Leaderboard

That bloody idiot Kettlewell can't even organise the weather for a big game. It's not as if he didn't know this game was coming up. It's stupid mistakes like this that prove he's not going to have long left in this job. Ooot his depth !

Aberdeen game was decent, Rangers game was good, Dundee Utd game was great. All recent matches. I've been going for 40 years and it's always been the case that if you went to a Motherwell match it was more likely than not we wouldn't win or wouldn't play well. Motherwell are a team you support. It's not an entertainment event. You have to have the stomach for it and you have to have realistic levels of expectation. If you don't, Rangers and Celtic are just down the road. And of course the standard of the game has regressed massively over the time I've been going but that's mostly down to economic factors that extend across the whole of Scottish football and most other nation's football. It's not dross every week but it is a lot. That's just how it is and it's not going to change. So you either have to accept that or move on. Every single person here would love it if Motherwell played better football and scored more goals and won more games but that's not the reason you go.

Did ye, aye ?

Just listened to the interview from start to finish and it’s fair to say, it was a tough listen. Kettlewell has in my opinion at least, really let himself down here and in the long run, will have done himself no favours. He is clearly a very intense guy. From the day he arrived, he talked at machine gun pace using flowery words that didn’t quite fit with what he was saying. That intensity only ramped up the deeper he got into the job and his levels of personal investment increased. Of course football management is a uniquely demanding role. It demands so much of your time and energy away from the Matchday, often influenced by factors outwith your span of control and attracts critique far beyond what almost any other vocation should expect. Having coached youth, first team and held director of football roles at Semi Pro (Isthmian and national league level) clubs in England I can personally vouch (though on a much smaller scale) for the levels of pressure associated and the impact a life at the sharp end of football can have on you and all those around you. Kettlewell talked about not reading the socials and working all hours and then coming home and seeing the sadness in the families eyes and using that as a driver for quitting. Every manager has that, and given that he has a family “like the Waltons” his chosen vocation and its hours worked, will also be a huge source of pressure. By choosing to work those hours, he will be choosing to miss some of his kids younger years. His choice, his guilt, not the clubs or the fans. Fan abuse is often ill informed and when in that space, often feeling extremely unfair. However, I’d bet the mortgage that the reason Kettlewell chose to walk was because…. - He’s a naturally intense guy who’s response to things going badly is to throw himself further into his work - This then brings a “I’m working my arse off here, what more do you want?” mindset. - He was bringing this mindset home with him (he says he’s an aggressive person) and it was impacting on the family dynamic. - The family begins to resent the cause of this Gollum side to his personality (his thankless employer and fans he seems to love more than us) - The slightest bit of poor fan behaviour witnessed then gets jumped on by the family because they’ve become hyper sensitive to criticism. - Kettlewell knows he’s running out of ideas and perhaps realising that hard work doesn’t fix. The fella has one maybe two opportunities left to prove himself as a manager that can stay the pace without completely losing the nut, burning himself and his family out and resorting to the blame of others. His decision to do that interview reeks of a wounded ego that doesn’t have the self awareness to recognise just how much he has to change.

Heard a rumour that Kettlewell told the players to make sure they lost the game today so that four absolute wankers could have an evening of bitching on an internet forum. After four games without a defeat, they might not have survived another.

Thanks for the sanctimonious post that has become your trademark but go and tell that to the numerous hangers on ive seen today including very young children holding and waving ulster flags while their alleged parents obviously the worse for drink sing " no surrender " The description of them in a previous post was accurate. The bigotry between the blue and green uglies is Scotlands shame and has no place in modern society.

You must be raging a Motherwell win and another weekend wasted for you.

Bore off 💤

You can criticise SOD for his performances if you like, but to criticise his attitude towards the fans is way off line imho. He takes plenty stick but has never bitten back or disrespected us publicly. He has certainly had his fall outs with managers , but we have all been crying out this season for players who will challenge the manager and not just sit silently and accept what is happening. Personally, I dont think he has been great for us over the piece, but nowhere near as bad as some make him out to be. Thats not a great defence for him and its difficult to see how he keeps his place in a high pressing team, but lets keep it factual.

