has someone moved the 1st April?

[Well-Made]

17 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

Just got email from well society , looks like Netflix offer binned.  What they were offering didn't seem an attractive proposition 

Not binned, it's the WS view it should be. They will put it out to vote probably around 1st July

In a nutshell the investment is just shy of 2million over 6 years for 49% of the shares

The first 300k would allow them, from day 1, the Chairmanship and 3 seats on the executive board with final say in any tied vote 

During the same period the WS would not only lose control but they would also need to invest around 1,5M.

There is an option to buy back in 2026 for 660k but by that point the WS would have put in 400k.

If the WS can't do it the Club gets 2nd call.

For that to happen 30% of any transfer fee over 2M has to be held back to cover it