dennyc

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.

Or had anywhere near as healthy a Bank balance. Motherwell got their fee, KVV got his pension. Win, win. Hopefully he gets back on track somewhere next season. Other than that, yesterday's news.

Sorry that is just not true. EVERY football club in Scotland has passionate and loyal supporters. Hearts being from a large City and being fairly successful just have more of them than say Partick, Kilmarnock, Motherwell etc etc etc. In the same way that the Old Firm have more fans than Hearts. Even that pair have passionate and loyal fans amongst their numbers. And that will be the same Hearts fans that were booing the team and Naismith all match long not that long ago. And in no small numbers.

I believe that is the first domestic penalty Celtic have conceded this season? And Brendan believes they are victims! ( He doesn't really but if he can convince the paranoid fans, then it's not his fault). And imagine if one of his players had been kicked in the face like the Hearts boy was. What a good weekend this has been. Both old firm seething and us celebrating.

It was all of our birthdays today. It feels that way anyway

II know this thread was introduced to discuss possible inward investment but clearly those discussions have highlighted the role and importance of the Society. Club and Society are separate entities, but intertwined. And I write this as someone who was invested in the Society from day one, and really wanted it to be a success. So I think the above is extremely relevant. What is the exact role of the Society and who determines what path they follow? The answers were obvious at one time but now I am not so sure. Does the Society exist to provide short term assistance to the Football Club, and the Football Club alone? Or did it become a tool of the MFC Board, providing permanent finance to not only the Football Club, but also other non core activities? As an example, and tin hat on, what are these 'special projects' for which we were told substantial Society funds were used? Finance for core Club activities or worthwhile causes such as the Community Trust. And before I get slaughtered, I'm not saying the Club should not support the Community. But I am saying that was not the intended role of the Society. The football club and the Society must concentrate on their reason for existing, particularly in such difficult economic times. To quote some figures. I believe that in it's time the Society has raised over £2m from Members which is commendable. But of that sum, around £1.2m has gone, permanently. Fans donated to the Society with the agreement that Society funds would be provided to the Club in times of need but on a short term loan basis only. The funds to be repaid to the Society as soon as possible from transfer income, league pay outs and the like. The intention being that within 3 years the Club would be operating within its means and that Society funds would grow and be protected at all times. That has just not happened which asks questions of those running both the Society and the Club. Who took those decisions and under what pressure? Now I get that what I have highlighted is history and we need to move on. We are where we are kind of thing. I have no doubt the new Society Board Members are striving to improve matters and return the Society to how it was intended to operate. The meetings currently taking place are a good start. Anybody standing in the way of that rebrand should not hold sway. For me to invest further in the Society, and ultimately the Club, I need to be convinced that those changes are taking place and are permanent. I need to see a long term vision which is sustainable. Otherwise circumstances will repeat themselves. I'm away to hide behind the settee now, tin hat on. With fingers crossed that a miracle takes place at Ibrox in a few hours.

Sadly for me this whole discussion has raised more questions than answers. Hopefully as a result of those questions we can all get a better understanding of exactly how the Society operates, what it's aims now are and what the current situation is. Maybe even what the future holds for Society and Football Club. I'm not holding my breath though as each piece of the puzzle that is solved seems to lead to more questions. Personally speaking, I thought the entire Society operation changed under the influence of Les Hutchison, without Member approval, and became much more secretive with communication a major issue. in fairness, recent appointments to the Society Board have improved matters and there appears to be a determined effort by those new appointees at better fan engagement and communication. I believe that fresh outlook was badly needed. I also suspect the Club AGM and Investment discussions came sooner than they would have liked and have highlighted aspects that were to be addressed in time. Whatever, the AGM highlighted that the Club needs Investment, and quickly, if the decline which has been evident for some time is to be halted. Maybe this is the start of a new beginning. I hope so.

Good luck

To clarify. I was not suggesting they could pump in millions, or be the major investor. I was suggesting they could sign up as Corporate Well Society members paying annual/monthly Membership fee at a much higher rate than an ordinary fan. A dozen or more Companies doing that would come to a sizeable amount.

I think there is room for both although I accept they have to start somewhere. Why can't local Financial Institutions be approached? After all the people they serve are local and provide them with their profits and bonuses. Time to give something back. Come to think of it, let's include all the major Supermarkets as well. The list is massive. Such local investment was vital to fan ownership success elsewhere.

Just re read through things and confused by something I missed from this post. Weekly updates are being received but no vote option? So some sort of qualifying requirement that we are not aware of as santheman asks? Clearly contact details in this case are up to date so why no vote? Or as simple as different data bases used maybe? I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded. I appreciate the need for was members views to be established as a matter of urgency, given the external interest. But this vote only serves to show how much work is required within the Society to ensure the next vote is more inclusive. Also, regarding communication between Club and Society, was the Society given any heads up prior to the release of the Investment video? So they could prepare for the need for a vote if interested parties stepped forward. Or where they in the dark like the rest of us?

Fair comment. Some decent suggestions. I am certain the record thing will now be a priority. Including monitoring when Junior Members reach full membership age so their membership can be upgraded with subscriptions and voting rights altered.

Not savvy enough to know what all that means but if the info is available it might help us to understand some of the reasons for such poor numbers. As we see on here regularly though, stats can be interpreted in many ways. I could argue that two out of three people who responded saying 'I would' without having sight of the options on the table is just as telling.

