Society Consultation

[Kmcalpin]

I get that there's a lot going on just now. A new manager; pre season about to start; the prospect of comings and goings and so on. However, don't overlook the Well Society consultation on proposed membership changes taking place just now. Its a chance to put across your views. 

All in all I found it to be a commendable attempt to update some admin matters. However, I found it to be a bit vague, unwieldy and complicated.  Maybe just me. I found it hard to form a definitive opinion on some issues as I agreed with the overall principle but not the detailed changes. 

Anyway folks its your opinions that matter. Get your  responses in. 

[joewarkfanclub]

40 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

I get that there's a lot going on just now. A new manager; pre season about to start; the prospect of comings and goings and so on. However, don't overlook the Well Society consultation on proposed membership changes taking place just now. Its a chance to put across your views. 

All in all I found it to be a commendable attempt to update some admin matters. However, I found it to be a bit vague, unwieldy and complicated.  Maybe just me. I found it hard to form a definitive opinion on some issues as I agreed with the overall principle but not the detailed changes. 

Anyway folks its your opinions that matter. Get your  responses in. 

I agree.

Its good that they are bringing in some structure, where previously there had been none.

Being a member of the Well Society should come with it certain rules and guarantees. It shouldnt just be money disappearing into a bottomless pit at the whims of an Executive Board that no one voted for.

I would have liked a little more detail in respect of what certain aspects of the consultation meant, but I guess some if wont be known until its played out and we see how things are operating. Hopefully at that stage changes can be made to anything that isnt sitting right.

I think its another step in the right direction and as long as those on the Society Board keep operating in the present consultative manner, then they will maintain my wholehearted support.

[Throughthelaces]

I voted I voted what I was in favour of and declined to agree on things I didn't like the phrasing off. Not that I don't trust those currently there but some things where worded where I thought that sounds like we can decide if you are and are not allowed to be a member of well society and some of the language around criticism. I think so long as criticism is fair there will be times where they need to be criticised and there should be no blowback for someone saying how they honestly feel so long as it's respectful and not personal.

[Kmcalpin]

17 hours ago, Throughthelaces said:

 I think so long as criticism is fair there will be times where they need to be criticised and there should be no blowback for someone saying how they honestly feel so long as it's respectful and not personal.

A lot of work has been invested in this exercise so well done to those behind it. Constructive criticism is absolutely fine but it will be soul destroying if only a handful of folk bother to participate. 

[Throughthelaces]

39 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

A lot of work has been invested in this exercise so well done to those behind it. Constructive criticism is absolutely fine but it will be soul destroying if only a handful of folk bother to participate. 

As many folk should absolutely participate I liked you could vote per item had there been a comment box on the form I'd have liked to give my reasons for why I'm not in favour of certain parts etc. but most seemed fine.

[Kmcalpin]

16 minutes ago, Throughthelaces said:

As many folk should absolutely participate I liked you could vote per item had there been a comment box on the form I'd have liked to give my reasons for why I'm not in favour of certain parts etc. but most seemed fine.

Yes, a comment box to explain our thinking would have been very helpful.

[David]

On 6/14/2025 at 2:21 PM, Kmcalpin said:

I found it hard to form a definitive opinion on some issues as I agreed with the overall principle but not the detailed changes.

Can you provide some examples? Don't feel like you have to, I just found this comment interesting.

[Kmcalpin]

Yes. Overall, I found it cumbersome and confusing to have to constantly switch between 1) comments received in the initial consultation 2) proposed changes in light of that consultation and 3) the comprehensive detailed proposals and D) the the actual voting form when casting my vote. The information provided in 1), 2) and 3) was useful however; it was just the way in which it was presented. 

Specific examples? A) I agreed with the proposal to simplify adult membership tiers but wasn't clear about the status of legacy members who had paid in considerable sums in some cases; sometimes in a single lump sum. Why should they be allocated en masse to the 1886 tier and not to a higher tier? B) Code of conduct: I agree one should be introduced but don't agree with specific wording about "perceived" bullying, harassment and discrimination etc. Either its bullying / harassment / discrimination or its not. For the record, bullying / harassment / discrimination etc is totally unacceptable. Someone's perception can be wrong. I get though that this is a wider societal issue. Suggested text seems to say that it doesn't matter what someone does or says rather its whether another party is offended by it that matters. C) Major votes policy. I agree with its introduction but think that 75% is too high. I would have thought that 55/60/65% was more appropriate.  That still represents a clear majority. Also, the triggers for a major vote are too loose and ambiguous. For example, what is the meant by a "large scale" financial decision?  Is the defintion £1m or £2m or maybe £5m? Lines have to be drawn somewhere though.  

