dennyc

Finally found the details I was thinking of regarding share out % of League monies.This was agreed by all Clubs other than Celtic who insisted on receiving their full payment as guaranteed League winners. It was a one season only arrangement but it did happen and Aberdeen were party go it. Permanent changes to share out and voting were not voted upon as Aberdeen indicated they would side with Celtic to provide the required number of “no” votes to block such changes. As you say, presumably because they were looking to finish second for a good number of years. League position at end of Season 2012/13 % of 2012/13Net Commercial Revenues 1. 17.0% (was 17% last year) 2. 10.5% (was 15% last year) 3. 9.5% ( was 9.5% last year) 4. 9.0% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 5. 8.5% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 6. 8.0% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 7. 7.5% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 8. 7.0% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 9. 6.5% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 10. 6.0% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 11. 5.5% (up 0.5 % on last year ) 12. 5.0% (up 0.5 % on last year ) That’s my understanding anyway. Apologies if it’s bollocks.

I thought James Scott’s brief appearances were the most encouraging part of the pre season games. I know he is still young but he looked strong and smart enough. I was looking forward to him getting a few run outs this season, probably off the bench for 20 minutes or so. Ah well, there’s always next pre season. I wish Sammon no I’ll will and hope he contributes. But hardly a signing to get the juices flowing.

I thought the change to the distribution of monies did take place for that one season. By finishing second we actually received less than we would have had under the usual distribution rules. We played fair with the other teams and it was us that made the biggest sacrifice. Celtic refused to reduce the winners’ share. Maybe Aberdeen refused a more permanent change but the monies were adjusted from second down. And that Included where Aberdeen ended up.

I thought everyone but Celtic agreed to the adjustment to the league position monies. Aberdeen scuppered the efforts to change the rule that meant two "No" votes resulted in no change. In effect when the OF were both in the top league, by voting together they could fight off any proposal that weakened their position. With Rangers gone, it seemed likely that the number of votes required to deny change would be increased (as Celtic would be on their own) thus making it a fairer position when Rangers inevitably returned to the top flight. Aberdeen stated publically that they would support Celtic in not supporting any such change and at that stage the whole thing was dropped without a vote taking place. A chance well and truely missed.

Replace Frear with Taylor-Sinclair and bring in Dunne and I could go with that. Given his form after the Winter break I just cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would dump Dunne. Seems like there are still a lot of haters out there, irrespective of how he performs. But I think Robinson will definitely start with McHugh and I'm not convinced Johnson is here to sit on the bench. Also I suspect Tanner will need time to get properly match fit. But isn't it refreshing to have decent options. Good luck Mr Robinson

From what I can gather O'Halloran is off to Australia. To be announced next week after final details sorted out. Pity.

Sadly I believe Livingstone are tearing up an excellent grass pitch to replace it with an artificial surface. Seemingly it's an attempt to reduce ongoing costs. Hopefully I have been misinformed,

That's the way Gemmill has them playing....sideways, sideways, back... followed by a hoof forward to a giant striker. No different from the way he has had the U21s playing all year. Earlier comment about making Robinson look like Pep Guardiola is spot on. Anybody who saw the matches against England and Andorra will know what I mean. Painful to watch and all creativity stifled. Emphasis on not losing rather than winning. To a degree I can understand that approach with the senior side, but for fuxsake just let the kids play their natural game. Looks like most players are terrified of giving the ball away by trying anything remotely offensive. Campbell seemed to spend most of the game playing immediately in front of the defence and playing one twos with his Centre Backs. Don't think he crossed the half way line. There are some decent players in there but you would not know it from the way they are set up. I think the two Centre Backs must have had more touches than anybody, mostly as a result of passes from their own midfield. Only stuck with it until the end because of Campbell. Even that might not tempt me next time up.

Would be good if the other Ranger's target was Ryan Hardie. Excellent goal scoring record when on Loan at Raith (last season) and Livi (since January window). Natural goal scorer and an alternative style to what we have at present. A good foil for either Bowman or Main. Also young enough to spend time with us before moving on for decent money. Livi will want to keep him but surely we are a more attractive option

According to Graham in the Ticket Office you can ask for seats further back and they will accommodate if possible. Seemed to appreciate that giving Season Ticket Holder/Well Society Members first crack but insisting they take seats with the poorest view did not make sense. Ask and you shall receive it seems.

On Peter and Roughie last night, both Gordon Smith and Alan Rough were confident it was not a penalty and actually said they could not see any contact being made. A huge contrast to what Stewart and Thomson said on Sportscene. That said, Stewart and Thomson seemed to be trying to convince each other it was a penalty despite the TV evidence. In my opinion none of the three incidents merited a penalty.

