dennyc

My first game was in 1966 when my cousin kidnapped me and took me to Fir Park for a game against St Johnstone. Was hooked from that day onwards. Seen lots of fantastic players....and some not so fantastic... in my time but it's strange how it's often players that few mention that stick in the memory. Brian Heron as an example. Some shot on him and I recall a game against Killie where I swear the goal posts were actually rocking after his shot smashed against the bar. At least it seemed that way to an awe struck teenager. I do regret that I never saw some of the older players such as Stevenson, Ferrier, McFadyen and a good few others that moved on to greater success elsewhere. Players like Hughie Ferguson whose life story is so tragic despite his footballing achievements. Everyone part of Motherwell folklore and legends, if not the GOAT.

Also depends on what criteria you look at for GOAT. Is it most talented player, or most entertaining, or goals scored, or longest serving, or most games played, or most capped, or greatest captain, or most impactful, or being part of a trophy winning side, or home grown, or going on to achieve great things after moving on? Impossible task although fun remembering those you saw in the flesh and reading about those you didn't. Throws up a lot of great memories for us old folk.

I'm hoping we can get out of any verbal agreement we have given. Pretty sure he cannot have signed a permanent deal whilst still contracted to Hearts. No offence to him. but he has hardly proven his worth so far. Also the Club did not say we had entered into a formal PCA as per Spittal to Hearts. So I'm hoping it is a gentleman's agreement but linked to performance and fitness. Much rather stick with Slattery😍

I too can see why we gave him a try when he became available. But he has shown little to convince anyone. Are we absolutely positive we are tied into him for next season? Could there have been some sort of 'prove yourself' agreement which would explain why he has been featuring ahead of others, even if only for the first half? I think he cannot sign permanently until his Hearts contract actually expires .There is a huge difference between an option to sign and a firm contract. I ask in hope and on reading the media quoting today that he is on loan to season end with no mention of any fixed agreement for next season.

But I take it your stream did catch Lovell saying the penalty call was wrong? After he saw his replay. I agree re Halliday BTW.

Do you also agree with Lovell's take on the penalty? That it was a joke decision and SOD blameless.

Add to that no in game observations from some about how shite SOD is, how Spittal is not trying or that Kelly is the poorest goalie in the league. And grudging praise, if any comment, but always with some negative when we win. Oh, but the manager is still useless and has only a win% of minus 24. Must have been a few pre prepared after match rants deleted at 5pm yesterday. Well done to Kettlewell and the players for overcoming all the obstacles that were thrown their way this season. Scope to rebuild now hopefully.

Good point. If others had done their job as well as he did his, then he may well have had zero saves to make. Like quite a few games this season. Aberdeen were hardly world beaters and we let them off the hook. Bar a 25 minute spell in the second half we were at least their equal. Even then we were inches away from a headed equaliser from Moses late on as Aberdeen were in panic mode..

Three decent saves. And I regard a 4-0 defeat as a hiding. If others had done the basics as well as Kelly, we would have at least drawn.

Do you also keep stats on errors you see others making, or is it only a select few you choose to highlight? Comes across that you are just sitting there desperate for Kelly, SOD or Spittal to slip up. Surprised you ignored SOD's one slip where he sclaffed the ball into the crowd. Kelly was far from the worst player on Saturday. Given how poor you say he was, I find it surprising that the Motherwell fans at the game did not turn on him. . Out of curiosity, were you at the game or is your assessment based on TV highlights? Or maybe his supposed salary? Strange you did not have anything to say about the crosses from Gent that almost reached the North Sea, or Shaw and Nicholson hiding and refusing to challenge for the ball umpteen times. Or Bair passing the buck rather than having a shot. How about McGinn giving the ball away when under no pressure. Or Casey going walkabout. Or Miller caught dreaming when SOD cut the ball back to him. I repeat, every one of our players....no matter their quality.... regularly make mistakes. Some seem exempt from criticism.

I think this is fair comment. But I'm not sure who the alternative choice as leader could be, given that almost everyone else has been in and out of the team. Another part of the rebuild required. Miller in time perhaps but that is a long way off. Butcher and Casey were obvious choices at season start but they have had their own issues to overcome without being burdened with Captaincy. And anyway, the players seem comfortable with Kelly. But to bring some balance to this Kelly debate. Every one of our defenders has made multiple errors this season, leading to goals conceded. And that includes untouchables McGinn and Gent. The entire team shares responsibility for our defensive failings. As for the Aberdeen game I wonder if Kelly's loudest critics actually bothered to watch the game. Kelly was all that stood between us and a 3 or 4 nil hiding in the second half. Strange how anything good he does is ignored by some. And, yes, he frustrates me at times as well but then so do they all.

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

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

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

Do you know that for a fact? Not saying it is not his plan, but why are you so sure? Other than 'that is how it usually works'

How does he achieve that if the Society members say no to giving up their majority holding? Are you saying that McMahon has the power to hand the club over irrespective of what the members say.

Ah, so with 45 Clubs UK wide already purchased, we are all that is left? That is a really credible basis for such an astute businessman to become involved. What about worldwide? Much as I love Scotland there must be other countries that boast non fan owned Clubs available for purchase. You still have not told me why us, rather than them. How much profit did we make in the most recent set of Accounts? Or the previous set? As for McMahon, your comments are bordering on fixation. But at least they tie in to your conspiracy theory. ' From what you have heard'? Heard from who? I don't know whether Barmack is seeking majority control. Neither do you. Unless you do have that hard evidence I asked for. If he does, it will become evident soon. Then the Society Members have a decision to make. As is their legal right.