From memory, I may not have recalled everything 100% but thats the gist of my concerns.

To put this in context though, well done to the those on the Society Board who drafted these documents. I know from bitter experience just how difficult and time consuming it is and the ramifications of defining a term loosely that only becomes apparent a later date, when some party takes issue with it.   

[Kmcalpin]

Apologies to the forum. I shouldn't have posted my response to David in public. It should have been in private. I don't want to influence anyone else's answers to the consultation. 

[David]

Not at all, I think the more discussion and ideas being exchanged, the better.

[coldonmac]

15 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Yes. Overall, I found it cumbersome and confusing to have to constantly switch between 1) comments received in the initial consultation 2) proposed changes in light of that consultation and 3) the comprehensive detailed proposals and D) the the actual voting form when casting my vote. The information provided in 1), 2) and 3) was useful however; it was just the way in which it was presented. 

Specific examples? A) I agreed with the proposal to simplify adult membership tiers but wasn't clear about the status of legacy members who had paid in considerable sums in some cases; sometimes in a single lump sum. Why should they be allocated en masse to the 1886 tier and not to a higher tier? B) Code of conduct: I agree one should be introduced but don't agree with specific wording about "perceived" bullying, harassment and discrimination etc. Either its bullying / harassment / discrimination or its not. For the record, bullying / harassment / discrimination etc is totally unacceptable. Someone's perception can be wrong. I get though that this is a wider societal issue. Suggested text seems to say that it doesn't matter what someone does or says rather its whether another party is offended by it that matters. C) Major votes policy. I agree with its introduction but think that 75% is too high. I would have thought that 55/60/65% was more appropriate.  That still represents a clear majority. Also, the triggers for a major vote are too loose and ambiguous. For example, what is the meant by a "large scale" financial decision?  Is the defintion £1m or £2m or maybe £5m? Lines have to be drawn somewhere though.  

From memory, I may not have recalled everything 100% but thats the gist of my concerns.

To put this in context though, well done to the those on the Society Board who drafted these documents. I know from bitter experience just how difficult and time consuming it is and the ramifications of defining a term loosely that only becomes apparent a later date, when some party takes issue with it.   

I have to agree, it was with the 'rights' of the legacy members that I had a concern, for example, do they retain the right to vote on Society issues. To me, it wasn't clear what the situation would be.

 

I emailed the Society, but no-one has responded as yet (it may be that they are going to collate all/any questions and respond in one go).

[joewarkfanclub]

4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Apologies to the forum. I shouldn't have posted my response to David in public. It should have been in private. I don't want to influence anyone else's answers to the consultation. 

I dont think you need to apologise at all.

Always interested to see others thoughts on these matters. You may be raising something others hadnt considered.

[weeyin]

Agree about the legacy members. That has always been confusing, even before the monthly contributions arrived.

Maybe we can get some clarity at the Society meeting at the end of the month.

[Throughthelaces]

On 6/16/2025 at 9:47 AM, Kmcalpin said:

Apologies to the forum. I shouldn't have posted my response to David in public. It should have been in private. I don't want to influence anyone else's answers to the consultation. 

No not at all some of the issues I had with wording were similar to yours. We should be entitled to discuss on a fan forum. I'd actually hope someone from the WS reads this forum and takes peoples views and considerations into account sometimes maybe someone out here will see things in a different light and it might help inform in the future

 

the perceived part to me is troublesome too. As what's to stop the person doing the perceiving from just disliking someone and using that as a reason to drop someone's membership or whatever. 

 

There was something else about criticism I disagreed with as well. Again we seen what happened when the Killie boss left us the messaging from club and society was extremely poorly handled and they should be open to criticism from the membership or individual members if they feel they have a valid feeling. 

[weeyin]

It's easy to say "it's either bullying/harrassment or it's not", but not so easy to implement. That's where "perceived" comes in to play.

