capt_oats

His stock may not be as high as it was after the play-off but given Ainsworth will still have a year on his contract left in the summer and presumably he'd quite like first team football it'd seem natural for his situation to be looked at. Seeing he's, for the most part, been an awkward fit in McGhee's starting XI (a couple of impact sub appearances apart) and I'd imagine is one of our higher earners then it wouldn't be a surprise if he was to move on for a fee. It'd make sense as Cadden seems to have the right side of midfield locked down with MacLean as a back-up option for the "young midfielder" spot and Dom Thomas is an option on either side of the front 3 (though from the 20s highlights during the week it looked like he was playing a bit deeper). I guess we'll see what happens in the remaining games and how things play out in terms of our relative safety Andy whether or not McGhee makes an effort to see if he can fit him in and how.

Game starting on Alba just now btw.

^^^ Basically this. Again relating things back to my own practical experience in my job mail outs are probably 3rd behind Twitter and Fscebook in terms of engaging our audience directly supported by press/radio campaigns and online ads and the occasional print ads and POS retail marketing as non-d2c means of engagement/awareness. However it should all be synced into a co-ordinated strategy. What I would say is that the fact the Society will be integrated into the club now is a positive in terms of engagement. One thing that the club (in my opinion) does really well is the social media stuff I've no idea if it's the same person who does both MFC & WS but from looking at content I'd guess not. Even a quick comparison of numbers shows the club (understandably) has a better reach. That isn't a dig at the WS per se it's just simple logic in so much as the main interest of the majority of fans is the club itself; Twitter: MFC - 21.6k WS - 1.8k FB: MFC - 25k WS -

Click/open rates for mail out stuff can be really pretty low. We use Mailchimp in my particular line of work we've a reasonably sized database (5 figures though our other social channels are much, much higher) and having just had a quick look at recent campaigns open rate was 45%.

Good to hear in McGhee's post match interview that he's apparently got the 20s going away with the Scotland squads.

Langfield for the 2nd deary deary me.

Not that it means anything as such other than we're in good form but that win puts us top of the form table with 15 points from the last 6 games.

Unreal. Huge credit to the players and McGhee. Absolutely incredible turnaround in the season.

Have to agree on this. I'd like to think that with the Society now being integrated into the club the communication will/can improve. Speaking personally it was reading comments from Alan Burrows that prompted me to (finally) sign up rather than anything directly from the WS. That interview with Les addresses key questions and in truth you do have to wonder why those key points haven't been more widely represented (maybe they have & I've not been paying attention). Furthermore it's probably the first time I've read something about the project in a practical sense up until now it's really, to me, just been a sort of default "support fan ownership" chat. Personally I'd say that if presented with evidence that the club has actually been making inroads towards sorting itself out ie: breaking even then it's a lot easier to persuade fans to get on board however from the outside looking in it has just seemed like a money pit which is clearly off-putting. If you think someone is just going to squander the cash then whether it's £5 or £5000 you'd think twice about enabling. As much as you've had the narrative along the lines of "the fans need to step up" the club also have to do their bit and give the fans a reason to back them which isn't signing a 3rd goalkeeper and 5th striker. If the club can show that they're actually learning from their mistakes and addressing them and communicating that then it might help.

I don't know if they're fan owned per se but Real Ovideo did something similar when they were close to going bankrupt. I remember Sid Lowe promoting them quite a bit. Actually, having just looked it up since the fan share issue someone's invested in the club and gained a controlling stake. Edit: the point of that post was that people who weren't even fans of the club as such got involved. €1.93m of shares bought by 20,000 people from 60 countries without expecting any dividend or such. Here's the story: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/nov/29/real-oviedo-spain-premier-league Also, just for clarity, I'm not making a direct comparison here.