I think the 'abuse' bit is a convenient scapegoat. He's realised he can't turn this round so he is going now to protect the legacy of the good things he has done, unsullied by a potential relegation battle, now leaving a club that has backed him to the hilt in the transfer market managerless with only a week to go in the window. That Daily Record piece could have been written by SK himself, all the positives, none of the negatives.

This forum is exactly the type of place for these discussions to be had by fans. The whole concept of sharing opinions and information on topics of shared interest is the very reason why such fora exist. At the end of the day, this is a ‘fans’ forum, and nobody is forcing the manager or players to read our thoughts. This is not the open terracing where folk often shout unnecessary and viscous crap at people trying to do their jobs, which is a whole different story. So, if robust and colourful debate on the suitability of Kettlewell as manager is too much for some, then that’s not the problem of the forum, it’s your problem.

Ewan Wilson signs a new deal until 2027

I don't think anyone is questioning his commitment to the Club or the record of the work he's done alongside McMahon which is overwhelmingly positive. He says as much in his statement; the Club is being left in a secure financial position, setting up the WS as majority owner etc. What he neglects to mention in his statement is that he was willing to throw a lot (if not all) of that work away over the summer to bring in an investment which (blatantly, imho) was a terrible deal for the Club and would completely undermine, or even remove majority fan ownership. £300k for immediate effective control and Chairmanship of the Executive Board to someone without any previous experience of running a football club? Surely he can see the irony in that, given what he's said about the Society's sub-committee in his statement? The Society has put in triple (I think probably more) that in its time and not gotten anything other than a nod of thanks in the accounts and at the AGM. He has tarnished his good work with what happened this summer and with this final statement. I'm sorry, but you can't play down just how serious his actions over the summer could have been for the Club. The WS as majority owner has every right to interview who it wishes to appoint to the Executive Board as its representatives. The fact that he resigned as chair of the WS board because the opinion of the majority didn't agree with his own and subsequently remained in his seat on the Exec Board which was to represent the WS as a majority owner until now, is an absolute nonsense. To then to have the gall to expect he retains this seat effectively "just because" of his previous record absolutely reeks of cronyism and is everything that's wrong with Scottish football as a whole from top to bottom. There's a dignity in accepting that you've lost with grace and good wishes. This isn't it.

Hi Anja and Chris. If you can contact me on derek.watson@thewellsociety.uk, I'll aim to get that sorted for you ASAP. Looking forward to seeing you both at Fir Park in December.

Well aye, that’s also a point. An Instagram story of a Bobby Sands mural followed by one of King Billy doesn’t suggest any political leanings but that doesn’t suit the narrative. If you wanted to dig up political posts from today, they could have highlighted when I was critical of the Scottish Government on rail fares but again, maybe that doesn’t suit the narrative. If we’re going to talk about club representatives being political; Jim McMahon appeared on BBC Question Time (or maybe it was Debate Night) whilst he was in the role. He was also pictured campaigning for Scottish Labour whilst Chairman. I should add that I’ve absolutely no issue with that whatsoever, but it’s worth highlighting. Is it that we don’t want people associated with the club posting about politics or we don’t want them posting about politics that you don’t agree with?

When he came on at Dundee SOD did everything that Devine didn't. Suddenly the midfield had an option moving forward out wide other than Gent and Dundee were stretched all across the park. As a result Spittal started to contribute more, Bair had space to run into and Gent was not double marked. And Kettlewell deserves credit for making that change, despite the concern about SOD carrying an injury. His performances throughout the season have more than earned SOD another year.

I wish him all the best. A genuinely nice guy and nice speech wishing club well and thanking the fans . SK take note.....that's how you leave a club with respect

Given that fan conduct is a hot topic this week, you'd think that at least one outlet would question Celtic fans proudly singing IRA songs in a City which was the location of a high-profile terrorist incident. Not a peep though 🤷‍♂️

would be rather ironic if we did seeing as Liverpool paid for the current Main Stand with the sale of Ian St John to them in the 1960s

What a dumpster fire this thread has turned into 🤣

You’re a fucking weirdo.

