dennyc

Sadly five subs but no Theo. Canada won 2-0 and both strikers scored. So hard for him to force his way in. At least no injury…..so far.

Nil nil at the half. No Bair as yet. Apparently the first choice striker has something like 25 goals in 45 games. So Theo will have to bide his time.

Nah, he'll be too busy cheering on Craig Gordon at the Euros.

We will not even get the worthless apology is my guess. Wagons have been circled.

As we all knew it would be. A cover up and no accountability.

You could well be correct. But as I said, based on caution and suspicion. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not based on any evidence we have seen so far. Anyway, that's Hibs problem so we can wait and see. I imagine similar discussions will take place if we secure any sort of offer.

I get your suspicion. Understandable. The challenge is sorting out the good from bad. And care needs to be exercised. The protections Hibs appear to have inbuilt suggests to me to that this is not the raid that some are fearing. Time will tell of course, but there is no evidence of ill intent so far. The opposite in fact. And speculation about asset stripping, feeder club is exactly that. Speculation based on a distrust of the deal or that the share purchase reduces fan ownership percentage. But I take your point.

What needs to be addressed is that two of our most experienced officials either do not know the Laws of the game or chose to ignore them. Both options are shocking. Yes, the time taken is nonsense. Yes, all teams have benefited or lost out at times,us included. But the arrogant refusal by the Authorities to address incompetence (at best) is an insult to every single fan who pays hard earned money to support football. Ourselves, Hearts, Hibs, St Mirren, St Johnstone have all suffered decisions that go way beyond simple human error or interpretation. But nothing changes.

I know we have had our differences on a few things but I think this is so spot on. For a good while my concern has been that our long term strategy is largely based on substantial income from player sales. That is just not sustainable and so full of risk....Admittedly Covid interrupting youth development did not help. We are now seeing exactly what happens when lack of a major sale coincides with poor on field performance. The current "get out of jail" card is clearly Lennon Miller who, but for injury, would likely have been sold by now. How that would have affected our fight for league survival nobody knows. And let's not forget that we have actually benefited from players sales in this time, KVV as an example. It is just not enough. in my opinion the Club's entire operating strategy needs reviewed and one positive of the forthcoming Board changes is that such a complete Club review should happen. Time for new blood and fresh ideas. My sense is that our departing Board members have simply run out of ideas. Hopefully whoever constitutes the new Board can come up with a solution that enables us to at least break even each season. Also, and this understandably will not go down too well with many, there has been too much reliance on Well Society funds. What was intended as a back up facility appears to me to have become the go to option when it comes to "projects" the Club and others wish to undertake but cannot afford. A Piggy Bank to be raided. Couple that approach with the dilution of Society monies to appease Les Hutchison and it explains why Society monies are over £1m down on where they could have been. Thankfully, from Jay's comments, that is a situation that should not continue. Hopefully all Society Board Members, new and old, will now adopt the same approach. I hope the WS continues to grow and can become the asset that was originally proposed. But if the Club is to thrive at our current level then I believe that outside investment is required to fund the year on year football operations. As discussed previously, that Investment must come with legally binding guarantees that protect the Club, and from investors that recognise the true purpose of the WS and are prepared to work side by side on that basis. Not an easy find. Not related to Motherwell. so apologies if not thought relevant to MFC. . I was talking to a Hibs fan yesterday who informed me that their American investor (Foley) is actually introducing £6m per year for each of the next 5 years. I had not appreciated that the deal involved such an annual input. Also, a colleague of Foley is in discussion regards the input of a "one off" £10m. Only time will tell, but the terms they have negotiated don't appear to threaten the assets the Club owns or intrude massively in day to day operations. Fans will talk about "feeder" clubs but there is no evidence as yet to support that, and even if it is the case, where is the harm in players switching Clubs given that rules exist re value for money. As we have seen, non affiliated loan deals can cause bigger issues.

So not any suggestion then that folk could debate? Very easy to pick holes in the Club's choice but unwilling to risk your own credibility by coming up with an alternative. Fair enough.

And the AGM comments as reported on here that continuing the CEO appointment at this stage might be pointless given the Investment discussions taking place.

Glad you found the IFAB stuff helpful. I'm not saying all the rules are always sensible, especially to anyone who has played football at any level, but it is perfectly obvious that many of the so called experts who we hear on Sportscene and elsewhere have either not read the Laws, or choose to ignore them because they are stuck in the past, or simply have an axe to grind. Reading the IFAB instructions does have a drawback though. It really highlights how uninformed and arrogant our referees are.

I don't think anyone would disagree that promoting from within was a cheaper option. But whether that option was taken was for good footballing reasons or through financial necessity we might never know. As for "it's not my job", that is just a cop out. This is a fan forum which opens up debate based on fan comment. You have plenty of views on a range of things so why not who we might have appointed instead of Kettlewell.

