dennyc

Re putting some bones on the Agreement with Les. A Board member did answer some questions put to him on Saturday in the Cooper Suite. According to him - Les gets 40% of transfer Income, John Boyle 20% and the Club 40%. Given some decent transfer activity, JB could be repaid fairly quickly and the Club's share would then increase to 60% of further transfers. During the 3 year period, the Loans from LH are interest free. The Club has guaranteed to repay LH in full even if sufficient transfer income is not generated. A repayment schedule has been tentatively agreed, to commence if need be after the 3 year period. LH's daughter remains on the Club Board, but his other two placements stood down as part of the Agreement. LH has no call on any other income which may be generated from whatever source, an example being bonus income from Uefa as a result of Celtic's "march" on Europe. The Society Bank Balance is minimal, currently standing at around £20k. The society has provided support to the Club in recent months and will continue to do so. Managing the Club finances through to next season (and avoiding relegation) is of prime importance. Thereafter there will be a guaranteed increase in payments from the SPFL due to an uplift in Commercial and TV Income. As a result the overall financial picture should improve substantially. Local businessmen are showing an interest in being part of the new set-up. Discussions are ongoing. Further announcements are planned over the next couple of weeks coupled with a recruitment drive. My own thoughts? Given that Les does not appear to be the easiest person in the world to deal with, I think the deal is about the best the Society could have hoped for. Better if he had just written off the monies due to him, but I guess that was never really going to happen. Neither was he going to provide any additional support so in that sense we are certainly no worse off. At least here is now some certainty and the Club/Society can plan for the future without worrying about Les and his demands for repayment. All that remains is for the Society Board to reconnect with Members, providing the communication, openness and trust which, speaking personally, I feel has been sadly lacking. Time will tell.

Just ordered another copy. The two signatures did it for me. Good to see your hard work has had such good results. When posting out please note new address. Thanks.

Books arrived by post today. Great stuff and good luck on reaching target. Looking forward to next year's edition (he types hopefully)

Two copies ordered. All the best

Pitch invasions happen regularly for a variety of reasons, but what I find hard to stomach is that the SFA appear to be ignoring the fact that players were attacked on the pitch. Set aside the teams involved. If there are to be no sanctions for that (other than prosecutions instigated by the police) Scottish football is in deep shit.... To address that issue would of course highlight poor stewarding/policing, and as a consequence their own inability to properly organise a high profile match from a safety point of view. The SFA is trying to brush the whole thing under a very large carpet as they failed miserably in their Duty of Care towards players, officials and fans. If a Motherwell fan ran onto the pitch during a Scottish Cup tie at Fir Park and punched a player from the opposition does anybody really believe our Club would go unpunished. A very dangerous precedent has been set just to avoid blame being directed at those officials at the SFA that failed to do their job and also police/stewards who failed to react until the Hibs fans had marched from one end of the pitch to the other. But whether it's the SFA or the League Authorities it cannot be right that assault is ignored. I agree that the reason a harder line was taken against Motherwell was probably due to the Club failing to identify fans who went on the pitch. Hibs certainly seemed to learn from that situation given the haste in which they set about identifying people and calling them into Easter Road for a wee chat. But there was also much comment about Motherwell being liable as the home club responsible for putting in place all Security arrangements.

Certainly helped Higdon on his journey to hero status when he "cleared the air" at Tannadice.

Can't get the link to transfer into here but if you type "Milton Financial Report Dundee United" into Google you should find a detailed report on the "good deal". Fair bit of reading but the gist is - Ongoing repayment of outstanding Bank Loans was causing cash flow problems, increasing debt resulting in higher interest costs and the prospect of excessive large capital repayments in the near future. A real danger of a financial collapse. Just over £2m was provided by a group of anonymous investors (Thomson refuses to name them) and this was used to repay the Banks and ease the pressure. But two worrying aspects for United fans. 1. The interest rate charged by the investors was 6% which was double what the Bank was charging. 2. The new loan arrangement included a period of time when no capital repayments were due and so did provide breathing space. However, Thomson used that time to sell players and use the cash raised to repay all Loans which had been provided by family members. In particular his mother and sister who very shortly thereafter resigned as a Director. These loans were not scheduled to be repaid and had been provided at 0% interest. Nothing illegal apparently as the payments were agreed at a Board Meeting . But not really in the best interests of the Club long term as it would have been better financially to repay the high interest loans, where repayment is also required at set dates, before the free undated family loans. The end result? Family Loans which were costing the Club nothing, and were not due to be repaid, repaid in full. Bank debt repaid but new loans to the value of £2m established with unnamed lenders at double the Interest rate, therefore costlier in the long run. On a football front, top players sold and relegation. United fans in uproar as they fear Thomson planning to pull the plug and walk away unscathed having also safeguarded family members. Seeking details of Investors and future plans but requests completely ignored. Seems to me that Motherwell's game plan re buying low selling high is much preferable to the so called good deal Thomson arranged for United. All we need is the time and a few more Marvs to make it work. Sorry to waffle on in such detail but it just shows we are perhaps better off than we think at times. And it is to do with transfer strategy.....kind of

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.