dennyc

I agree that the eventual transfer of Les' shares to the Society is the only option currently available and I look forward to that happening when the time is correct for MFC and the Society. However he did agree to a five year repayment programme and as such he does not hold all the aces. As long as MFC stick to the agreed terms and do not default on any due payments, is it not better to reduce his debt as agreed over the remaining three years or so thus allowing the Society (and hopefully MFC) to build up a decent bank balance? My fear is that we sell Marvin for a decent sum, use the cash to repay Les ahead of time, with the Society taking immediate ownership of the Club. What happens if MFC then hit cash flow problems and the Society is unable to assist as they have done in the past? All I urge is some caution until such time as we know the Club is trading profitably and/or the Society has sufficient funds to cover any short term problem. My take on Jim McMahon's comments at the Q&A was that this was the approach he favoured and that this was contrary to what Les wanted. Jim was quite clear that the Society at that time would be unable to support the Club as it had in the past as all monies collected previously had been used up. If Les does indeed have Motherwell's best interests at heart why would he insist on the Society taking over before they are in a stronger financial position?

Apparently not. I suggested at the Meeting held after Mark McGhee's intro that the up to date balance be included in the monthly update. I was promised it would be. That was in response to Jim McMahon stating the balance at that time was minimal and that a minimum of £1m to £1.5m would be needed to give the Society takeover a decent chance of succeeding. My thinking being that people seeing an ever increasing sum held would be encouraged to contribute. I might have missed it, and apologies if I have, but I do not think the amount of funds held by the Society has been made public since that time. The Society also has outgoings so the monthly sub income is not the exact monthly increase. In fairness Jimwas pretty open and was adamant that he would not support any switch of ownership until the Society was in a much stronger financial position and able to fund any Cash Flow difficulties. To help us arrive at that stage I suggested that a portion of any transfer income should actually be used by MFC to partially repay the monies owed to the Society rather than to repay Les as soon as possible. Building up the Society funds being essential to the Club's survival beyond the share transfer. A repayment schedule was agreed with Les and I see no reason for risking the future of the Club by attempting to repay that debt earlier than agreed merely to hurry along the transfer of shares. Surely taking the time required to build up Society funds is the safest approach and if that means we stick to the agreed repayment schedule with Les then so be it. Unless of course there is an agreement that Les is entitled to a share of transfer monies by prior arrangement. That is another question which has been asked but not answered. Regarding taxis, I haven't a clue how much it is possible to earn and I don't know if our resident expert is talking crap or not. But he is raising valid points regarding the Society which no amount of sniping from others can deflect from. Perhaps they should address those points he does highlight.

£25 sent over. Glad you decided to arrange this once more. Good work.

Couple of points worth considering from the unfair sporting advantage point of view........for argument's sake. Unfortunately Motherwell are likely to lose to Celtic and Rangers wherever we play them. The gap in financial resources is likely to ensure that remains the case. To a great degree that makes the odd victory or draw even sweeter. Better then to play them away from home more often IF it means we then get to play teams more often at Fir Park that we are more likely to beat. Does playing Hamilton at home twice give us the possibility of more points than playing Celtic twice at Fir Park? Also does it mean we would have less away games against those teams we need to beat to remain in the top division? Perhaps it is Motherwell that are being given an unfair sporting advantage over the teams likely to be their closest rivals. As regards arranging the fixtures to suit Rangers and Celtic. Pre split, Rangers are away twice to all three of Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts. I hardly think playing Motherwell twice at Ibrox is giving them much of an advantage. I'm willing to bet they would rather play either of those three twice at Ibrox if it meant playing us twice at Fir Park. Given they are all likely to finish top six, it will be interesting to see if Rangers get all three at Ibrox post split. Perhaps it is Rangers that are being unfairly treated. Or perhaps they are just being treated the same as any other newly promoted team. The financial side of things is a different matter and it is here I feel Motherwell have been treated disgracefully. The timing of the only home Aberdeen game and the limited number of Celtic and Rangers games will have an adverse impact. We do get Hearts at home twice though, who could end up bringing as many supporters as Rangers would have given their fans' intention to body swerve Fir Park. I do agree that the SPFL leadership should have highlighted the fact that the unwritten rule re playing Rangers and Celtic at home twice pre spilt would not apply to enable Clubs to budget accordingly (or individual Clubs could have checked). Interesting to see if that arrangement will return season after next when Rangers have finished top six and are not the newly promoted team. Then again, we could always complain if we don't get to entertain Hibs twice at Fir Park given they usually bring a fair amount of supporters with them. Most teams could look at their fixtures and find cause for complaint. But some times you win and sometimes you lose. I did not hear Mr Burrows complain when (I think) we got an extra home game against Celtic recently. Apologies if I am wrong on that one. Just finish top six and all will be fine