I doubt there is any need to worry about criticising how the Society is run, or how terrible the team are playing.

The "perceived" part also helps deal with individuals who hurl nasty personal abuse (and even threats) at peple and then roll out the "it was only a joke" defence.

[Brazilian]

On 6/14/2025 at 2:21 PM, Kmcalpin said:

I get that there's a lot going on just now. A new manager; pre season about to start; the prospect of comings and goings and so on. However, don't overlook the Well Society consultation on proposed membership changes taking place just now. It’s a chance to put across your views. 

………..

Anyway folks it’s your opinions that matter. Get your  responses in. 

Be not been active much around here

but glad to see there is still some names I recognise and some subjects that are very important being discussed 

I’m dismayed that the new society board are trying to strip away the one member one vote rights that were very hotly debated over many sessions when the society was formed and when subsequently tweaked

Vote subject #4 on adult membership definitions , will if voted in, ruin the society model for many 

If any adult member, who could have made significant contributions to making the society work, sees a change in circumstances and can no longer contribute for a period of time (1year)  the change strips them of their membership, with no consideration or value given to their contribution that made the society into club owners 
 

it makes a mockery of the years of selling ‘join to Own Motherwell’ as it’s taking away that membership share in the society that makes adult members an owner,

(timeshare memories anyone)

it might possibly be measured as misselling as by paying up the adult membership to become a share holder in the society , they are now proposing, you will no longer be a member and have no share so no vote if you don’t pay annual fees,

I can see some will possibly think that’s ok , but the society was founded by members money solicited to buy that one share one vote, if circumstances changed for members , all that was to be lost were the society ‘benefits’ and it was always agreed the membership share would be retained, allowing a member to hopefully resume contributions when circumstances changed for them.

 

please read through the proposal and please Stop the change to adult membership definition change .

 

I’m also very uncomfortable with the proposal to silence dissent, for a member led organisation, it seems like a step too far.

 

please do vote , these changes are getting pushed through with little debate or discussion and on feedback from only a small fraction of the society membership 

[weeyin]

I see language about harassment and bullying, but nothing about dissent. Is there a particular policy amendment where that is described?

 

[Brazilian]

26 minutes ago, weeyin said:

I see language about harassment and bullying, but nothing about dissent. Is there a particular policy amendment where that is described?

 

Hi weeyin , what is one person’s dissent is easily construed as bullying or harassment, but I get your point , but since the code of conduct isn’t published in its final form, there’s only a vote on introducing it that’s probably my concern, around it the initial draft was woefully off and offering some tweaks isn’t exactly confidence building

but tbh I’m more concerned that adult members are going to be stripped of membership, 

 

 

[Speedie85]

Hello folks

Thank you @Kmcalpin for starting off the discussion and drawing attention to the Society Consultation. Worth noting that voting will close at noon this Thursday. All Well Society members will receive a final reminder email tomorrow with a voting link. Whether you agree with the changes or not please do make the effort to vote. We are keen to ensure as many members as possible have their say.

All eight of the proposal have been developed in consultation with our members. This process commenced in January 2024 through a series of member workshops which were open to all. We worked through communications, governance and membership. Earlier this year we conducted a four week consultation covering the changes to the membership benefits, adult membership definition, change to the Rules of Association and supporting policies, the introduction of a new funding policy and the members' code of conduct. We then had a further two week consultation for the major votes policy change. We made changes as a result of the feedback received on a number of aspects and pulled together responses to frequently asked questions.

If I can pick up on @Brazilian's point on the proposed changes to adult membership definition specifically. Those who joined the Society before 21 May 2015 and as a result made a significant one-off contribution of £300 or more but are no longer contributing to the Society currently will retain membership at the 1886 tier as part of the proposal.

The new 1886 membership tier includes a community share in the Well Society, a vote on Well Society matters, discounted Well Society event entry, access to the new mobile app and access to the members education course. The reason for that date specifically is a communication sent by the then board of The Well Society which moved Society policy to seek monthly pledges rather than one-off payments: 

To help achieve long-term financial stability for Motherwell FC and its vision of becoming the best community club in Scotland, we are asking all members to pledge money to the Well Society each month.

Last month we sent an email to members seeking approval for a revised membership structure. We have received an overwhelming endorsement of the proposals and thank everyone who responded.