I think this is a valid comment regarding the way the Society has operated in the past. Little consultation and even less communication. But this is different and has a legal implication. The Society owns a majority share holding so by law they must surely have a say if the Club is to be sold. So whilst it may be that some Society Board Members would prefer to continue to make major decisions without referral to the Members, in this situation I don't think they can. And they have openly said the Members will have the final say. Again, that is totally different from previous decision making. New Board members have also given that assurance. As you are well aware these were only examples on non fan owned Clubs. You have avoided the real question. Why would anybody take on the challenges of buying a fan owned Club when other simpler, less challenging options are available? Clubs worldwide that could be bought without needing any fan buy in.

If investment is dependent upon Barmack securing a majority share holding then that will require to be confirmed when details of any offer is made public. So why waste time and money hiding that stipulation from the outset. I think any such demand would likely be a deal breaker as far as Society members are concerned. And without Society members approval no bid can succeed. There is no way round that. Steelboy’s Conspiracy theories aside. But nothing Barmack has said so far suggests that he is seeking a majority holding. All such talk has come from others, who do have the Club’s interests at heart but also have a passionate wish to retain fan control. Fair enough. But there is no evidence to support their view other than ‘investors are always looking for a financial return’ and ‘it is always the case that’. If there is any factual evidence that Barmack wants overall control, please share it so we can all be ‘in the know’. Given the challenge and obstacles that securing ownership of a fan owned football club present, why on earth would any experienced businessman go down that route as opposed to seeking control over the likes of Ross County or St Johnstone, whose owners are reportedly looking to step back? It makes no sense. Perhaps we should just take his comments at face value until we know otherwise.

Barmack said quite clearly that he did not want to disempower the Society. In fact he was all for supporting it and helping it grow, working in a partnership. Without providing any evidence, the Scotsman journalist is essentially calling him a liar. The whole tone of the article could almost convince me it was written by Steelboy, or at the very least he had input. Perhaps we now know his ‘in the know’ source. At the end of the day Members will decide whether or not to accept any investment offer. So the Society is in a position of strength. If Barmack suddenly declares he wants majority control, then that vote will likely go against him. And what can he do if the Society does reject his offer? Let’s wait until we see the full terms of any offer. Then the fans will decide. Steelboy and McCafferty are trying to stir up unrest without any real evidence to support their allegations. Throw enough shit and some will stick appears to be the plan. If there is any basis in their fears then all will become clear in due course.

I think that response reveals more about you than it does about Barmack.

“Our perspective is we never want to make an investment that disempowers the Well Society and the connection the fan-owned group has with the club. There's a bunch of different ways to construct deals that can accomplish the objectives of a fan ownership model, alongside outside investors. “ What do you think he meant with that response? How does taking a majority holding tie in with not wishing to disempower the WS?

Decent Interview with valid questions asked and addressed. And he is now on record as not wishing to oust the Society. Further details to come but encouraging.

Les H did encourage Society sign ups by saying he would reduce the sum owed to him by the equivalent of any new funds collected by the Society. £1 for £1. What we were not told at the time was that Society funds would be used to repay the remaining balance of his debt at an agreed date. Effectively, for a period of time, all monthly payments to the Society were passed to him. My view is that fans who hand over hard earned cash are entitled to know what those funds will be used for. Not to the Nth degree by all means. To support the Club is one one thing and I'm all for that, but to support other causes (however worthy) is another thing. If I want to contribute to the Community Trust or any other charity I will do that separately. I'm certainly not questioning the merit, good work or value of the Trust. My biggest concern is that funds were to be loaned to the Club and not just donated. The Society would act as Bankers. Any Loans to the Club were to be shown as such on MFC/Society Accounts with the intention that at 'some time in future convenient to MFC' they would be repaid from income. This was essentially an exercise to ensure that if MFC failed, then legal priority would be given to repaying the Society ahead of Ordinary Shareholders and Creditors. Common sense. If that agreement had been adhered to, then the value of the Society would currently be well in excess of £2m. And available for a rebuild if need be. If the way the the Society is to support the Club has changed/is to change then fair enough. But at the very least Members should be aware of what the arrangement is. Through discussions I believe attempts are being made to return to the original model, driven by recent appointees. But if I am to continue to contribute then I need to be convinced that we are once more operating as originally agreed, particularly as those who oversaw the 'donations' still have influence.

Of course the Society exists to fund the Club in times of need. But, just like a Bank overdraft, those funds were originally intended to be repaid to the Society from the likes of transfer income or end of season performance payments. In that way Society funds would continue to escalate and be protected in a worst case scenario. To rebuild a new Club if need be. That is how the Society was sold to fans. Without Members knowledge that model was changed. First of all to repay Les Hutchison and subsequently funds were handed to the Club with no intention of those monies being repaid. So the current balance is way below where it should be given the total funds received from fans over the time the Society has existed. Recent appointees to the Society Board are hoping to see the original model followed in future and so see balances increase. Funds were also intended to be provided purely for the core business of the football Club. Although the Community Trust is a fantastic initiative I would question whether the Society should be utilising fans’ donations for that or any initiative which is not essential to Motherwell FC.