You dont half talk shite! 🤣 Given you must be a titan of industry, i am waiting patiently for one of your many business interests to come in & give the club a much better offer than whats on the table. Then you will be in a great position to set club policy on leave, transfers, comms etc. We will be the envy of all

If they interview Kettlewell, that's season 1 sorted.

No Motherwell fan hates Rangers more than they love Motherwell. Some hate Rangers more than they hate Celtic though, and that seems to get up your nose, or at least under your skin enough to make comments like that. Halliday is playing better because he is being used properly in a system that he can contribute to. I think we can all unite and get behind that, no? 😘😘😘

I doubt Casey got close enough to his man for a proper bust up.

I find the perspective of some of the comments on here regarding the disallowed goal and SK reaction to the decision a little strange. We are allowed as fans to be biased in favour of our own team. It is part of the game to look at the world through Claret and Amber specs. Rangers have made an art form over decades of putting pressure on match officials so that 50/50 decisions get viewed 55/45 in their favour. They have piled on the pressure since the league cup final and it has gained traction in the press. This is designed to make it more difficult for match officials to decide against them in future games (particularly the next OF game). They do this because it works. No conspiracy, no agenda on the side of the referees, it is just human nature to balance a decision on it's potential repercussions. The question I would ask is had the roles been reversed would Oxborough have benefited from the same decision in the same circumstances when the score was 2-0 or 2-1. I don't think he would because it would have been a tougher decision for the VAR officials to make. That is just the laws of human nature and it is a law that the OF are very good at working to their advantage. I welcome SK showing the passion, the frustration and standing up for his team and his club. I find it odd that some don't seem to share his passion given the Motherwell bias that is our right as subjective, irrational football fans. In a different circumstance, the goal could have been given. You can guarantee that had Rangers been disallowed a similar goal they would make plenty of it and another strongly worded statement could have been making it's way to anybody who would listen.

Folk acknowledge and support the good things that the Bois bring to games. Long may it continue. Perth last week being a great example of the atmosphere and support they can provide. Drum included. And the community work they have driven through various initiatives over the years. I have not read one poster decrying those contributions. Quite the opposite. But what I do see are a few, no matter what is reported and no matter what people who witnessed incidents say, refusing to acknowledge that the Bois actions at times are over the top and on occasion a throw back to the intimidation and violence of years past. Any mention of the incident in Dundee (which did happen), the trashing of a pub in Kilmarnock (which did happen), the street battle in Kirkcaldy (which did happen) or the threatening of a female Well supporter at Dingwall (which did happen) are met with 'That did not happen' or ' Get the facts straight'. To be clear, I and the people with me witnessed three of those examples, and a mate witnessed the fourth. No-one can deny pyrotechnics are an issue as well. Or does that not happen either? It may well be a small minority who are causing the trouble (I genuinely believe it is) but sadly the whole group then comes under the spotlight. If some have wrongly come to the attention of the Police and the Club have been involved in that, then that is wrong and needs addressed. As a separate issue. The fact the Bois are supported by some who are in complete denial and/or have influence within the Well Society only makes matters less likely to change and provides encouragement to continue the nonsense.. And it's not an age thing either, so let's knock that lie on the head straight up.. Another tactic used to deflect from the fact that there are issues which need sorted. Back to what I understand was an incident free Perth. There was a huge Police presence around the stadium and a large number of Stewards inside. May always be the case at St Johnstone of course, but from memory it was a lot more than usual. Interesting to see what police numbers turn up at Aberdeen. Are Motherwell now High Risk?

I really dont know what this team and manager need to do to please some folk. We were far from perfect today, but we dominated the game for 60 minutes, shoulda been outta sight before Levein spun the wheel with his subs, scored and goal and gave us a nervous 10 - 15 minutes. After that we dug in, got ourselves back in the game and deservedly scored the winner. For all our faults (and the managers) this team has something. Previous Motherwell teams would have found a way to lose that game. This one found a way to win it. If you cant be happy with that you need to find a different hobby. Given our injury list and fixture schedule, I would have bitten your hand off for 7 points at this stage. We now have a couple of weeks to rest and recuperate. Hopefully one or two will be closer to a return and the manager can get some fitness into the legs of those that need it (looking at you Tony!) Overall, it was a pretty decent day out.