Pony Express finally delivered to Fife. Great effort guys. Another fantastic read.

It's an interesting debate and I find myself agreeing with some aspects of both arguments. On the one hand, we are all enjoying watching better performances on the pitch with players of the quality we all want to see wearing Claret and Amber. Given the overall financial situation, this would not be possible without using the monthly income from the Society, albeit this goes against the original concept under which the society was established. As long as the good performances continue it looks like good value for money. If results go the other way, is it good value then? With regard to establishing a Reserve Fund for unforeseen circumstances, I think this is essential and the sooner the better. One of the biggest drains on resources in the past few years has been upgrading the pitch to one that is fit for purpose. Fortunately that situation has been resolved but Fir Park is an old stadium. What if another unforeseen costly repair is required in the near future? How would that be funded without access to a Reserve Fund? We are told the monies raised by the proposed Share Sale are to be placed in such a fund and for the reason stated I think this is essential and should be a condition of the sale. Should we keep asking the same group of people to keep on contributing more and more? I too would like to see a more concerted effort being made to attract new investors, but if existing members are prepared to contribute more then that is a decision for them to make. But eventually that well will run dry. One question I do have is this. If monthly income increased to £200k or £300k (very unlikely I know) would all of those funds be immediately invested in the team and day to day expenses? Surely at some stage the Society has to say " We are keeping some for a rainy day. You as a football Club will need to operate within your own resources". I also see lots of comment about repaying Les. I also look forward to when this is the case, but let's do it on the basis of the terms agreed.......Transfer Income, Double Your Money Deal and eventually the balance on a Repayment Schedule after the original 3 year Interest Free period as passed. I would hope MFC see the repayment of Les and John Boyle as their responsibility and not that of the Society. Only if the Club cannot generate sufficient income to meet any scheduled repayment should the proposed Society Reserve Fund be turned to. I have a fear that the Share Sale proceeds will be used to repay Les "early" leaving us high and dry in any emergency situation. Other than MFC being in a default situation, I do not want to see members' monies being used to repay Les. I suppose I am trying to think long term, rather than just short term coupled with an excellent performance on the field. All about balance..... in my opinion of course

Agree fully. Went to the match with a Hibs fan and so did not sit in the Motherwell section. Also travelled back to sunny Fife with a bunch of Hibs fans. Every Hibs fan I spoke to thought Hibs took the lead against the run of play and were fortunate to be ahead at half time. They were impressed and surprised by the quality that Motherwell showed throughout. They were shocked we had the stomach to come back from two down. The contrast with the Ross County match is spot on.

I thought the problem in the first half was that Cadden seemed to be tasked with tracking Dorrans rather than being free to play his natural game. When Dorrans drifted inside, Cadden followed him leaving acres of space behind Tait who was instructed to push forward. I lost track of how many times Tait was forced to chase back 60 yards because a terrible crossfield pass (McHugh?) was intercepted and no-one was filling in behind. Windass and Wallace must have thought it was Christmas. Also stretched our back three which created even more gaps. Despite that,we matched Rangers and created a good few chances. Second half, Cadden was freed up and Tait had cover whenever he pushed forward. Windass and Wallace more or less disappeared as an attacking force. Cadden was also able to drive forward and create problems for Rangers....and Dorrans if you recall his booking. Found the match both encouraging and frustrating. So near but miss out again. Thought our defence was much improved on last season and that includes the much maligned Dunne. Fisher did well when he came on but disappointed by Rose. Would have preferred Campbell's battling qualities to close down Rangers midfielders. Surprised at how much time McHugh wanted on the ball. Robbed countless times. First game of the season for me and pleased with the progress I saw. Although, like some, the persistance in playing with a back three worries me

A good point and I accept it. As you say we cannot compete with the likes of Burnley in terms of wages and facilities. Just think we could maximise our return if we can persuade him to sign up for a bit longer in the absence of any concrete bid at this time.I think he is a better player than some folk are giving him credit for.

I thought Henegan was doing well until injuries kicked in, particularly Tait being out. He then ended up getting dragged all over the place trying to fill in across the back line. Got caught out a few times whentrying to cover at right back. Settled down when Cadden moved back which coincided with a reduction in goals conceded and our eventual safety. Might not be a popular view on here but I would offer him an extended contract as I feel he will continue to improve and his value will rise. If the Clubs mentioned are seriously interested then they must have identified something they like. My view, too early to cash in.