I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details. The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully every Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

When the Society was launched there was a membership option specifically aimed at Businesses. In fact, at the presentations which took place much was made of that option. Not sure if that still exists or if any Business actually signed up. I think it offered several business related benefits? Also not sure to what extent it was promoted way back then, but it is something worth pursuing. Re the records, did the Society not employ someone for that specific task several years ago? Or is that another task that fell by the wayside? I believe were paying a wage for a time to a guy who eventually packed it in? On a more general point, I don't think it reflects well that basic membership levels are the only indicator that the Society Board appear (or appeared) happy to openly share. Hopefully the planned online forums are a sign of a more open approach. Jay and a few others in the know do seem to have taken that on board. So no offence meant to them. Folk need to know the full picture if they are to part with hard earned cash. Having now disclosed that just 1500 (38%) of 3800 members actively subscribe, it is clear the enormity of the task that lies ahead if the Society are to provide the back up funds required to cover the Club's potential shortfall should performances targets/players sales not be achieved annually. And due to inflation, increasing Stadium costs etc, that potential shortfall will almost certainly increase. A 400% uplift in contributions from those 1500 members seems pretty unrealistic to me. I guess, as a positive, those non paying members and local Businesses do provide opportunities for growth. But Membership needs to rise substantially, and quickly. I really hope I am wrong, and not to downplay the efforts being made by Jay and others as they are much appreciated, but at the end of the day I think we will end up with two realistic options. Accept the external investment that may be offered if satisfactory terms that protect Club Assets can be negotiated, or accept that we need to find a level at which Motherwell FC can function within their income level. One option will likely surrender fan ownership. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of the look, I think we can now see why the Club Board felt it necessary to issue that video. The forthcoming Board changes also suggest all is not good.

Raith Rovers are in with a decent shout of automatic promotion and they have an artficial playing surface. Airdrie are pushing for a play off spot as well. So the opportunity to switch to an all grass Premiership might be further away than we hope. At worst we could have two new non grass pitches to cope with next season. I'll add Kelty Hearts surface to those that are streets ahead of Livi. Killie and Accies. If we cannot go to all playing on grass, then there should be standards that must be enforced regards the quality of artificial playing surfaces. And Livi and Killie are well below that standard. But we all know the Authorities will not get involved.

Thanks Kmcalpin. That is the figure I had in mind. Translates to around £150k per annum before expenses or donations. Hopefully that figure has increased as it suggests a massive increase is essential to cover potential shortfalls without diluting funds. I'm pretty sure up to date figures will be made available.

Good work I can see no reason why the monthly income of the Society from Member subscriptions should be a trade secret. Would a figure not be routinely included in the Annual Accounts anyway? From memory I think an amount was openly quoted during previous discussions. Cannot be sure of that figure though so hesitant to quote a figure, and it will be out of date anyway. To allow folk to consider whether the Society alone can continue to provide the financial backup required, the current income level is information required to arrive at a decision re the need for additional investment We have been told what the Club's shortfall is likely to be on a worst case scenario so it is a simple calculation to see how much is required each year to cover that potential shortfall, without draining existing balances.

Careful! you are letting facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. And one that just keeps growing. Any more of it and you will be carted off to Area 51 to join Elvis

The Community Trust does lots of wonderful and essential work. But I think the difference in Paisley is that funds flow into St Mirren from Kibble thus reducing overall Club expenditure. If I am wrong please correct me, but I don't think the MFC CT provides funding to the football Club. Not dissing them in any way, far from it, but I think it is a different set up.

Posted 11 minutes ago

With insufficient investment....from whatever source......does A not lead to B then C and even beyond until a sustainable level is reached. Clearly I would not expect to go beyond Championship level, but I bet Dunfermline fans thought the same.

It should be noted that the ban Celtic imposed on the GB was only lifted after their embarrassing but financially rewarding European appearances ended for the season. The only reason they were banned in the first place was to placate Uefa who were very close to closing areas of Celtic Park, with the next stage being a complete European ban. Either of those sanctions would have cost them millions. Our authorities on the other hand will always turn a blind eye. All the shite Celtic spread around regards incidents at Fir Park, Easter Road etc forcing them to act for the good of football was just a smokescreen. Remember Rodgers saw fit to defend the youngster at Livi (?) who the stewards collared when he ran onto the park, the week before a swarm of them did much worse at Fir Park, even getting in the faces of our players. Toxic. We really should just ban them from Fir Park. Financial hit or not. I know that's not going to happen given our finances but it would at least highlight the issue and maybe force the media to have a serious debate.

Kibble fund certain areas of the Club in return for the benefits those areas can provide the kids Kibble look after. Think transport, training and gym facilities, physical and mental heath support and the like. All of this supports the kids and the football club/players. .They can also justify providing funding as those same kids regularly gain work experience within the Club. It is a win win situation and does support the football club financially, but not technically by charitable donations.

Thanks for raising this point. It is something I have been trying to calculate into the overall picture. And to Jay for his response. My basic arithmetic came up with round about the same figures to take into account the 18 month requirement. To add to your comments maybe Jay you could also investigate/clarify 1. What happens if we are not able to present the required confirmation? A Red Flag status was mentioned. What exactly does that mean and are things like a transfer embargo put in place? Or is it merely that, say, quarterly updates are required until red flag status removed? As I think happens elsewhere as a first step. I appreciate that is worst case scenario but if the WS is expected to carry the burden, then we need to know what the implications are of coming up short. Those implications might spur members to dig deeper or make external funding more palatable? 2. Are pledges/ standing orders taken into Account or is it only actual funds as proven by Bank balances? 3. Maybe a bit more controversial. Mention was made that the WS has assisted or funded various projects at the request of MFC. All very worthy causes but so far I think those projects coupled with donations to cover shortfalls have used up around £1.2m of member subscriptions. Leaving a net balance of £750k? To enable funds to appreciate, is it time to consider closely exactly what projects are funded for the foreseeable future? I know that may go against the ethos of being a Community Club etc etc, but the core business of MFC is football after all and it might help if projects/donations were concentrated on the core business of the organisation meantime.