Also today such a great victory as tomorrow is 10 years since my dad passed away, huge well fan and reason I became a well fan even though a hamilton lad born and bred. He would have loved that today ❤️

Last home game they were singing 'Fuck the Police' when at that very moment the police were getting bricked and assaulted protecting the most vulnerable people in society from fascists and racists. Embarrassing and genuinely shameful. A bunch of daft wee boys who are entitled up to their ears and never had any adversity in their lives. The problem with these Ultra groups is their unbelievable sense of self importance when they represent a small minority of the support. For most of the time I've supported Motherwell that end section was empty and it didn't make a jot of difference to me. Support the club sure, no one has a problem with that, but if you break the law by your own volition at least be big boys about it instead of whiny kids.

Australia's pretty far away

Signing risky players is a product of the limited market SK has to shop in. Young players that show potential but have not performed yet are a risk. Bair was a risk that worked. Good quality experienced players that but for a few injuries would be completely priced out of our market are a risk. Louis Moult was a risk that did not work out for Stevie Hammell. He then did work out for Dundee Utd. Veteran players that have reached the end of their careers that we could never have dreamt of signing when in their prime are a risk. Callum Patterson may be an example of that. Andy Halliday is a risk that I still think could go either way. Remember we missed out on Robert Snodgrass a season or two back. A perfect example of a player we could not have afforded but for the fact that he was in the twilight of his career. He did not exactly set the heather on fire on his return to Scotland so even he would have been a risk that may not have worked. Look at Van Veen going to Kilmarnock. It was a risk that did not work and I would imagine it was a fairly expensive one for Kilmarnock. Let's say that Ryan Jack is training with us and SK can see in training that he is significantly better than the midfield players we have. He is gaining fitness and stays injury free The option is there to offer him 6 months/ 1 year. Would SK really be off his head to consider this? I think the problem sometimes with the arguments you put forward wellfan is that you fail to recognise the significant restraints that Motherwell and SK work under. SK has to gamble sometimes. It is the nature of being financially one of the smaller clubs in the top league.

@Mintymac, absolutely spot on. Any membership organisation is only as strong as it's members to an extent and it's more than important than ever that we all push forward collectively to grow fan-ownership and the football club. What I've been really impressed with in recent weeks and months is how many people have came forward to offer their skills, expertise and time. It's really important that we utilise our membership. We've got over 4,000 members and we need to find out what people can bring to the table. That doesn't necessarily mean sitting on a board or attending meetings every week, but it could be lending your skills to a project, giving pointers or opening doors etc. As a Society Board member (for now 😊), I'd like to thank all members of The Well Society who engaged in the process regardless of opinion. It’s been a costly, time-consuming and emotionally draining exercise, but this has been fan-ownership in action It’s energised members, improved communication and boosted numbers. In my opinion, it’s a really positive time to be a Well fan and I hope everyone can start pulling in the same direction. Attention now immediately turns to delivering, alongside the Chief Executive and a new club board, on the strategy set out in our plan. We've also got the opportunity for members to join the board with elections in the coming weeks. If anyone is considering standing and would like to discuss what that may entail if you are successful, feel free to reach out. Another reminder that our Annual General Meeting will take place on Monday 12 August 2024. I'd really encourage all members who can attend to sign up and come along. If you’ve not already, please consider joining The Well Society, or if you are already a member please consider upping your subscription. Happy to answer any questions.

I'll try to summarise one of the best points I heard from a board member.... At the moment board members are sacrificing time they could be spending with their families or on their careers to contribute to the Society and club. Members are contributing money they have worked hard for. if Barmack's deal goes through any time or money put into the Society will be a free contribution to Erik Barmack making a profit on his investment. Why would anyone want to do that?