I agree some changes were made when the SPFL arrangements were put in place. From memory (and I might be wrong) voting requirements for some minor things were amended when Rangers crashed and burned, but other major voting changes were not put through. I think that Aberdeen made it known that they would veto certain changes, probably through a belief that they would benefit substantially from the status quo, and so no votes on some issues were ever actually taken. Kind of confirms my point though that Clubs, ours included, act in their own interest. Sporting integrity has nothing to do with it and the wishes of fans are often set aside. With the Aberdeen blocking move, many of their fans were as outraged as those of other clubs that meaningful change would not be made.

"Take all the emotion out of it, all the finance chat. The SPFL moved the goalposts compared to the last time they were here. Simple as that." The last time they were in the top division, they were not the promoted team. From what folk on here have said, Rangers have been handed the same fixture arrangements as any other promoted team. So the authorities might have broken an unwritten rule adopted to suit the less well off teams but it appears they did actually follow the correct procedures. Under the ridiculous top/bottom six set up you get some teams twice at home pre split and some only once. This time we were unlucky (or lucky as some may think) enough to get Rangers just the once. Maybe our Board should have clarified that point before setting this season's Budget. Time to let it go and move on. As for the SFA/SPFL/SPL or whatever body you care to mention pandering to Rangers and Celtic, that has always been the case and is likely to be the case forever more. Cancellation of League fixtures to facilitate lucrative Friendlies, TV deals and the Voting Criteria are ongoing examples. With Rangers out of the picture, the other Clubs (MFC included) had the opportunity to right some of the wrongs, but chose not to. Remember also, Motherwell only reluctantly agreed to Rangers' demotion due to fan pressure. The Club actively sought to retain Rangers in the SPL. It's not only the Scottish Authorities that bow before the Old Firm. And forget sporting integrity. It's all about money. Mark McGhee stated at his "Meet The fans Evening" that he and the bulk of SPFL managers (in line with most fans) would much prefer a 16 or 18 team League, both from a football development point of view and to avoid meeting the same teams up to six times a season. He also stated that was unlikely to happen as Club Boards could not see beyond playing four home matches a season against Celtic and Rangers. That's Scottish Football for you. I don't like it either, but we appear to be stuck with it.

Just embarrassing. All the talk about extra income from the massive Rangers support which will invade Fir Park does not take into account that a large number of their fans were already planning to boycott Fir Park next season. The statement from MFC and the chatter on here will only toughen their resolve in that regard and strengthen their sense of injustice at being seen as cash cows that Scottish football depends upon. Given the additional stewarding/police expenditure and the lower the anticipated usual number of away fans I doubt we would make anything like the sums quoted. As far as the League Cup goes, factor in the cut being syphoned off by the SPFL and the sharing of gate money, and the surplus is likely to be even smaller. I take it it is Rangers we have been deprived of hosting twice as they are the promoted team and the balance appears correct given recent fixtures against Celtic. As for our likely rivals for the top six gaining an advantage, are they likely to take more points from a home match against Rangers or Celtic than we are in our additional pre split game at Fir park against the likes of Accies, Dundee or Caley? I also wonder if the same noises would be coming out of Fir Park if we were in the position of those clubs who are getting the "extra" Rangers/Celtic home match pre split.

Good work. Just entered. Looking good with 24 signed up so far.