A couple of thoughts from having a quick glance at the internets: - 2010 was our first posted loss in 6 years, if we were able to trade in relative profit in the years post-admin then what changed after that? Is it really that outlandish to imagine we can't do it again. Yes we've seen a drop in attendances but in comparison teams like St Johnstone average less and still turn profits. - Last year's loss aside we've been posting losses of http://stv.tv/sport/football/1321105-celtics-average-wage-bill-is-25-times-higher-than-ross-countys/ - The loss last year is clearly an outlier given circumstances, we dropped from the income from 2nd place (£1.8m) to income from 11th (£940k) a drop of £860k. The loss posted seemed to be £1.13m so while it'd be daft to simply overlook that £860k it still accounts for a fair chunk of it. It leaves additional losses of £270,000 so bearing in mind we brought in Ojamaa not to menton an additional 7 players on top of the squad that started the season plus the medical costs of those injured or "injured" players then it's not difficult to see how that expenditure would stack up not to mention highlight the value of Andy Boles to us this season. - It's fair to look at the players we released or moved on in January and say "how can we have been posting losses but now almost breaking even if all we've moved on is David Clarkson and Dan Twardzik." however that overlooks the fact there was a massive turnover in the summer. With players such as Sutton and Vigurs amongst others moving on is it that difficult to imagine that the players we brought in were on less money and the overall spend that Les is now talking about dropped accordingly? I don't know if it did or not but it's certainly possible. So given that our attendances are no different to St Johnstone, our wages are no different to St Johnstone, they're currently sitting above us in the league and their owner isn't a billionaire tax exile then we can come to 2 conclusions 1. it's perfectly possible to remain competitive in this league with those crowds and not have some sugar daddy owning the club and 2. it's possible to turn profit with those attendances. All the above is clearly back of a fag packet stuff but the idea that we're absolutely doomed and a complete lost cause needs to stop. It's not difficult to see how some re-structuring and some prudence could have had a very positive result for our balance sheet. We just need to get an actual grip.

About 15 minutes ago on Twitter. It's on.

Read that yesterday and for what it's worth and despite it being in the Heil I found it a pretty reassuring interview though that's pretty much just taking it on face value that everything said is indeed true re: break even, deferred loans, they're finally working/planning to realistic budgets & not depending on Cup runs, the club isn't having the rug pulled from under it etc etc. It also suggests that a fair amount of the decision is down to McGhee's performance since he's come in and the integration of players like Cadden and Hall. For all Les was vocal in his support of Baraclough after he was binned that's certainly a wee bit of a dig at the end. Again on face value it very much reads as if it's a case of; "that's you stabilised, you're on an even keel and have people in place who can clearly do their jobs. On you go and make a go of it."

I'm just going to chuck this out there but as a general point following on from thisGRAEME's post earlier if the club actually gets itself together and starts managing to break even and even post profit instead of year on year losses (we've done it before, it's not a totally alien concept) then there's every chance that you might actually see people, beyond your average fan, more inclined to put some money in. It's less appealing if you're approaching people with books that show consistent losses. Again though, that's up to the club to genuinely engage with investors and more specifically sponsors and give them a reason to actually invest rather than a plea to prop them up or chuck cash into a money pit.

Just set up my direct debit there largely off the back of having read Alan Burrows' comments about the club going forward and the indication from Les that the club is close to breaking even, whether that's true or not I don't know but certainly from his observations re: changes in playing budgets etc it's not difficult to see how that would have had a positive impact on the balance sheet. I'm still to be convinced about the competence of the Society as a body however for me it's less about the Society as such and more about what the club does and how it operates. If the club has actually managed to reign itself and work towards getting on an even keel then that's a decent start. 6 months ago with the signings of guys like Robinson and Samson along with the bloated squad Baraclough somehow managed to assemble and indeed was allowed to assemble it suggested that no lessons were being learned and zero fucks were being given, the fact that McGhee's taken steps to sorting out the shambles he inherited is, for me, a positive. One swallow doesn't make a summer and all that but it's a start I suppose. Equally I've a lot more faith that we're in a better position to operate on the playing side in line with the 'strategy' and with a smaller first team supplemented by the 20s under McGhee with Craigan looking after the 20s than I ever had with Baraclough there. The January clear out overseen by McGhee and the relative turnaround in the first team along with the apparent progress Craigan's been making with the 20s suggests that they have people in place who can actually integrate and transition players through from 20s to first team. Something that I had no faith in McCall doing whether it was his remit or not. As Steelboy says the idea that there's some businessman going to take us over is pretty much fantasy so in that respect we are where we are.

