Society Consultation

[weeyin]

FWIW, I was a relatively early joiner (number 473) and joined at Steel Membership Level. The membership pack I received says that Steel Membership was "a £300 joining fee then after the first year an annual membership fee of £50".

[dennyc]

18 minutes ago, weeyin said:

FWIW, I was a relatively early joiner (number 473) and joined at Steel Membership Level. The membership pack I received says that Steel Membership was "a £300 joining fee then after the first year an annual membership fee of £50".

Apparently I paid £400 up front so I don't suppose you have details of what that level was or meant? I have not kept any paperwork. Probably lost during various house moves. 

[weeyin]

17 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Apparently I paid £400 up front so I don't suppose you have details of what that level was or meant? I have not kept any paperwork. Probably lost during various house moves. 

I'll see if I can find it. From memory, different levels were on different pages and I stuffed the Steel one in a drawer because that was my sub level.

I'm pretty sure I came across the rest of the pack a couple of months ago, so I'll try and track it down.

[Kmcalpin]

16 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Apparently I paid £400 up front so I don't suppose you have details of what that level was or meant? I have not kept any paperwork. Probably lost during various house moves. 

There were 3 levels. Steel at £300; claret and then amber. One of those two kicked in at £1,000. Can't remember which was which. 

[dennyc]

11 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

There were 3 levels. Steel at £300; claret and then amber. One of those two kicked in at £1,000. Can't remember which was which. 

Cheers. So I must have been Claret or Amber then.

There was also a junior membership I think and even one aimed at Businesses. I think that kicked in at a few thousand? and involved picking POTM, entertaining clients  on match day and use of FP for meetings. All a bit hazy though. Securing those business members was seen as the ultimate but I think we struck out on that front. Even more difficult nowadays.

[Goggles & Flippers]

I can maybe clarify some stuff as I and a few other contributors on here were involved as a sounding board by Leeann and Derek Weir.

From the club website in 2013: https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2013/03/19/well-society-sign-up-night/

Junior Steel Membership – £25 (for juveniles under 15)
Steel Membership – £300
Claret Membership – £,1000
Amber Membership – £5,000
1886 Membership – £25,000

The annual fee was to keep your benefits alive (which at the time were pretty substantial), from memory Amber benefits for an annual renewal fee of £1,000 maybe? you got stuff totalling way more than annual contribution. Not paying the annual fee did NOT affect your voting rights, just access to the benefits as per your tier.

The £300 barrier to entry was something they were aware of at the time and DD's were floated at launch but there were fears it had financial compliance issues with the WS being a provident society. A few years down the line Hearts blazed that trail and we embraced it but more as a means to appeal to a wider audience to attain £300 steel membership (and beyond if you wished) in easier to swallow chunks. It was not sold as a universal adoption by all members, more it would be nice if you did.

I can recall from when £5 was deposited new members post 2015 got their membership pack and voting rights which caused some consternation at the time, over them getting to £300 deposited, maybe it was part of the sales tool to boost membership.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

Lets not turn this into a who paid what.

The whole point of the Society is to bring everyone together.

Legacy members should be protected and current members should be treated fairly.

There are many who fall into both categories.

Im sure the current Well Society Board are reading this and aware of the feelings on both sides.

I trust them to do the right thing.

[dennyc]

I wonder how I got to £400 then as that is not one of the levels covered? And Sally confirmed I was sitting at £400. I certainly paid a lump sum and not monthly subscriptions.

And from what you suggest, it was the top up benefits that folk paid an annual fee for and not a membership renewal? So initially a member for life with benefits being a yearly option? Whatever they were. I do recall that what was on offerseemed to be very changeable depending who chaired the presentations. Very much adapting on the hoof early doors. 
Anyway, clear as mud all these years on. 
 

 

[Kmcalpin]

8 hours ago, dennyc said:

I wonder how I got to £400 then as that is not one of the levels covered? And Sally confirmed I was sitting at £400. I certainly paid a lump sum and not monthly subscriptions.

Ad hoc top ups? A few legacy members went down that route. 

[dennyc]

55 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Ad hoc top ups? A few legacy members went down that route. 

Maybe. I can’t remember what I did yesterday, never mind in 2013. 
Thanks

[stv]

35 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Maybe. I can’t remember what I did yesterday, never mind in 2013. 
Thanks

Maybe you could remember some of Grizzlyg jokes ,that's when most of them come from. 

I'm sure I paid £300 up front with nothing more required to gaurentee a vote for ever. With the option of voluntarily paying something every month but not a requirement. But things did change a lot over the years after that first year. All got a bit confusing if I recall correctly 🤔 

[Busta Nut]

so 12 year ago folk would have paid either.

£300 (£2.08 per month)
£1000 (£6.94 per month)
£5000 (£34.72 Per Month)
£25000 (£173.61 Per Month)

First two tiers should be telt they need to start contributing. 