I think you are correct and hopefully the terms of the original agreement are still effective. If so, the ball is indeed in MFC's court and Les can only ask nicely. Good to have that confirmed though as you suggest. From what was said at the Society Q&A it is also good to hear the Society Board are not prepared to take ownership until such matters are ironed out and the takeover has a realistic chance of success. To take your example of the car loan. What happens if you cannot meet the payments as agreed? At the first Society Q&A it was confirmed that MFC had sufficient monies put aside to meet a payment due in early 2016. From memory, the next payment is due in June and continues to increase every six months until repaid in full. Again, given the receipt of league placing monies and money ingathered via Season Ticket sales there should be cash available for that payment. Living hand to mouth as we may be, the ongoing payments are a concern, particularly if Les is not prepared to be flexible. And how about any additional monies provided by Les after the initial Agreement? Again we do not know the current situation and perhaps that is a major part of the discussions which are taking place. Previously there was a suggestion that it was three defaults and your out as far as the Agreement was concerned. Les could then terminate the Agreement. It is acknowledged that the Club has already defaulted once, from Les's own comments. It really does concern me that the Society is not in a financial position to assist further having already input over 500k. I fear MFC are truly relying on transfer income and perhaps Les's patience to stay ahead of the game.

Not a proposal at all or even a solution. Just a possibility. Just realism rather than blind faith. And the figures quoted were an example of how it might work, Not based on the actual prices admittedly but the principal remains the same. Whether it's an increase on £5 or £20 or £25 or it's still an increase. Attack the figures and attack the sentiment all you like, but please accept that the Board must at least consider the feasibility of increasing income via increased PATG costs. Since you like to verify figures, how do 2016-2017 season ticket prices compare to last year or the year before? Static, increased or decreased? If it's an increase, is that not increasing the amount us fans pay? Do be honest, I have not checked back but if it is an increase I am happy to have gone along with it as I think they do provide value for money. Regarding Les, yeah there is an agreement in place. I accept that and I prey MFC are in a position to meet those repayments. There was also an agreement that the Society would have five years to prepare for takeover. How's that working out? Taking into Account the amount now owed to Les and the Society, how much in debt are the Club now to when he appeared on the scene? That is of course for another debate. To return to topic, season tickets are good value and might just be better value than some imagine.

Delusional or not the point is that you cannot quantify the real value of the season ticket or the breakeven point unless you know the PATG prices and also the games you are likely to miss. Just highlighting that the season ticket might just be better value than some suspect. Regarding increases in general, I admire your faith. The Club is skint and posting sizeable losses year after year, overall debt has increased substantially since Les took over, the Society is nowhere near being in a position to provide any additional support having already donated in excess of £500k, Les wants out with his money following him ASAP, another year until the hinted at increase in commercial/tv monies, and no sign of any external funding. The Board must look at increasing income from existing sources and sadly that includes the fans. Hopefully you are correct and they would not go down the route of increasing prices for certain games because of the knock on effect on home fans. I am not so certain.

Depends how much the premium is. They could be working out how much of a difference there should be to get maximum return. it's obvious that no meaningful increase is likely from the home fans over the next year or so, given the drop off in attendances so it makes sense to further target away fans if you can get away with it

I understand he offered his services previously but was advised by the former Chairman that he would be wasting his time as the Board already had chosen who was to fill the vacancy which existed at that time. Allegedly of course! But as we now have different leadership it might be worth another try. Go for it.

Have the Club announced the PATG prices for next season yet? If not, it is impossible to work out how many matches you need to miss to hit that point where the Season ticket is actually more expensive then going PATG if you are likely miss a few matches. You might also have to factor in what specific games you intend to sidestep. I'm sure I read somewhere that the Club were thinking about charging a premium price for certain matches....eg Rangers, Celtic , Aberdeen and Hearts (also Hibs had they been promoted). In that way they can maximise income from those teams that bring sizeable numbers to Fir Park. The downside is that PATG home fans will have to be charged the same price to meet SPFL rules and regulations. Guessing here, but £25 to watch Motherwell v Celtic against £20/22 to watch Motherwell v Ross County? An extra £5 a head from several thousand visiting fans for 8 games a season soon adds up. £200k if the average PATG number is 5000 combined home and away fans. Even if cheaper concession tickets were available for those games, a premium could still apply. As a business, Motherwell must look to increase income from those away fans, particularly with Rangers being around once again. Buying a Season Ticket might save you more than current estimates. The price per game argument is valid however, and the deal at Accies seems exceptional. Dundee Utd fans on the other hand are being asked to pay top division prices for watching their team in a lower division. Hardly good value in my opinion.