I think there is a need for the Society Board to be very careful and diplomatic throughout all of this; they're a very public face of a very public opposition to something the Exec Board is pushing. I think resorting to calling out/naming and shaming wouldn't be in their best interests; it would just fuel the fire of those opposing them and give them more ammo to paint them as "daft wee lads and lasses who aren't business people". Being professional and doing things in the manner which they're doing them demonstrates an incredible level of control and dignity. They're also going to stand up on Wednesday and take questions and listen to their members/fans; something the Exec Board aren't willing to. That speaks volumes to their character and belief in what they're presenting. Edit: I think by all means we as fans/non-board members can call out the hypocrisy of certain ex-board members and others, but I think the current Board are handling themselves brilliantly.

Folk really need to stop saying the Well Society is not fit for purpose. The Well Society previously was not fit for purpose because it was set up that way by the incumbents on the club board to get the benefit of of the money raised but without the interference that would come with true fan ownership. The fact that Society Members have had the temerity to vote individuals onto the Society Board who might actually want to change that and have a real say in the running of our club appears to have brought a lot of this to a head. Its clear from detail given that McMahon has been pushing this deal and that Barmack doesnt want to be inconvenienced by a rejuvenated Well Society trying to influence any decision making. He appears to have been assisted by Dickie and Feely in this regard which is a clear conflict of interest. How else can you explain a proposed deal with 1 side putting in £1.95m over 6 years and gaining 49% of the club whilst the other side puts in £1.75 over the same time period to lose 25% of its existing stake? Barmack also gets effective control of the club from day 1 for only £300k and an 8% stake due to his chairmanship and board appointees? The deal is ludicrous and should be chased. The new Well Society Board have only been in place since October. In that time they have done their due diligance on this and are putting together their own proposals to strengthen the club going forward. They are all all Motherwell fans with the best interests of the club at heart. They have a diversity of skill and experience. They deserve a chance to show they can can do better than the ones who got us to this point.

Or he could have just signed for Rangers (or somebody else last week), received a signing on fee/salary and let his new Club collect the £100k+ Uefa payment. So yes, win win. But he deserves credit for making sure Motherwell do not miss out.

I'm not really sure what's hard to understand. We didn't do well last year. We played poorly for much of the season, and aside from Dundee who took a beating from teams following the split, we were among the highest goals conceded teams in the league. In fact, I think we were joint-worst outside of the bottom two. The defence was a problem. Even the most optimistic fans can see that. This is why it makes little sense to approach a summer when we would have the opportunity to revamp the defence by re-signing many of the players who caused our defensive issues. By re-signing O'Donnell, McGinn, and possibly Mugabi, we would now have those three, along with Blaney and Casey, under contract. What scope does that leave for significant additions to the defence beyond a couple of loan players? If we go into the new season with largely the same individuals in defence, and we start seeing the same results, then it only makes sense Kettlewell will be under pressure from the off. I could understand that if we had to go back to those players later in the summer after failing to get other players in, but that's not the case. We offered Mugabi, O'Donnell and McGinn new contracts as soon as the season finished, so how do we know who we could and couldn't get? 100%. Which is why wasting money on players like Mugabi will see questions being asked, and rightly so. This situation has nothing to do with investment. It concerns our immediately offering new terms to players who didn't perform well last season.

I’ve been watching us now for more years than I care to remember and have to agree with your sentiment. I feel our club is in poor custodianship right now. Well-meaning people they may, be but utterly lacking in knowledge, skills and know-how as to what’s required to run a professional football club. Where are the changes and the investment that the Well Society were touting about when they railed against the potential US investors? For me it’s been downhill ever since and with no sign that anyone at the club has a handle on how to turn things around. The fans are now beginning to vote with their feet as shown by our attendances. Today we had 3,973 (couple of hundred from Dingwall?) and now regularly around that mark. Today Falkirk had just under 7,500 and Raith Rovers had about 3,800!! Poor attendances, a real live possibility of relegation which would lead to a drastic fall in revenues, no investment on the horizon. Sorry for being so negative but I think it’s a very bleak outlook for our club.