Agree on all of that. 100% Hadn't seen the BBC comments from Hutchison that we're close to breaking even. If that is the case then it's definitely a positive however as you say how that fits in with the historic expenditure & loans I don't know. Also if that's a break even in terms of running costs without factoring in transfers (Erwin, Murphy) then again it's positive. If the club want to get people on board though they need to show that they can work with a viable budget and go from there.

Basically this. OK a large part of it will be down to them selling Stevie May but if St Johnstone can turn a profit with I'd be interested to know exactly how much folk think that Steve Brown is putting into them out his own pocket. I'm sure the Browns are wealthy but are they really off the radar wealthy? It's one of the Society's major failings that they've allowed this idea that the it's the Society that will be funding the club to be perpetuated. The club will run as it always has financed by gate receipts and the usual revenues it's up to the board of directors to run the club with prudence whether they're actually capable of that is a whole other matter.

To be fair you could be here a while if you're trying to just pick one game where McCulloch was guilty of using his elbows. There are a few to choose from.

I wouldn't go as high as £5m as a break even point but somewhere mid-£4m would probably be realistic but I'm not an accountant so that's the wild speculation of someone who failed his higher maths pre-lim. In any case I've just edited my post above. There was an article that suggests our income dropped by around 900k off the back of finishing 11th vs 2nd. It's a big assumption to make but assuming the club sort themselves out it's *not* a massive leap for them to break even or even turn a profit with a reasonably competitive budget. Bearing in mind the losses were But let's not sugar coat it, the club 100% needs to sort itself out in that respect. Edit: It's also worth mentioning that 3000 x £10 pm x 12 = £360,000pa would have more than covered the losses in the 12/13, 13/14 seasons. Though clearly it's ridiculous to expect the fans to bail the club out on an annual basis via the Society. That's just flat out enabling mis-management.

Not based on anything recent but we turned a profit of £541k in 2010/11 with a smaller £18k profit the year before. http://stv.tv/news/west-central/297806-motherwell-records-jump-in-profit-to-more-than-500000-in-latest-accounts/ A loss of £184,500 in 2012/13 on turnover of £5.2m http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26251662 A loss of £184,854 in 2013/14 on turnover of £4.5m http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2015/02/27/the-109th-annual-general-meeting/ It really all depends on how much we've managed to reduce costs by I suppose. The loss last year was by all accounts huge but that may well have been a one off based on re-structuring for long term gain. I'm not sure what our operating costs were. Also I seem to remember that a big part of that loss (£900k?) was a consequence of reduced prize money from league performance or broadcasting rights? I could be miles out on that though. Let's be generous and assume that last year was a one off (which is reasonable given prior seasons the £18k profit was the 2009/10 Gannon/Brown season and 5th place finish). You can obviously look at it and say "we were finishing 2nd in the league and still posting a loss", putting my positive hat on when it comes down to it we weren't that far off breaking even and not to drink from the kool-aid but a 200k player sale in each of those previous seasons would have seen us post a small profit .