Don't know if there is any truth or not in Hall being wanted by Hibs. But I am sure Hibs will have identified players they would like IF they get back to the top division. So it would make sense for those players to hold back on signing new contracts with their present clubs to see what, if anything, is on offer from Hibs. Unfortunately money talks and a top flight Hibs may well be able to offer a better deal than a money conscious Motherwell. That said, I would hope the Craigen/ Robinson Irish connection might play a part in any decision Hall makes and also the fact that Motherwell have shown faith in him by giving him his chance might be a factor. However, if his Agent can secure him a better deal and Hall elects to move on, so be it.

Both full backs, whether it by Law and Hammell or whoever else has played there under Mark McGhee, mostly position themselves within the penalty area , tight to the Centre Backs. At the Meet The Manager event, MM was challenged about having everyone back for corners. He actually got quite animated and explained that less goals were conceded if the defending team swamped the box. He quoted statistics to back up his argument and advised the audience to watch the upcoming Madrid v Barcelona match and note how they defended corner kicks. I just wonder if our full backs are sent out with instructions to play within the penalty area for the same reason....to limit space in the box. Maybe it's also to compensate for their lack of pace and inability to deal with a one on one situation. Midfielders are then tasked with filling in the wide areas when we are under pressure. Having listened to MM, I'm pretty sure he would not accept players ignoring his instructions and he does not seem to get too upset when the full backs position themselves as they do. Although we continue to lose goals from the wide areas, in the main results have improved and less goals have been conceded. Recently teams such as Inverness have been unable to punish us although most teams do appear to target the full back positions. But it was a different matter against Celtic. The quality and movement of their players was too good and if it hadn't been for Ripley we could have been five down at half time. What I also found worrying was that at one point we had our top goal scorer filling in at right back, our most creative player doing the same at left back and two midfielders trying to cover the back four within the penalty area. No wonder we couldn't muster a worthwhile attempt at goal in the first half......Cadden's duffed shot excepted. I get as upset as anyone when I see opposition players in acres of space being able to play balls into the box under no real pressure. But, until we manage to replace both full backs, I don't see the situation changing and we will continue to tie ourselves in knots attempting to compensate for their lack of pace.

Yeah, that's what I thought. We took the gamble and beat them to it. Otherwise Marvin could well have been serving his apprenticeship in Division 1 or even the Championship instead of being the subject of debate on this forum. In some ways I agree that Jamie was a more rounded player...he certainly covered back more effectively although that is an area where Marvin has improved. Both were /are frustratingly inconsistent at times. In my opinion, the advantage that Marvin has over Jamie is his strength which means he does not get pushed aside as easily as Murphy did in his spell with us. It is in that area that I think Murphy improved (and needed to) in his time at Sheffield. As a comparison, if both players were to reach their maximum potential I believe Marvin would just shade it. Hence he would cut it at Championship level. It's all about opinion though and I understand that many may disagree. Whatever, if managed correctly, Marvin could well turn out to be the financial boost the Club has been seeking for some time.

For me, Marvin has the talent and to play at Championship level and just needs to gain consistency. If he can master that, then he would have as good a chance of success as Jamie Murphy had......and that transfer seems to have worked out not too poorly. And a couple of advantages with Marvin.....his contract is not about to expire and he is a known quantity in England given that other clubs were interested when we sneaked in and signed him. So, as this is an ins and outs thread, hold out for a decent bid and make sure good add ons are a part of any deal. Same goes for Louis.

Just hope Killie start their survival run with a victory over St Johnstone. That way we are top six and can watch the scrap from afar. United's thugs going down automatically appeals and that becomes all the more likely as well with a Killie win on Saturday. Fingers crossed.