I think most if not everyone knows that there is no way the media, especially BBC Scotland would allow Aberdeen fans to be tarred with the same brush based on the actions of a few individuals and a manager using that as a convenient excuse to quit to save his reputation like as what has happened with us. The narrative has been set and this is going to run for a bit yet. People are gullible sheep who generally believe what they’re told if they’re told it enough times so the media know they can get traction with this and will keep pushing it until something else comes up. I’m pretty disgusted with the club and some of the subservient pish they’ve come out with over the last week to be honest.

Scunnered with this saga already. Media can get fucked, nothing but reptiles, Kettlewell has played a blinder in waving the "poor me" flag, sums him up, zero accountability.

Will we win 2-1 and have all the usual suspects on complaining again ? Or will we lose 2-1 and have all the usual suspects on complaining again ?

Remember when we were a bit disappointed at losing 1 - 0 to Borussia Dortmund away, and ultimately seeing Paul Lambert join them on a Bosman? At least Celtic won't have to worry about any German interest in their players.

Saw Louis didn’t celebrate at all when he scored, still a class act.

Another factor to consider is that, while most people on this forum refer to the end section as a monolithic group, I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case. Whenever I’ve ventured up to that section to soak in some of the atmosphere, there is indeed a core group of lads at the very front, but the faces I’ve seen in the middle to the back of the section, and around that area, vary considerably. They also vary in age. I’ve seen very young lads who appear to be around 15, as well as older guys doing their best to lead the proceedings. My belief is that, while there’s an element of organisation concerning the drums, chants, and displays we see within the stadium, I don’t think we can hold the collective responsible for what happens outside of that. Once everyone leaves the stadium, I’d say that everyone is responsible for their own actions. For example, the section is known to sell scarves, t-shirts, and so on to help fund the banners and displays. What’s to stop me and three of my mates from buying some of the merchandise, showing up to the game, loitering at the back of the section, and then heading out after the game wearing the merchandise, all hyped up on adrenaline from a good performance, and deciding we want to cause trouble in a pub or have a go at some opposition fans? Would the guys who lead the chants and hold the drums be held responsible for that? The above theoretical situation could easily occur without me or my mates having ever really met the group as a whole. It’s for this reason that I believe the individuals involved in trouble in surrounding pubs and so on need to be held accountable as individuals. If they break the law and are charged and found guilty, then no one can complain if and when stadium bans are issued. Comparisons with the Green Brigade are, I believe, off the mark. As mentioned above, I’ve stood at the back of that East sStand section and in the section next to it and have heard very little in terms of political chanting. I’ve never seen a Palestinian flag, and apart from some jabs at the police, I don’t really see or hear much to be concerned about. My viewpoint is that I would hold the group as a whole responsible for planned in-stadium chants and banners, absolutely. That’s something they collectively work on and deliver as a whole. Incidents outside the stadium? Not for me. And I’m not saying those incidents didn’t happen. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see them. I’m just saying that those incidents should see the individuals responsible held accountable. Surely no one can expect the end section organising group to be held responsible? Regarding the recent boycott situation, I’ll reiterate my point that I believe any fan charged with a football-related offence should be suspended by the club, and then banned if they are found guilty by the courts. If charges are dropped, then the ban should be lifted. That’s based on the club’s actions being taken on the basis of the criminal charges. If the club has banned someone for an in-stadium situation that perhaps doesn’t require police action, then fair enough. That’s a different matter. Another question that's slightly separate I have is what qualifies as a “football-related” incident? Is there a specific set of parameters that define this somewhere? If I get into a fight with someone outside a pub on a Tuesday afternoon, it seems that I’m dealt with differently by the law compared to if I do the same outside a football ground on a Saturday evening, correct? When is the cut-off point? Two hours after a game finishes? At what point does the individual causing issues shift from being a “football fan” to just being a guy?

