Leaderboard

The player sales model debate is an interesting one. For me, it's not a precarious model by any means. And I'd suggest that it demonstrably works. We're in a situation where the club doesn't urgently need outside investment - it would just be preferable. Our model ensures that it's unlikely that the hypothetical gap outlined in the Well Society's consultation earlier in the year, and the hypothetical gap that is the very reason for courting external investment in the first place, will, based on the experience of fan-ownership to date, materialise. It never has under fan-ownership and, even if it did, the Well Society has enough funding to cover that gap as a one-off. The issue would be if something that has yet to happen didn't just happen one year, but two in quick succession. Of course, nothing is impossible in football. Over the same time period that fan-owned Motherwell has remained in the division, reached cup finals, and made Europe, clubs with bigger resources such as Hearts, Hibernian and Dundee United have all been relegated. So it's a duty of the club to at least recognise that hypothetical gap and see if there's a more productive way to eradicate it, other than relying on the Well Society to plug it if it happens once, and then to probably slash our playing budget if it happens again in quick succession (before the Society has built up the safety net again). But in terms of our model, David Turnbull always gets picked out as a seeming "anomaly" but in reality, he's the result of an effective player sales model. Since fan-ownership came into being, we have - purely off the top of my head, so there'll probably be others I miss - sold, for cash, guys like Louis Moult, Cedric Kipre, Kevin van Keen, Sondre Solholm Johansen, James Scott & Ben Heneghan. We could have, had we tied them down on contracts, added Chris Cadden, Allan Campbell, Jake Hastie, Dean Cornelius & Max Johnston to that list. However, the compensation for each still numbers in the hundreds of thousands meaning that, collectively, that's still well over £1m. We will probably sell Theo Bair on for a relatively decent fee in the summer, January, or next summer, while at the same time, Lennon Miller will almost certainly go for a price that you could perhaps list alongside the Turnbull fee. In terms of any investment meaning a change from that model and the ability to keep our best players, I would argue that is incredibly unlikely, if not impossible. The player sales model is only partly because of a financial need, it's also largely because of the club's stature in world football. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it was confirmed at the AGM by the club that no investment offer is transformational, meaning that there would be no change to the model. In fact, you could argue that, if any investor was keen on getting a return on their investment, the player sales model could become even more important in that situation. The only way in which our model ceases to be our model that I can see is if we ended up with an incredibly unlikely Colin & Christine Weir scenario where a diehard Motherwell fan wins the Euromillions and wants to just chuck cash at the club. But even in that situation, where you don't necessarily need to sell players, players would still be sold - because the best guys will always want to move on to play at perceived bigger clubs or in better leagues, regardless of how much cash you're able to throw at them. The player sales model at Fir Park has been in place, and worked successfully, before fan-ownership, has worked under fan-ownership, and will continue to work regardless of whether the club is owned by the fans, an external investor, or a hybrid of the two. Personally, I think it's both a successful model that we should be positive about, because we're good at it, and a model that will be integral to the club whether we like it or not anyway.

Ominous. I'll no sleep tonight.

No even in a lucky bag. His race is run.

Clarke will probably pick some jobber from English leagues one.

On plus side we would get money as uefa pay clubs if your player is in squad..

I think you are clever enough to know that the Safety Certificate comment related to the ground facilities. And you can only spend profits if you earn them. Losses of over a million in successive seasons will soon empty the coffers.

Given Clark’s obsession with player’s he’s worked with SOD’s the man - hope he’s not booked his holidays yet

you are quite correct their is a big difference but as much as potential investors need to prove their case , so do the Well Society , they too need to tell the fans how they will grow sustainable Revenue streams and have coherent business plans to back it up. They do that and no bugger will look twice at outside investors.

By the same token we would be in a better position if we had not incurred losses of over £3m in the past two accounting years. Those losses are clearly not of concern to some. How long can we sustain losses of that nature? And, Yes, we would still have had to spend a fortune on the East Stand and Pitch even if that previous income had not been available. Possibly funded by the Well Society leaving us even more exposed. Those upgrades were almost mandatory for Safety Certificate reasons and to avoid further SPFL sanctions because of the pitch. And Fir Park will continue to eat up funds as repairs are ongoing. And, if investment had been secured earlier, we could perhaps have also had funds to improve the playing squad rather than bringing in the low cost players you have openly stated are not good enough. There is scope for outside Investment, the Society and player sales. In fact proper application of any Investment could actually result in more profitable youth development, increased player sales and improved performance on the pitch.

Because McMahon and Weir don't like the look of the new Society board.

That's correct league winners go into CL group stage, 2nd get CL playoff round, and Guaranteed EL groups, 3rd get EL playoff round and confirmed ECL group stage unless Aberdeen win the Scottish Cup then 3rd and 4th get Conf league And if either of uglies or Hearts win the Scottish cup then 4th and 5th get CL. I think that's the arrangements 😁

Something like : top 2 get champions league, cup winners get Europa, third and 4th place gets Conference league, if 1st-4th win the cup then 5th gets conference league.

For me this is the vital ingredient. I think everybody acknowledges that just like everybody else we are a selling Club. And there is nothing wrong with that. But unless the club is at the same time generating profits and/or has a constant stream of quality youth coming through, then the product on the pitch inevitably decreases. A trend we have seen for a good few seasons as income has been utilised for a wide range of infrastructure improvements rather than maintaining player quality. Not having a dig at the Directors here as most Clubs are experiencing similar decline. To a degree that has hidden our own issues. What the Board statement actually said before all this debate started was that to CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT THE CURRENT LEVEL some form of outside investment is required. If we are prepared to risk a drop in the level we play at, then we can continue as is. So why can't we strive to have a balance that incorporates outside investment on acceptable terms plus income from player sales plus a growing Well Society? Especially if that additional investment is used in part to fund a stronger and more productive youth programme. Then any on field performance above the level budgeted for results in growth and does not mean we just stand still at best. Also the big issue with bringing in value through player sales is that players will often deliberately let contracts run out. And there is nothing the Club can do about it. Take Lennon Miller. Thankfully he has extended and we all expect him to go for Turnbull like monies. But what if next January Motherwell are offered half of what they think he is worth. Do they turn the offer down or reluctantly accept it because we need the money? If they opt not do sell, could that upset the player in which case he might decide to run down his contract in the hope of a big sign on fee from a top club in due course? That situation is happening throughout the football world. My point is that overly relying on player sales is risky. And if those potential sales are the only realistic way of generating income then that risk is greatly increased. And sorry, but saying we have broken even over the past seven, ten or twenty years is meaningless. Turnbull and two cup finals in a season are history. What matters is how finances are working out in the present.

Ryan Jack and Halliday would be a decent midfield in wheelchair fitba. The club have put out a Liam Kelly highlights video... an ominous sign.

Couldn't afford his wages and too many injuries in recent years

It's not precarious if the club is run correctly. We budget for finishing 10th and a few cup games, and anything else above & beyond that goes into the "rainy day" fund. Be it player sales, extended cup runs, top six finishes, whatever. For example, we're sitting 8th at the moment, and let's say that finishing in 8th means getting £1.375 million instead of the £1.250 million the team finishing 10th gets. That's an extra hundred grand or so that we didn't account for, so it's a little bonus.

This all day long. We need to ditch the weird formation and get our best players playing in their best positions. Vale is great with his back to goal and holding the ball up and playing others in. Bair is better running in behind. Davor runs around and breaks shit up. Miller and Spittal are both best at controlling the tempo and picking a pass. Gent is great at beating his man and driving crosses across the 6 yard box. Just do that. And if the defence could maybe not chuck any in our own net that would be grand!