dennyc

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.

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?