You can have all the whataboutery that you like however for me the point is quite simple. The referee saw the incident and chose not to take any action. He played on, he checked Donaldson and didn't even stop the game for a head knock. As soon as it's clear that the referee saw the incident then that's pretty much a line drawn under it. In that sense it makes all the replays and subsequent pontification pretty much redundant. Ultimately that's what irked me, it's fair enough that they highlighted it but the extent to which it was replayed and analysed was ludicrous and that's before we even get on to the whole "should he be expecting a phone call from the compliance officer" chat. What annoyed me was that there seemed to be no acknowledgement in the subsequent commentary that on a basic level the referee did actually see the incident and just didn't think it was a foul. In fact the bit about it in The Scotsman suggested that the ref "missed it", Jackson was foaming at the mouth suggesting "had the referee seen it, he'd be off the park" or words to that effect. I only had a replay on Sportscene and was able to screenshot it and establish that he was looking straight at it, christ knows what BT were doing with their technology. But again it's their thing, as a regular viewer of their output they have an unhealthy obsession with micro-analysing fairly trivial points to try to create controversy or talking points. It's a game of football. Donaldson wasn't seriously injured, McDonald could have been sent off but wasn't not because the ref was conned or anyone cheated but because he took a view that something wasn't a free kick, Chris Sutton thought otherwise. It's unlikely that the compliance officer is going to be seen to be re-refereeing a game and frankly I wouldn't want them to. They'll absolutely get involved with incidents the ref missed, was unsighted for or simulation where it's perceived that the ref has been conned. However in this case the referee looking straight at the two players with his view unobstructed, rightly or wrongly, played on. That's his decision. As soon as the compliance officer asks "did you see the incident" and the ref says "yes" and explains his decision then there's no real case to answer. That said I guarantee that if anyone even remotely raises their arms in Crawford Allan's next game then there's a fair chance they'll be off the park as I'd imagine he'd have got his baws toed. Anyway this is getting all a bit #againstmodernfootball on my part so that's me done.

I understand the scepticism however I'm not sure that the plan is necessarily destined to fail, it may well be the case that people have (understandably) zero faith in the Well Society itself but the bottom line is that as long as the club trades at break even point, as it should as a matter of responsibility then the relative success or failure of the Society itself becomes less relevant. The onus is on the club itself to live within its means, as should always have been the case. That said both the club and the Society have a lot of work to do to even remotely convince that they're credible. The Society's recruitment strategy has seemed to rely more on either guilt tripping fans or making the assumption that because someone is a Motherwell fan then by default they're in favour of this. In any sort of business it's on the person asking for the investment to show that they're worth investing in and if they can't do that then they have absolutely no right to expect someone to say "ach, it's alright just take the money anyway." and on the club's side preaching financial prudence yet signing players who barely even get on the park sends mixed messages to say the least. As weeyin pointed out above from the information that's been put out there it seems like the only key change here is transfer of ownership which has, for whatever reason, happened after 14 months rather than 5 years. Assuming that the repayment plan is still in place and the rug hasn't been pulled from under our feet so to speak then in reality there's not much changed given that the club shouldn't have been expecting Les to be bankrolling them anyway. However having said all that it's now up to the club and Society to fully and unequivocally address these matters in a clear and professional manner not try and dress it up with "Yay! Fan ownership! Woooo!" they need to outline how close to being self sufficient the club is and if they're not there yet how long it'll take and what they intend to do in the interim. All this face saving pish has to stop and they need to front up in a realistic and honest manner.

In honesty I'd be surprised if any of it (McDonald included) was even discussed. The whole thing just sounds like it's been media clickbait off the back of a (not really that-) "controversial" incident on telly. As Pettywulliegrew-2 puts quite succinctly above if the compliance officer was drawn into reviewing incidents that the referee saw but there was room for debate around then games would just be perpetually reviewed. I'd have thought that getting a compliance officer in to actively review a referee's decision would be very much a last resort and I genuinely don't think that the incident with McDonald warranted that.

Apologies in advance for linking to The Sun however they're the first one I've seen run this but as suggested no further action for McDonald. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/motherwell/7002436/Motherwell-ace-Scott-McDonald-escapes-ban-for-Dundee-United-match-elbow.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-scotsunsport-_-20160315-_-SunScotSport-_-397088740-_-Imageandlink

The fact that one of the pundits on BT is a current MFC employee, one an ex-MFC player puts paid to the idea of any sort of conspiracy. That's fairly clear and it'd be daft and paranoid in the extreme to suggest otherwise. It was an incident in the game being broadcast and you'd expect them to comment on it. However in a broader sense, as I said, there has been a lot of assumptions being made in the reporting after the fact: 1. That the ref actually missed the incident 2. That McDonald *deliberately* elbowed Donaldson 3. That the compliance officer is actually involved and McDonald has a case to answer Again, that's how the media works. It's speculation. We'll see if it does actually come to anything soon enough I suppose.