That thought did cross my mind which is why I hope Motherwell publish any explanation they are given. If that reason is given, then as you say, the ball is burst. I really do hope our Board don't just let this be brushed aside. Imagine that decision denying Celtic or Rangers a goal. The media and Clubs would run with it for weeks. Sad though it sounds, I actually went and reread the IFAB Laws re hand ball just to make sure my understanding was correct. Clear as day. On another point. Anybody thinking the Celtic red card at Tynecastle was harsh needs to read IFAB re dangerous and reckless play. Despite the flack they got from media and ex players, the officials that day only made one error and that was in awarding Celtic their penalty. I despair for Scottish Football because things are not going to improve.

I was at Hampden when Israel were adjudged to have scored a perfectly good goal after a cross was deflected off the arm of an Israeli player into the path of the goal scorer. At the time it was explained in great detail that in such circumstances a foul must not be given. The only time a foul should be given for such an accidental handling of the ball by an attacker is if it is the goal scorer that handles. The Law is perfectly clear and so I then had to accept that Ross County were correctly awarded that goal at Fir Park. SK confirmed on Saturday that is also the reason he was given for that goal standing. So what really pisses me off about Saturday is that two qualified officials (at least) ignored the Laws of the game in order to refuse the goal. Either that or they did not know the Laws. Which is worse? Add to that the silence from the Authorities regards a huge error made by their employees. Saturday was not a situation where there should have been any doubt or discussion as to whether a valid goal had been scored. Final part of my rant. Not from our game, but that exact situation was covered in Sky's Ref Watch today and again my understanding of the hand ball law was confirmed. McLean and Collum made an arse of it and at the very least that should be acknowledged by those in charge. But it won't be. I hope Motherwell go public on their discussions with Crawford Allan or whoever has the balls to address the issue.

I like the concept but the difference is that in horse racing the race is completed and so run out in full. The disqualification....or subsequent re-instatement.......happens after the race is completed. So it is easy to implement and the way the race is run is not affected. Now, if games were to be replayed........ In all seriousness, I just want to go back to living with referee errors and controversy. It feels so much more painful nowadays and I put that down to VAR, or at least the people involved in coming up with random outcomes.

I thought his initial team selection was cautious for a game we really needed to win if we were serious about top 6. But then again SK stuck by defenders who performed well at Ibrox, SOD in particular. So a sign of that good man management? I also thought Blaney was a bit unfortunate to be subbed although given the game situation we did need Gent's attacking abilities. But let's be honest, Gent did little to justify coming on. Devine contributed more on the other side. I have no idea why Davor did not feature at any stage or why we did not take a punt on our new striker rather than throw on two youngsters against a team as worldly wise as Aberdeen. Like you I think Kettlewell overthinks situations at times and also over complicates situations, such as substitutions.

All valid points and in truth I think we agree on several points. Regards any investor having a conflict of interest on occasion, I think that is where safeguards are essential. Examples such as .... No Security granted over assets such as Fir Park as a protection against knee jerk overreaction/asset stripping, a timescale for any outstanding Loans to the investor being repaid upon departure, a limit on remuneration to an investor (and dependant upon year end financial results), a proviso that the WS would be given a realistic price and timetable to be in a position to repurchase shares from any departing investor, an binding agreement that a % of any profits must remain within the Club. I accept that many investors would be put off by such conditions. But Hibs appear to have successfully negotiated similar terms and without even having to give up majority ownership. Not an easy task, but it can be done. And without the Turnbull monies that picture would be entirely different. Relying on the sale of a player for millions every other season is not realistic nor sensible. It certainly hasn't worked of late. As the quality on the pitch declines year upon year and investment in youth is reduced through necessity, it becomes less advisable as a strategy. Contract situations are another barrier that is not going away. Blair Spittal apparently joining others that have departed in their prime with no return. So again, for how long can the WS continue to subsidise the football club to the degree it has of late?

Looking at our recent financial results and the resultant year on year reduction in on field quality, is carrying on like we are not also a risk? Yes, other Club's incur losses but few try to operate as a fan owned business. Or where fans do represent a major shareholding there is also external funding prepared to cover losses. Hearts being a classic example where even a huge fan membership is insufficient to sustain the football club at the level they wish to operate. How long can the WS continue to subsidise the football Club? Because that is what is currently happening. if the football Club cannot operate on a break even basis, which you appear to believe will be the case, funds will run out eventually. Just like any other business. Tough decisions need to be made. I do agree that Guarantees need to be inbuilt if outside investment is secured. And folk are right to be cautious. The Club and its assets must be protected whatever happens. But, if the WS is to continue as "owner", then a fundamental look at how the Club operates is essential. The bottom line is that the WS can only generate so much finance. Therefore the Club, in whatever guise, needs to play its part. The current situation is really no surprise, setting aside the 'feel good' factor of being fan owned and the plaudits that attracts. The changes to the Club Board which are about to take will hopefully bring about fresh ideas and a huge step forward.