I'd give the 5k tier a year more. 
and the 25k tier is fucking insane. I hope no one did that at the time. 

[joewarkfanclub]

45 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

so 12 year ago folk would have paid either.

£300 (£2.08 per month)
£1000 (£6.94 per month)
£5000 (£34.72 Per Month)
£25000 (£173.61 Per Month)

First two tiers should be telt they need to start contributing. 

I'd give the 5k tier a year more. 
and the 25k tier is fucking insane. I hope no one did that at the time. 

You cant do that when the rules at the point of parting with your money were that you were a member for life and kept the voting rights that come with that.

That would leave the Society open to allegations of misselling.

But given that the model has now been changed, a way need to be found to provide fairness to new members so that they arent disadvantaged compared to legacy members.

Im sure the new Society board will have looked at the matter extensively.

It does beg the question as to how much thought went into the long term financials at the time of set up and why those in charge settled on that model.

[Busta Nut]

4 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

You cant do that when the rules at the point of parting with your money were that you were a member for life and kept the voting rights that come with that.

That would leave the Society open to allegations of misselling.

Who would be upset?  And why? 

12 years out of yir money isnae bad. 

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, Busta Nut said:

Who would be upset?  And why? 

Those affected adversely I'd guess. 

Why? You sign an agreement and the other party changes that afterwards. 

[Busta Nut]

Aye folk greetin about paying £300 12 years ago. pffffft.

Sounds like suhin a Tory would whine about.

[Kmcalpin]

20 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

It's not been changed though has it. The folk who paid the lump sum still have voting rights 

I was replying to Busta Nut's post above suggesting that some legacy members should be telt that they need to start contributing. Joewarkfanclub's post above pretty well sums up my view. No point in repeating it. 

[joewarkfanclub]

3 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

Aye folk greetin about paying £300 12 years ago. pffffft.

Sounds like suhin a Tory would whine about.

Certainly not a Tory! 

Its just simple fairness.

Not that hard to understand.

[joewarkfanclub]

For the avoidance of any doubt.

I am a legacy member.

But I also still pay a direct debit, so Im not arguing from a selfish perspective.

Just trying to see it from both sides and find a middle ground.

[joewarkfanclub]

3 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Surely there has to be something that aligns people who paid 300 quid for life membership to the people who pay every month. 

My original point outlines that......

[joewarkfanclub]

11 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I'll delete my post. I wasn't trying to criticise you. Was just an observation. Nothing more than that. 

Didnt take it as a criticism. Just couldnt be arsed typing it all out again! 😊

[joewarkfanclub]

On 6/25/2025 at 9:25 AM, joewarkfanclub said:

The above has been a really useful debate.

I hadnt fully considered the implications of stopping my direct debit as I was one of the original legacy members, so I would continue to have voting rights.

I think a balance has to be struck somewhere between fairness to members who have contributed significantly and protecting the Society from any skullduggery.

How about, all new members who contribute monthly will attain lifetime membership and voting rights once they reach the £300 legacy membership fee?

That way, we move forward but are seen to do so in a fair and equitable manner.......

 

This was my original post on page 2 for anyone interested......

[wellfan]

All eight proposals have been approved by members.

A total of 410 votes were cast from a potential pool of 2,820 adult members – a turnout of 14.5%.

It’s a disappointing response rate and raises valid questions about how many of those 2,820 are actively contributing via a monthly direct debit. The lack of engagement suggests that not all of them are.

[Kmcalpin]

21 minutes ago, wellfan said:

All eight proposals have been approved by members.

A total of 410 votes were cast from a potential pool of 2,820 adult members – a turnout of 14.5%.

It’s a disappointing response rate and raises valid questions about how many of those 2,820 are actively contributing via a monthly direct debit. The lack of engagement suggests that not all of them are.

Yes, it was a very clear vindication of the board's proposals, insofar as it went. They don't come much clearer than 95% ish support. 

The response rate was indeed very poor and worrying. The Society has a job on its hands to get many members to vote on any issue. That said, it was quite a complicated, difficult, and lengthy consultation, and for many, perhaps a bit academic. You make a good point about those not contributing monthly and that needs to be investigated. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the % contributing /not contributing againstthe respsonses to individual questions. Maybe the Society has become a bit divorced from many members, who just want it to support putting a competitive team on the park? If so, its not an easy situation to rectify. Time to get back to basics?  

[wellfan]

2 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

That said, it was quite a complicated, difficult, and lengthy consultation, and for many, perhaps a bit academic.

 Definitely this. While all the necessary information was included in the voting package, it wasn’t particularly easy to digest or navigate. Perhaps something for the Well Society to reflect on.

3 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Time to get back to basics?

Yes. Otherwise there’s a very real risk of consultation fatigue setting in, especially when combined with the constant stream of weekly updates. There’s a balance to be struck in engaging members.