I don't often post on here but feel compelled to put down my thoughts on this somewhere to see if I'm missing something. So here are my thoughts (apologies, it's a long one): There seems to be a view from some that the club are in some dire situation and need to accept any investment we can get. This simply isn't the case as far as I can see and even if it was we could likely sell Miller and/or Bair this week and be secure financially. Given our turnover, we will always be a club running close to breakeven over the longer term and like most clubs in Scotland part of our business model will involve selling players on at a profit. There is nothing concrete in the proposed deal that suggests any of this will change. The financials of the deal from an existing shareholder perspective simply don't make sense, even with the revised terms. The valuation placed on the club of £4m can be debated but taking that as acceptable, the WS currently owns 71% of the shares (71% x £4m = £2.84m). At the end of this 6 year deal the WS own 50.1% and Wild Sheep Sports owns 47% but during this period, the WS has to invest an additional £1.35m and Wild Sheep Sports invests £1.95m. So even if at the end of the term, the club has made no progress and retains the £4m valuation, (ignoring the impact of inflation etc.) Wild Sheep Sports have a holding worth £1.88m from a total investment of £1.95m, while the WS have invested £1.35m and written off half of the loan given to the club and seen their holding go from a value of £2.84m to £2.004m. Swap out the WS for an individual investor and where is the incentive for them to accept these terms? Would an individual not simply say, if you want the club, front up the £2.84m and you can buy my shares (assuming they agreed with the £4m valuation)? Point two becomes even more ridiculous when you look at what Wild Sheep Sports get from day 1. They invest £350k, hold 8% of shares but get 3 board members (same as the WS) and have a deciding vote where there is a 4-4 tie, meanwhile should there be a requirement to plug any shortfall in the finances, the WS is still on the hook for that. In addition, if Wild Sheep Sports turn out to be a shambles and the WS want rid of them, they basically just walk away with their money back in 2 years and the only losers are the club and the WS. I struggle to believe that any other company would accept an 8% shareholder having this level of influence with such a low level of risk. Wild Sheep Sports suggest they can add value but have provided no actual details of their plans or any figures / targets. I appreciate you wouldn't share all the granular detail but simply throwing out buzzwords about "engagement" / "interaction" or whatever it is, along with teasing some documentary suggestion means absolutely nothing. There is also no suggestion of how they plan to generate a return from their investment - the obvious assumption is that they hope to increase the value of the club and sell their holding after 6 years and/or start paying dividends. Even if they did enhance the financials of the club, the valuation of the club would have to more than double for the WS to maintain the value of their holding and break even (again ignoring inflation) from their investment (current £2.84m holding + £1.35m investment = £4.19m with a 50.1% = a valuation of £8.36m) - this seems extremely unlikely. A lot of noise is being made by a number of fans suggesting that the WS have to provide some sort of counter proposal, otherwise this should automatically be accepted, which again makes no sense. This isn't like a general election where both parties put forward a manifesto and you pick the one you like. The WS is the majority shareholder currently and is the status quo, while the Wild Sheep Sports proposal is the alternative. The question is simply is the alternative an improvement on the status quo? Given the above points I would suggest this is a deal that would never see the light of day in any other business, and it seems blatantly obvious to me that the status quo, which has delivered modest profits for the club over the long term and kept us competitive in the top flight, is the much better option.