Whatever happens investment wise, one good thing that must come out of this entire exercise is that all Club expenditure should be assessed to see if it is essential and relates to core business. There seems to be little sense in the WS ingathering funds only for the Club to continue to operate at a loss. If that situation continues then eventually funds will run out. That's not being dramatic and I'm not saying we are anywhere that situation at present but surely the sensible approach is to start that exercise immediately. Any questionable expenditure needs to be addressed as soon as possible. As the majority Shareholder, the WS is in a position of power and should insist that a full review is undertaken with appropriate action taken if needs be. Society and Club need to work together admittedly, but the Society needs to stand up. I think it is fair to say that, if the WS were to vote to reduce their holding, any new majority owner would immediately undertake such a review as a matter of urgency. From what we have been told, both potential incomers have already drawn up Business Plans. Personally I think this model of having to sell at least one player for a sizeable fee per season is flawed and is like operating on a wing and a prayer. And despite several decent sales in recent years, we are still in the position that significant investment is required. How long can that continue? We know that the Club Board is about to change substantially (having run out of ideas????) so hopefully that change will bring about a fresh approach that eventually returns the Business to operating on at least a break even basis. Whoever the major shareholder is.

Thanks Jay. Good news that the annual funding agreement ran out when Les was repaid. Hopefully when we sell Theo for £10m, the Club will be in a position to repay their debt to the Society. Making that a priority would certainly boost the Society bank balance. Onwards and upwards. Appreciate your openness throughout this thread

Thanks Jay. I appreciate the prompt and comprehensive response. You more or less confirm what I thought might have been the case over the years, although until now any approach for clarification had little success. The transparency and communication now being shown is a much needed, refreshing step forward. The news of an agreement to provide Motherwell FC with £130k on an annual basis is a surprise however and I suspect not many Members were aware that such an arrangement existed? My comment on the history of it all is that at no time do I recall Members being asked to support the operating change which you confirm took place or of being advised of the annual £130k arrangement, both of which combined considerably deplete Society Funds. Looking forward, it is good to hear there is an effort being made to revert to something approaching the original model. The growth of a Reserve Fund to assist the Club in time of need, preferably on a Loan basis, being the intent. With that in mind, is the annual £130k provision to continue and has any of the original funding been repaid or possibly written off? That is something Members should be aware of when considering whether to dig deep.......or deeper. Personally, I have no real objection to limited funds being made available to assist with one off projects that benefit the Club or football development. That said, I don't think that any such funding should be allowed to get out of hand and quite honestly the Club needs ASAP to return to the situation where those projects can be completed without the aid of the Society. It cannot be the case that the Football Club come to rely on that annual input from the WS. And the blurring of lines between Society, Trust, Football Club priorities and finances needs looking at. Thanks

Thanks for the update Jay. And for highlighting that the potential funding gap in October is a worst case scenario, but something that has to be planned for. Makes perfect sense. But as for the other point, and acknowledging that the bucket collection is a relatively minor matter, can you clarify whether Society monies have been/are being utilsed to support worthy causes such as the Trust or have been/are being provided for projects that the Football Club wished carried out? And if so, to what extent and who authorises that expenditure? There is a sizeable gap between the Balance you quote above and the total received from Members to date. I keep coming back to the reason the Society was established in the first place (as a safety net) and to the fairly narrow purposes any funds ingathered were to be used. I appreciate that may be looked upon as history, but as fans and Members are being asked to dig deeper, then I believe they are entitled to know where their contributions are likely to end up. It is one thing providing security for our football Club (a Contingency Fund for emergency use only), but an entirely different thing supporting charitable causes or funding what might be looked upon by some as non essential projects. Have the lines between Club and Society Funds become blurred?

I take your point but it begs the question as to why The Society has possibly been donating funds to the Trust in the first place. That is not why the Society was created. Worthwhile cause that the Trust undoubtedly is, my understanding is that the role of the Society is to generate funds for emergency use by the Football Club when required. And I believe fans contribute on that understanding. If fans wish to contribute directly to the Trust then all credit to them. I hope they do. IF, and I repeat IF, funding has been provided to the Trust or elsewhere can someone confirm the total sum involved over the years and also confirm who decided such funding was proper use of fan contributions. Are we talking £100s or £1000s? The more I read, the more it concerns me that (in the past?) undue pressure may have been put on the Society Board to finance expenditure beyond the remit of the WS. From the figures provided previously, there appears to be over £1m of subscriptions gone forever. Members are entitled to know where those funds went. Especially as they will likely be asked to increase subscription amounts.

Look what happened at Tynecastle when the only decision the referee got wrong was awarding Celtic a penalty. Verbal and very public abuse from Managers, players and ex players for decisions he....and VAR... got correct. Their only 'error' was having the balls to send off a Celtic player for dangerous and reckless play and also award the first domestic penalty against Celtic this season. I agree our officials are shocking but even when they get decisions correct they are under attack. No wonder they bottle it against certain teams. I wonder if there would have been such uproar had Motherwell, Kilmarnock or even Hearts been on the end of those decisions? Well really I don't. I know the answer. And Aberdeen will manipulate and influence the referee this weekend, which they have been very good at since the days of Miller and McLeish. We on the other hand just seem to irritate the officials.