Brazilian, you make a lot of sense in what you say and, mostly, I agree with both the content and the sentiment. Much of our prolonged debate has really been about the use of certain words...eg Own and Run. I certainly agree you have a right to express your views. To clarify, I have never ever said that the Society should have declined Les' recent offer nor that the Club should not have gotten involved with him. He was the only realistic option and it seems great progress has been made under his ownership/control. The abruptness of his departure disappoints and worries me and I reserve the right to express that fact I have only ever requested financial information from the Society in an effort to provide proof positive that progress has been made and that proper care is being taken of funds donated by folk like me and you. Folk whose passion for the Club ends up with them on this Forum endlessly debating back and forward. The fact that promises, which were made in public, to provide basic,meaningful, relevant information have been broken equally annoys and worries me. I had hoped that publishing details of a healthy, growing bank balance would encourage many of those with doubts to invest in the Society. As you say, the need for those funds could be even more imperative given the latest turn of events. Several months have passed since the Society meeting and we have yet to see any improvement in communication and information sharing. At the end of the day I genuinely believe we want the same things. That is, the Club and The Well Society to thrive. Otherwise we would never have signed up in the first place. Ok, you think I am too negative and I can accept that. But then, maybe I believe some people are too positive in the absence of hard facts. Ok,can we now agree to differ on those aspects where we differ. And move on.

And do his bidding....does that not infer he was effectively running the show then? Maybe not licking the stamps to put on envelopes, but making all the important decisions. Again, not saying that was a bad thing. In fact, the progress achieved is to be applauded. We might not be that far apart in our thinking, just debating the exact words to describe the set up.

And of course, having appointed the 3 directors, he then sat back and let them get on with it. You believe that, fine. That's your view and you're entitled to it. Others believe otherwise as they are entitled to. Let's just agree to differ.

Does Les H run the Cub due to his owning 76% of the shares? Technically, of course, the Board are in charge of day to day affairs but surely we can all agree that in reality Les pulls the strings. When it owns the very same 76% of shares is it not realistic to expect the Society via its Board to pull the same strings. Or does anyone out there really think that Les H hasn't run the whole shooting match since he appeared on the scene? And I'm not saying that was either a bad or a good thing. It was probably both.

Glad we're not really that far apart in our thinking. Re the legal agreement and the revised repayment schedule. Let's hope it will allow the Club scope for repayment of some of the monies due to the Society, rather than concentrating solely on the repayment of Les and John Boyle. Their Loans, after all, are secured which should provide them with the comfort required to be patient. That would at least assist to build up Society funds for emergency use.

But that's the whole point. Although it was originally planned that any funding would be short term, to be returned to the Society as soon as possible, that has not worked out and the outstanding Loans are now "medium term" per Jim McMahon. No advice to what term that actually means. If it had worked out as planned, there could be upwards of £500k sitting in the Society account available to help the Club when needed. The "empty coffers" refers to the fact that, although the Society may be owed a substantial sum from MFC, we have no idea how much ready cash is currently available for support. It might be a sizeable sum, but why not just tell us and put the speculation to bed? Agreed, monthly contributions will be growing the balance available. So why not keep us advised as to how that is going....in financial terms and not mere numbers of active members. This is particularly relevant given Les has taken a giant step backwards. See my previous post. Oh, and the outstanding loans are not secured or protected in any way...unlike any monies owed to Les, John Boyle, Derek Weir and Jim McMahon. If a disaster were to happen ( hopefully unlikely as we are told MFC are close to breaking even) the Society would have to stand in line with other Creditors hoping for a return of so many pence in the pound. That was an oversight by the Society Board which is unlikely to be rectified soon, although we are told it is "in hand". When are the existing Loans likely to be repaid? Who knows! When money came in from the sale of Erwin (and the add on from Murphy?) the funds were either required elsewhere or used to repay part of the additional finance provided by Les. Maybe some repayment has been made in the past, but is that cash still available or was it used to help fund the final payment to MFC which Les insisted upon? I agree, it is fantastic that the Society have been able to support the Club through hard times. But the Society funds are not unlimited and with the Club unable to repay the existing loans at the present time I would just like to clarify how much support the Society would be able to provide, say in the upcoming close season. Not an unreasonable request I would suggest. And before you ask. I am an existing Society member and I do like the concept of the Society providing support when required and I do wish the whole thing can work as proposed. I would just like some clarity before contributing further.