£20 sent by Paypal. Great effort as always. Good luck

Any time Cadden pushed forward Dundee exploited the space behind him in the right full back position. Robinson spent most of the second half screaming at Frear to similarly push forward in similar style, despite the fact this would have created the same problem on the left. At times it did. Hammell....who I am not saying had a bad game..........was playing so far infield you might as well have stuck a number 5 on his back and listed him as a centre back. Quite clearly Frear did not know what to do for the best. The sooner we revert to a back four, spread across the field, the better. Probably too late now though. Playing with a narrow back three is just not working and is seriously affecting our ability to play to our forward strengths. It did not work for a year and a half under McGhee and it is not working now. Teams sussed it out last season and use the space to punish us. Dundee were firing the ball into both full back positions almost from the start. Result? Cadden and Frear so intent on their defensive duties that pushing forward became secondary. From what I see Robinson might be getting more out of the players effort wise, but his determination to use the same flawed defensive tactic is hurting us big time. Cadden and Frear spending most of their 90 minutes at full back limits the options for supplying Moult with decent ball and results in long aimless punts upfield. As someone posted earlier, the Dundee centre backs just lapped it up yesterday.

I heard Rangers interested in Moult but unlikely to match what Derby County are prepared to stump up. May be crap but that's what I was told yesterday.

Beaten to it by Kmcalpin. Add a club legend that joined from Irvine Victoria to the ever growing list

Ian Clinging from Carluke Rovers is another one who made the move up from Junior level ......I think. Well over a hundred appearances for Motherwell and more than two hundred elsewhere at senior level

The table does make interesting reading for comparison purposes but I think it only takes into account Adult prices and therefore does not provide the full picture. It does not appear to bring out all relevant factors. For instance, at MFC us old farts get a sizeable discount on Season Tickets and PATG at aged 60, whereas at most other Clubs the discount does not kick in until age 65. So better value there right off. Excluding kids tickets does not give MFC credit for initiatives such as a free juvenile season ticket with adult season tickets (even the discounted over 60's). So better value for Parent/Grand Parent and Child as well. Also MFC issue juvenile season tickets at £80 up to age 15 whereas Everton (as an example) list juveniles as up to only age 11. Basic adult tickets may not be the cheapest but perhaps the Club in trying to promote the "Family Club" aspect took a decision to concentrate on ways to facilitate the younger fan in attending matches. If the media wants to identify questionable ticket pricing, they need only look at some of our matches away at Dundee United where the full adult price was charged for all visiting fans, irrespective of age. I'm sure there was lots of comment on this site at the time. As to whether any price would provide value for money given the performances this season, well that's a whole different debate.

That was certainly the intention when the Society was first established. In an ideal world all the funds which have been provided to the club would have been repaid before the takeover and the balance held would now be well in excess of £500k. Clearly, given MFC's financial situation, that has not been possible. That is why some folk had concerns about the takeover happening well ahead of the agreed timescale and before the Society had time to build up a Reserve Fund for "overdraft" purposes. I understand that was one of the issues which caused the negotiations with Les to take much longer than anticipated. The three year delay in having to repay Les (in the absence of transfer income) and the fact no interest is being charged meantime thankfully lessens the risk in that regard. Bottom line is that if MFC is self sufficient, as should be the case by next season, then Society funds will grow. Until then it's survive by any means. Given the latest turn of events I'm not convinced the original arrangement still stands. But that is a point that does require clarification once and for all. Until MFC is self sufficient there does seem to have been a shift in thinking, On Saturday we were encouraged to submit any further questions via the Society Web Site so I guess you are free to seek an answer. It will be interesting to hear if you receive a prompt response in line with the promise of better communication and openness. Not done any research, but how does the Hearts thing work? Do fans subscriptions go straight to the Club for immediate use or are they building up a fund to purchase a controlling share of the Club? I ask because the Hearts model seems to be held up as the way to go.

That struck me as well given the figures posted online. I had expected a figure nearer £100k. I think that's where the comment that they have been assisting the Club in recent times comes into play. With no Bank overdraft, I think Society funds are likely to continue to be used if and when the need arises. Getting through to next season and the anticipated increased income seems to be the focus. I did ask about the Society's monthly outgoings and was told that the only expenditure of note was the half salary of one fulltime employee, with MFC funding the other half. For what its worth, there was an acknowledgement that communication had to improve and that more meaningful information should be made available to Members. I was not the only one who raised that issue so the Board should be well aware of the bridges they have to build. Just a suggestion from me, but perhaps Les had undue influence on what could and could not be revealed even though he was not a Member. That should no longer be an issue and hopefully we will see an immediate improvement. As I said. time will tell. Good news about the upturn in membership. Hopefully a few Businesses get on Board.