On this particular deal? It really depends how the MOU is structured (assuming there is one), and how any NDA's involved are framed. It could be that the club and Society aren't legally allowed to discuss the intricate details of the deal. Barmack, for all that he's being active on P&B, isn't actually saying all that much of substance. I've been reading most of what he's posted, and the only takeaway that I've got from it all is that he's come to his valuation of our club by using a rough approach that involves what Newcastle United is worth and that he's trying hard to sell himself as an honest guy with our best interests at heart. Which may be true, by the way. I doubt it, though. In my experience of dealing with investors and VC over the past ten plus years I have found that these guys aren't coming in and burning through the one commodity that they treasure above all else, which is time, to pursue a deal where they don't get much upside. That's simply not how they work. I find it hard to believe he simply woke up six months ago and decided he wanted to work with the fan ownership group at a club he'd never heard of before, all to help said club consistently finish in the top six. There's an end game here. And that's not a bad thing in itself. But, I'd much rather work with an investor who lays it all out and says "This is what I'm proposing, and the reason for that is because the club will benefit in X way, and I'll benefit in Y way, then I can move on to the next investment opportunity a richer man, and leave you guys in a better position." Again, I'm only going by my experience, but when investors start talking about "enthusiasm," "working alongside ordinary supporters" and so forth, especially when that kind of language is used without an actual plan? It sets alarm bells off. At the risk of sounding like a bit of a prick, do fans really need to be able to under the technicalities of the following to know it's a bad deal? The plan that has been suggested at the moment, from what I can see, basically consists of the following: Barmack "invests" £1.95 million over six years. For this, he will receive 49% ownership, with 8% ownership from the beginning The Well Society has to invest £1.35 million over six years. For this, we will lose 25% of our shares. Barmack also becomes Chairman with the deciding vote in any tie. So, he invests £1.95 million to see an increase in shareholding to the tune of 49%, while we, the fans, invest an additional £1.35 million to lose 25% of our shareholding. I've never been involved in any business deal where that kind of thing is suggested. Ever. Why? Because it's ridiculous. In any normal business setting, it would be laughed out of the room, and the party suggesting it would be roundly ridiculed. Oh, and on top of the above, we also need to agree to write off 50% of our loan to the club to the tune of £434,000. That is money that fans, including pensioners and people who are not well off, have paid to the Society in good faith, by the way. Almost half a million pounds of our money, just written off. Gone. So, with all of that said, what do we get in return? A multi-page business plan that shows why we need him on board? An exciting vision of the future under his chairmanship? No. We get talk of "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects rather than short-term player acquisitions" and incredibly vague chit-chat about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence." Do you want to know what I think? I think that the above would be considered derisory by any competent board in the world of business. But, Barmack has found a well-run entity that's involved in a league that is looking at an uptick in TV and sponsorship money coming over the next five or so years and has realised it's "fan-run." Which, in the mind of an investor and businessman from Los Angeles, as the club board keep describing him, means that it's run by simple folks who won't understand all the technicalities and who, in his likely view, are simply too fucking stupid to understand exactly what all this means. He wants the club on the cheap, and not only that, he wants us to actually pay for much of it. If you add in the money The Society would be losing on top of the contributions we'd need to make, it would actually mean that our total financial contribution over the six years would be £1,784,000 for the privilege of losing 25% of our shares, while he contributes £166,000 more than us over the same period for an increase in 48% of shareholding. You want an honest assessment? He thinks we're mugs. And sadly, going by some of the responses I've seen, he's correct to an extent. I always feared that while fan ownership is a good thing, it does leave us open to business predators who simply see an asset that is owned by a large group of people who, for the most part, aren't business-savvy. As he said today on P&B: "By the way, I think the offer has a better chance than many of you do -- if you follow politics closely, as I do, you can see examples on Twitter and message boards of a block that clearly don't like a proposal or politician, and are certain that their points are unanimous, only to see the quieter side of a voting block feel differently. As one touch-point, there was a poll on Twitter about our offer, and I believe it was 30 for / 70 against, and I think you have to consider a bit who's voting on a Twitter poll to realize that the fan-base might be more divided than this thread suggests. So, I'm not throwing in the towel." You're damn right he's not throwing in the towel. This could be one of the more lucrative deals he makes in years. Not because the club generates large sums of money but because he's basically securing a top-flight football club for less than the price of a three-bed house in Wishaw. I don't agree. The reason why he's pushing for this deal with us is because of the decision-makers and structure of the club. Could you imagine him going to someone like Roy MacGregor with an offer like this? Or even better, let's send him round to speak to Anne Budge and Hearts with a similar offer. So no, he knows that if he went to another club that was owned and run by someone from the actual business and investment world, he'd get laughed out of the building.

No chance. She has spent the whole week asking the same idiotic questions over and over in an attempt to create the impression that the club is in some of crisis situation if we don't get immediate investment. She has spent almost her entire time on the board trying to derail any conversation about this takeover attempt.

Reading some of these posts about how garbage our players are really has me thinking about which team folk think they are supporting!! We can't simply go out and sign Virgil Van Dijk (although folk on here would be suggesting he is sh*t and past it as he is in his 30's) our players are going to have limitations, its a simple fact. People throwing comments like "disgusted" at players being signed on again need a dose of reality!!!!

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.