The policy now is to seek ongoing monthly pledges by direct debit, similar to the Foundation of Hearts, replacing the system of initial membership payments and annual renewal fees. You can pay £10 a month, £20, £30 or as much as you are able.

Your contributions will still be recognised in the form of benefits, based on an incremental scale. Most importantly, though, you will be investing in a sustainable financial future for your club, providing it with working capital as it moves towards a self-sufficient future with the help of Les Hutchison.

It is true to say that the proposal for those who joined the Well Society after this date when the new policy commenced and are no longer making a minimum contribution of £5 per month or £60 annual will lose their membership status and voting rights.

Thanks again folks.

Philip

[Electric Blues]

"I strongly disagree with the changes for adult members". Perfectly fine.

"I strongly disagree with the changes for adult members, you bunch of twats". Probably not fine 

 

And... I've just deleted the paragraph I was typing about membership rights because Philip has just explained it so much better than I ever could.

 

[dennyc]

Philip

I think Brazilian has raised valid points. 

 

If my understanding is correct, someone who has contributed on a monthly basis will in time lose their Membership if personal circumstances change and they can no longer afford to continue payments. And please note the hardship many people are experiencing and which is likely to be made worse by the proposals currently before Parliament. As an example, will  someone who has contributed £20 per month for 10 years (£2400 in total) be binned after 12 months non payment? But an original member who donated a much lesser lump sum (me) will retain Membership and all voting rights?   Is that really what is being suggested as fair and reasonable? If that is what is being proposed then my vote will be 'No'. And every Member should follow suit as they could end up being the person dropped through no fault of their own. And regardless of how much they have contributed over the years. Who knows what is round the corner for any of us. 

By all means distinguish in some way between those contributing on an ongoing basis and those not, but removing Membership and voting rights is punitive. And it certainly is at odds with what agreed all those years ago. At the very least have a minimum level which when reached ( £300/£400?) guarantees Life Membership etc.

 

[Kmcalpin]

3 hours ago, Brazilian said:

Be not been active much around here

but glad to see there is still some names I recognise and some subjects that are very important being discussed 

Welcome back Iain. Its been a long time but hope to see more of your posts as they're always worth reading. 

[Speedie85]

@dennyc

For those that joined on the original one-off payment system where members were advised that they would effectively be members for life on the basis of that payment. That is being honoured. This feels like the right thing to do and I believe in line with what was agreed all those years ago.

For those that joined after the move to monthly contributions; we’re asking them to make a minimum contribution of £5 per month or £60 annually to maintain their membership of the Society.

I would encourage you to vote ‘no’ if you do not agree with the proposed changes. I understand that the proposals will not be supported by all members. My hope would be that the Society and its members will continue to update and refine policies on a regular basis. 

[weeyin]

3 hours ago, Brazilian said:

Hi weeyin , what is one person’s dissent is easily construed as bullying or harassment, but I get your point , but since the code of conduct isn’t published in its final form, there’s only a vote on introducing it that’s probably my concern, around it the initial draft was woefully off and offering some tweaks isn’t exactly confidence building

but tbh I’m more concerned that adult members are going to be stripped of membership, 

 

 

Ah, OK - I just wasn't sure if I had missed something, as there was a lot to read.

I was generally OK with the language in the harassment and bullying section, but I agree we don't want to be using that to avoid dissent.

I also agree about members being stripped of membership. I don't see any reason that needs to happen.

[dennyc]

34 minutes ago, Speedie85 said:

@dennyc

For those that joined on the original one-off payment system where members were advised that they would effectively be members for life on the basis of that payment. That is being honoured. This feels like the right thing to do and I believe in line with what was agreed all those years ago.

For those that joined after the move to monthly contributions; we’re asking them to make a minimum contribution of £5 per month or £60 annually to maintain their membership of the Society.

I would encourage you to vote ‘no’ if you do not agree with the proposed changes. I understand that the proposals will not be supported by all members. My hope would be that the Society and its members will continue to update and refine policies on a regular basis. 

Can you confirm the example I gave about Membership cancellation when contributions stop is accurate?  And, if it is, that you consider that fair and reasonable. And you also avoided my suggestion of a minimum amount in total to guarantee life membership.